News Fox News: Fair & Balanced? Investigating Claims of Corruption

[hillzagold]

How convenient that you're not replying to me anymore. I've only torn through your arguments until you stop replying anyways.

 

[Al68]

If the Left was so "anti-religion" they wouldn't be trying to help the poor, which is some 75% of Jesus' message in the bible.

That's utter nonsense. For one thing, you don't have to be religious in order to help the poor.

But more to the point, Jesus never advocated the use of force to take the property of others to help the poor. He, in fact, advocated the opposite, ie voluntary charity to help the poor.

But being a Catholic, you must know this already.

 

[hillzagold]

Being a Catholic, I know there was no such thing as voting 2000 years ago. But if you didn't know, the days of Caesar are over.

 

[Al68]

Being a Catholic, I know there was no such thing as voting 2000 years ago. But if you didn't know, the days of Caesar are over.

Yes, I'm aware. That doesn't change the reality of the facts I pointed out. Just saying irrelevant things isn't very productive.

 

[hillzagold]

You're talking about the Left's method's of attaining equity, aren't you?

 

[Al68]

You're talking about the Left's method's of attaining equity, aren't you?

I was referring to the left's method to "help the poor", which contrary to your implication, was never advocated or suggested by Jesus, and is prohibited multiple times in the bible including in the eighth commandment.

Jesus advocated voluntary charity, you know, the kind right-wingers like me advocate and engage in instead of theft.

 

[Ryumast3r]

This is the double-standard though. You're willing to turn a blind eye towards President Obama for his 'innocent mistake' but then still attack Sarah Palin for her mistake that I'd wager 50% of Americans would still have gotten wrong (even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?).

It's not a double standard. There's mistakes, and then there's "Oh hi, I totally know nothing about the subject, but I'm going to ramble on about it as if I do know and then later defend myself after it's proven I'm wrong."

Anyone can mistakenly give a wrong number in the heat of the moment. There are several key differences:

The current date is always changing, history isn't.
If someone called Obama out on his little date mistake, I'm sure he would've owned up to it (or said something along the lines of "is it really that big of a deal?" which it isn't)
Then there's also that it's when people like her, who are "famous" make mistakes like this, little kids learn from that and only adds to the misinformation out there, whether or not she intended it.

"(even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?)."

Dates aren't a big issue though, especially on a signature for a guest card, we're not even talking about a date that's important, like when you sign a big agreement for a business or something... we're talking about a "hi, I was here, just thought I'd let you know" signature that amounts to nothing more than a little bit of courtesy.

Maybe a bunch of 8th or 11th graders straight out of american history would know the answer, but adults with little interest in revolutionary war history would probably stumble on an answer (I'd remind you that most reading this forum are probably much more knowledgeable than the general populace).

I know a lot of stupid people who aren't history buffs, or even interested in history, who still know that sarah palin's version was pretty much wrong. "The British are coming" is a pretty well-known phrase.

If you're going to try and put weight to their mistakes - how are you basing that on? A Trivial Persuit question vs knowing the date?

She referred to the constitution as well in her answer, something that is on her mind a lot (at least, from her campaigns, you'd think it would be). That would be more important than a date imo, especially a date that, again, was on a guest-list paper... not an important document.

 

[mege]

It's not a double standard. There's mistakes, and then there's "Oh hi, I totally know nothing about the subject, but I'm going to ramble on about it as if I do know and then later defend myself after it's proven I'm wrong."

Anyone can mistakenly give a wrong number in the heat of the moment. There are several key differences:

The current date is always changing, history isn't.
If someone called Obama out on his little date mistake, I'm sure he would've owned up to it (or said something along the lines of "is it really that big of a deal?" which it isn't)
Then there's also that it's when people like her, who are "famous" make mistakes like this, little kids learn from that and only adds to the misinformation out there, whether or not she intended it.

"(even if only 20% would have gotten the Paul Revere story wrong, are 20% of dates misgiven?)."

Dates aren't a big issue though, especially on a signature for a guest card, we're not even talking about a date that's important, like when you sign a big agreement for a business or something... we're talking about a "hi, I was here, just thought I'd let you know" signature that amounts to nothing more than a little bit of courtesy.



I know a lot of stupid people who aren't history buffs, or even interested in history, who still know that sarah palin's version was pretty much wrong. "The British are coming" is a pretty well-known phrase.



She referred to the constitution as well in her answer, something that is on her mind a lot (at least, from her campaigns, you'd think it would be). That would be more important than a date imo, especially a date that, again, was on a guest-list paper... not an important document.

How do kids learn the wrong history from this incident (since that is your main indictment in dealing with the severity of Palin being wrong)? Since the media coverage has mostly been portrayed as it actually being a mistake - wouldn't kids be more apt to learn the media's version of history? If she made some formalized video about this and got it wrong and it was already being played to children then sure, critique away. But how is headlines 'PALIN IS DUMB - PAUL REVERE DIDN'T WARN BRITISH' going to give schoolchildren the wrong view of history? If anything it's going to cause conversation that will reinforce potentially positive aspects of evaluating history. Palin's gaffe can only be a good thing for education as it will allow a conversation about history being more than just a single quote or soundbite (weither she is wrong or right, I doubt her actual words are being used to teach kids).

What I would be more worried about is how quickly the media was willing to jump on her without totally getting the facts right. That is how misinformation spreads - the media being too willing to lampoon an individual without totally vetting their own information. Journalists are people too, and make mistakes - but also in their humanity many have a knack for jealousy and prejudice which muddys the water by causing them to take certain 'facts' or lies for granted to prove their point.

 

[hillzagold]

I was referring to the left's method to "help the poor", which contrary to your implication, was never advocated or suggested by Jesus, and is prohibited multiple times in the bible including in the eighth commandment.

Jesus advocated voluntary charity, you know, the kind right-wingers like me advocate and engage in instead of theft.

That's because the Lefts method didn't exist at the time. Did you know the US Constitution has no provision for an Air Force? Times change, and the world changes. Do you believe Jesus would have wanted people to remain in poverty, because the upper and middle class right felt robber? I doubt it.

Also, Palin is as right as Global Warming is wrong. You'll notice you can count all the historians backing up Palin with your fingers, and even they only say she's technically right on a small number of her points.




Mege, this fixation of Obama writing the wrong date has simply become weird by now. You can tell me it isn't, but you'd need a new argument that isn't as weird.

 

[Ryumast3r]

How do kids learn the wrong history from this incident (since that is your main indictment in dealing with the severity of Palin being wrong)? Since the media coverage has mostly been portrayed as it actually being a mistake - wouldn't kids be more apt to learn the media's version of history? If she made some formalized video about this and got it wrong and it was already being played to children then sure, critique away. But how is headlines 'PALIN IS DUMB - PAUL REVERE DIDN'T WARN BRITISH' going to give schoolchildren the wrong view of history? If anything it's going to cause conversation that will reinforce potentially positive aspects of evaluating history. Palin's gaffe can only be a good thing for education as it will allow a conversation about history being more than just a single quote or soundbite (weither she is wrong or right, I doubt her actual words are being used to teach kids).

What I would be more worried about is how quickly the media was willing to jump on her without totally getting the facts right. That is how misinformation spreads - the media being too willing to lampoon an individual without totally vetting their own information. Journalists are people too, and make mistakes - but also in their humanity many have a knack for jealousy and prejudice which muddys the water by causing them to take certain 'facts' or lies for granted to prove their point.

My main point here is that her gaff is not on the same level as Obama's mistaken date gaff. I have seen nothing here to say anything to the contrary.

 

[Evo]

Actually, Palin wasn't close at all.

The colonists at the time of Revere's ride were British subjects, with American independence still in the future. But Revere's own writing and other historical accounts leave little doubt that secrecy was vital to his mission.

The Paul Revere House's website says that on April 18, 1775, Dr. Joseph Warren, a patriot leader in the Boston area, instructed Revere to ride to Lexington, Mass., to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them.

In an undated letter posted by the Massachusetts Historical Society, Revere later wrote of the need to keep his activities secret and his suspicion that a member of his tight circle of planners had become a British informant. According to the letter, believed to have been written around 1798, Revere did provide some details of the plan to the soldiers that night, but after he had notified other colonists and under questioning by the Redcoats.

Intercepted and surrounded by British soldiers on his way from Lexington to Concord, Revere revealed "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the country all the way up," he wrote.

Revere was probably bluffing the soldiers about the size of any advancing militia, since he had no way of knowing, according to Joel J. Miller, author of "The Revolutionary Paul Revere." And while he made bells, Revere would never have rung any on that famous night because the Redcoats were under orders to round up people just like him.

"He was riding off as quickly and as quietly as possible," Miller said. "Paul Revere did not want the Redcoats to know of his mission at all."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_on_el_ge/us_palin

Anyway, this thread has gone way off topic.