My answer:

September 18th, 2005 at 4:12 pm

Leo: you re back from  incognito & Get a tan?

All these things do not add up to  we re better off with no dialgoue, than we are with some dialogue.Short answer: not necessarily.

Longer answer: We made it from 1789 – 1945 without a UN, and we did just fine. As far as I m concerned, it s a Europran device (Congress of Vienna, Congress of Berlin, etc.), that doesn t even fit Washington s caution against  foreign entanglements .

addendum — afterthought NATO, SEATO, CENTO make sense. The UN is not necessary.

Frank;

Not your best moment.

Do you think perhaps the hatred (mostly third world countries, but including some elitist europeans) has ANYTHING to do with US attitudes. Is the attitude that americans have a superiority complex completely without any merit whatsoever?

Sure diplomats abuse their privileges. Human nature is such that we push the envelope when selfish interest is at stake. But the potential abuse by foreign governments requires a  hands off policy for diplomats.

All these things do not add up to  we re better off with no dialgoue, than we are with some dialogue. Otherwise, why are we talking to Korea?

Spar with JadeGold?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/9028

(Angus Reid Global Scan)  Fewer adults in the United States express satisfaction with George W. Bush, according to a poll by Opinion Dynamics released by Fox News [emphasis added - fd]. 51 per cent of respondents disapprove of the president s performance.

Did you get that from Henny Youngman? Jack Benny?

Frank…your ability to not take yourself too seriously is key to your self-redemption. I will lay off of you for …well, about a day.

JK

This is where an education comes in handy, Frank. Edward Bernays wrote the book, Propaganda, and is widely recognized as the seminal work in the field. Bernays’ thesis was relatively simple: if you propagandize 100% of the time, you risk becoming a parody (e.g., Lord Haw-Haw, Joe Isuzu, etc); effective propaganda is based upon a mixture of lies and the truth so as not to allow the intended audience to make a distinction.

Fox is a joke.

That’s a lot of Googlin’

Now, JK, that was mildly funny. It shows that liberals can actually be humorous if they apply themselves.

Since the 60′s, the keft has confused mockery and sarcasm with humor, and you’ve actually created a joke, although it did require the assistance of a dictionary.

The only joke I know that requires the assistance of a Dictionary is this:

When I look up “idiot” in the dictionary, you picture is there — now that’s funny!

1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.

2.A mischievous trick; a prank.

3.An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
Informal.

4.) Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.

5.) An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.

Did you ever hear of parsing a sentence?

Well, let’s give it a try…

1) This is a complete sentence: The fact should be evidence enough that Fox is a joke.

2) This is not: that people like Frank are defending Fox that makes this a dependent, descriptive clause.

What JK is saying is that the evidence that FOX is a joke is that people like Frank are defending FOX. Sounds ad hominem to me.

Incidentally, to say that FOX is not propaganda is not to defend it, except, perhaps, against charges that it is propaganda.

But, in my mind, those charges are ludicrous, so I’m sort of clarifying a truth, rather than mounting a defense.

To me, the original argument stands: Bill O’Reilly is free to say what he wants, and he did, and if there are people in the world who are insufficiently educated about the United States to understand that O’Reilly neither reflects nor influences formal American policy, that’s too bad.

Since JK is arguing against FOX, it would be ad hominen if he said “FOX is a jerk,” but that makes no sense since FOX is not a person. What he is doing instead is guilt by association, which is within bounds. “Ye may know a man by the company he keeps, ” etc.

This thread is now closed.

Well, we can all go home now. This thread is closed.

Unfortunately, yes. I long for the day when the cable companies offer a la carte channels, where I only pay for what I actually want.

“Rhys, what did you think of the Ashes?”

Don’t watch cricket and don’t really care. But we’ve kicked the Pom’s asses enough times in the past that letting this one slide is no biggie. Give ‘em a false sense of security and all that.

I feel better already. I’d hate to think that I was intended to take that bigoted, misinformed, he-who-shouts-loudest-wins, cesspool seriously.

Here in Australia, Fox News is the channel I skip past between Sky News Australia and CNN by pressing the “Channel Up” button. Staying on Fox for more than 3 seconds is detrimental to my sanity.

I actually have no problem with Fox News being 24-hour GOP news propaganda, at 25%, 50%, or 100%. More power to them. But they need to clearly label it as such. “I am Karl Rove, and I approved this message” should be appended to every show.

JK

You may think FOX is a joke. But you don’t who its intended audience is; all you know is that it isn’t you.

Propaganda outlets need not broadcast propaganda 24/7; to the contrary, an effective propaganda outlet will keep its propagandizing below 50% of its content.

Let’s face it, Fox is a joke. It’s intended audience are extremists and dupes.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/16/severins_phony_pulitzer/

I think the people at MSNBC need to know about this.

JK