Fox News Rant

[Joseph]

Because you said that two men or women should not want to adopt, so you are suggesting taking away some peoples rights, so you get to cite the research. I guess I have access to enough journals to find some articals. Any one can say anything on the TV or Radio, hardly good sources for anything other than a persons opinion but a bad place to go for facts about science or psychology. You keep saying that it would put kids at a disadvantage, I can;t see how it would.

[DarthHookah]

you know, ive read the constitution many times, but i keep missing the part where it says that abortions are a womans right. dont get me wrong, i am for abortions (but mainly just because of my love for killing babies).

people argue that smoking is a right- its not. but banning it will not solve the problem. same with guns. you can ban all you want all day long, and all you will have is a country of outlaws, because we will have set so many boundaries and built so many walls, none of us will be able to get in (or out...)

[Joey32b]

[quote name='Joseph']Because you said that two men or women should not want to adopt, so you are suggesting taking away some peoples rights, so you get to cite the research.  I guess I have access to enough journals to find some articals.  Any one can say anything on the TV or Radio, hardly good sources for anything other than a persons opinion but a bad place to go for facts about science or psychology.  You keep saying that it would put kids at a disadvantage, I can;t see how it would.[/quote]

This is just a simple discussion, I don't feel like writing a research paper. We're both free to think what we want and that is fine. I doubt that when you are sitting around smoking hookah with your friends and talking politics, you tell one of them to go break out the journal or your argument ends.

[Joseph]

LOL, it depends. This isn't directed at you, but people often say things they just take to be true and say with great authority, but have no basis in fact. When people make strong statements of fact, I do often ask them to back it up. It is one thing to say "Well, I think maybe something is this way" and something else to say "This is exactly how it is."

[Joseph]

BTW, when I am having a serious conversation whith a friend while smoking hookah we usually talk about more abstract things, like philosophy and religion. My old room mate is a vaisnava and I am a buddhist, and when we talked it wasn't the kind of topic where one could cite sources, even if they wanted to,

[Lakemonster]

[quote]Lake Monster: Why are you talking about Clinton's Administration? We were talking about Fox News. Hijack![/quote]

I was tying in to your first post.... the part about this "conservatives" calling for banning. My point is that its a two way street with the ban mindset.

As for mainstream media news (including Fox)........ I take from this latest John Mayer song.... "When they own the information....... they can bed it all they want."

[Sonthert]

1. I heard an interesting statistic...1/3 of all gay female couples in the US are raising a child and 1/5 of gay male couples are, too. What does that do to the discussion? With or without marriage they are adoptiong and raising and getting artificially inseminated. Initially, I am opposed to homosexual couples adopting, but hearing statistics like that, its too late. Thousands of children would have to be uprooted. 10s of thousands. Maybe a hundred thousand.

2. Joey32b. The governement should be able to make laws that are for the advancement and longevity of the country...who decides whats for the advancement and longevity of the country? Whether its the government or the people, you have to decide whats appropriate...who decides?

[Joey32b]

I would never advocate taking children away from gay parents who already have them. That would be the most devastating thing you can do to a child. I'm just saying don't intentionally put children in a situation where they will not get all their needs met. So I agree with you here, but whoever handles adoptions doesn't have to keep choosing gay couples.

The people vote in the lawmakers. The lawmakers directly decide and the people indirectly decide.

[Joseph]

No one has yet to say what needs woudn;t be met, I have had friends who have gay parents, they seem as well adjusted as anyone else. I know lots of gay people who would be much better parents then a lot of straight people I know.

[Joey32b]

A boy without a dad statistically has a higher chance of going to jail than a boy with a dad. A girl without a dad is more likely to end up pregnant as a teen than a girl with a dad. Girls without a father figure tend to find some guy to be there for her. I'm not sure of how lack of a mother affects kids.

It's irrelevant that there are gay people who would be better parents than a lot of straight people. I think I would be a good parent right now, but I don't think I could adopt a kid because I don't have a wife. People who adopt kids usually aren't bad parents. So if you wanted to make a fair comparison, you should compare gay people who want to adopt and straight people who want to adopt, not all gay people versus straight people. If you compared just those who are adopting, I would say the quality of person is about the same.

[Joseph]

But those statistics, I will ignore that you don't give actual figures or say where they come from, what are the other circumstances? Of course it would be best if a childs biological parents raised them in a loving home and were able to provide for them, but this does not always happen. My question were, for adopted kids only, can you show me how kids adopted by gay parents are worse off then those adopted by equally competant straight parents. And just because you say it does not make it so. It is OK to admit you have never seen any papers, in real journals, that say one way or another.

[Libertarian Socialist]

[quote name='Tangiers']I hate Fox News. Haaattteeee!  

In 30 minutes I was watching it (Someone else had tuned it on), they brought up banning three things, super thin models, Citgo Gas Signs, Citgo Gas, and one other thing. I guess thats four. In 30 minutes. I guess thats why I hate listening to modern republicans. Everything is we cant allow, we want to stop this, we want to ban that, we want to amend the constituion to prevent the other thing. Thats all the republicans and republican voice boxes like Fox News ever say. Nothing is ever positive. Everything is how bad things are. Things are pretty good. Not great, but could be better. Every other word out of the republicans is stop or ban. The democrats for all their obvious faults at least propose doing things, not just stopping or banning preexisting things.

Fuck negative people.

I got an idea...lets start a movement to ban Fox News!

What type of deodorant do republicans wear? Ban.[/quote]

As much as I disagree with Fox News' political bent, the idea of banning news stations with which we disagree is much more repulsive to me. They can lie all they want about being fair and balanced, nobody buys it except the neoconservatives who still watch Fox News to get information on current events.

Fox News is credible to a very small minority of Americans, and it's still a money losing endeavor for Rupert Murdoch just like his hideous magazines and newspapers.

[Joey32b]

[quote name='Joseph']But those statistics, I will ignore that you don't give actual figures or say where they come from, what are the other circumstances?  Of course it would be best if a childs biological parents raised them in a loving home and were able to provide for them, but this does not always happen.  My question were, for adopted kids only, can you show me how kids adopted by gay parents are worse off then those adopted by equally competant straight parents.  And just because you say it does not make it so.  It is OK to admit you have never seen any papers, in real journals, that say one way or another.[/quote]

All I'm saying is straight couples should be preferential to gay couples when it comes to raising kids. Just my opinion. No, I don't have statistics and this isn't something I want to take the time to prove. I don't really know where to look anyway. I could really care less if I sway anyone's opinion.

[Joseph]

Its a fine opinion, but it is no OK to legislate something like that based on something that, which is an accetable opinion, has no basis in fact. That was my point, people can think whatever they want, but they cannot pass laws just because of an unfounded opinion.

[Joey32b]

[quote name='Libertarian Socialist']Fox News is credible to a very small minority of Americans[/quote]

Actually, Fox News gets about twice as many viewers as CNN. And it blows MSNBC away. So if you say Fox News is credible to a very small minority, than what does that say about the other news networks? I tried searching for current ratings, but I couldn't find a good source. Here's an example from earlier in the year:

[url="http://www.top5s.com/tvnews.htm"]http://www.top5s.com/tvnews.htm[/url]

[Joey32b]

[quote name='Joseph']Its a fine opinion, but it is no OK to legislate something like that based on something that, which is an accetable opinion, has no basis in fact.  That was my point, people can think whatever they want, but they cannot pass laws just because of an unfounded opinion.[/quote]

Actually politicians can base laws on their opinions. Get enough support, rally the troops, and they can make a law, assuming it can pass the courts. This particular argument may or may not pass through the courts, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.

[Joseph]

You are right, politicians, or voters, can legislate bad stuff, it has happened before. Just look at the Jim Crow Laws. But I am optomistic, and I know history will not judge kindly those who put discrimination into the law.

[Sonthert]

Abortion was not common enough during the framer's time to let it enter the constituton. Additionally, the focus of the constitution was men. Abortion being for women-folk, putting an amendment that had anything to do with women would have been highly out of character.

Fox News is the only conservative voicebox, the liberal end splits its votes four ways...now take all the viewers of MSNBC, both CNNs, etc. and compare them...what does that look like?

The problem is, that the woman in question is having her rights as an American abriged because somebody else needs some legal protection that prevents said woman from doing what she pleases. Granted, it involves a human life. American policy doesn't concern itself with human beings dying, not in Iraq, nor in Vietnam nor in any one of forty some countreis the US has created bloodshed in the past 50 or so years. Many babies died in each conflict, so obviously that isn't at the top of the American priority list. The general point would be that, if we prevent women from having abortions for the advancement and longevity of the country, then what other things could we justify that violates one person's rights to preserve anothers rights?

1. My right to not be offended means that politically correct speach shall be the law of the land.

2. Disabled people have trouble driving for long periods of time, so nobody can drive on the freeways during rush hour so that disabled drivers can get through.

3. Since disabled people often have trouble with other people using disabled public bathroom facilities and making them have to wait, public bathrooms will now only be open to disabled people. If you don't believe that numbers 2 and 3 could happen, refer to handicapped parking spaces and parking lots.

4. We have the right to keep criminals off the street and keep our children safe, so people who are on trial have to testify on their own behalf.

5. By the same logic, since a fetus inside a mommy's tummy may or may not be born alive, there is only the potential for a new person, eating chicken eggs shall be made illegal. More to the point, female animals shall never be slaughtered, because we might stop her from having a baby.

6. Along the same line of reasoning, since a fetus is alive and shouldn't be killed, it will now be illegal for a man to jerk off unless its at a fertility or clinic to facilitate preganancies...sperm is alive to and has the potential to become a new person, so wasting it will be illegal.

[SanguineSolitude]

[img]http://photos-975.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v46/73/123/24700094/n24700094_30439975_643.jpg[/img]

i think that kinda sums it up.

[Claytron]

That's a pretty hilarious comic.

Woah, Tangiers name changed! BWAH!? I've been gone too long.

BTW - Why did you think what I said was socialist? I just said the party system sucks. I never said there should be one party - I mean no parties. Politicians should be voted in based on their actual views, not the views they claim are similar to others.

I do think it's pretty hilarious this thread devolved from Fox New into an argument about abortion. ::laughs:: Serious discussion INDEED.

Though I do find Tangiers'... aherm... Sonthert's view on conservative/emotional and liberal/academic thoughts really incredibly interesting... I'd never heard that dynamic before. It does seem to hold up though at least in todays political landscape.