The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Interesting interview. This was a great opportunity to investigate the "other" side, but it was cut short for some reason.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26...d=webmail1

(11-26-2012 08:17 PM)bostonbronco Wrote:  Interesting interview. This was a great opportunity to investigate the "other" side, but it was cut short for some reason.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26...d=webmail1

In a recent interview, Ricks said that General Petraus's extramartial affair should have had no bearing whether the General resigned or not. The moral aspect of his behavior was unimportant.

Rick's needs to say no more. I get it. Clearly he doesnt (want to).

Ricks - 2

FOX - 0



I've gotta hand it to Ricks for caring more about speaking his mind than selling his book. And for looking like Santa Claus.

He's right and I commend him for calling out Faux News on their bull****.

They should have expected that from Ricks....don't know why they thought he would do anything else.

Do we really want to examine the other news outlets and start labeling them as pro Republican or pro Democrat?

I have a feeling that Foxnews will be in the minority.

Was that part of the discussion here?

Fox deserves to be called out, they spend so much time calling out everyone else, payback. They should stick to things they do well, like predicting elections. BUWHAHAHAHA!

(11-27-2012 02:51 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Was that part of the discussion here?

Fox deserves to be called out, they spend so much time calling out everyone else, payback. They should stick to things they do well, like predicting elections. BUWHAHAHAHA!

Um yeah...it kind of is part of the discussion.

Call them out all you want....and turn a blind eye to the other stations that clearly have an agenda as well.

I love it how people are so quick to point out the "idiot" moments of the other party. When in reality, neither side has room to talk.

So, we have to talk about other networks when we have a discussion about Fox, those are your rules?

(11-27-2012 03:27 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  So, we have to talk about other networks when we have a discussion about Fox, those are your rules?

Not at all. Would just like everyone to realize it goes both ways.

Continuing to point out the idiocies of the other side has proven to be very counterproductive.

That's your opinion. I think we can talk about Fox all we want, when we want, if we so choose. You confuse (counter)"productive" with banter and web board discussion.

In other words, get over yourself, it's just a frickin web board.

(11-27-2012 03:49 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  That's your opinion. I think we can talk about Fox all we want, when we want, if we so choose. You confuse (counter)"productive" with banter and web board discussion.

In other words, get over yourself, it's just a frickin web board.

LOL.

Have at it.

The next time someone wants to talk about Big Ten teams...remind yourself that it's a "frickin web board" and that you should "get over yourself".

The issue isnt Fox.

It's Rick's willingness to sweep Benghazi under the rug for political reasons. Plain and simple.

His justification and rationalization for minimizing the importance of Petreaus's action and the murderous debacle at Benghazi which cost 4 American lives is the height of immorality. Four innocent Americans murdered when every shred of evidence points to malfeasance on the part of decision makers.

One could rationally dismiss Benghazi IF it wasnt a direct result of the administration's policy. They knew every indicator pointed to the end results potential. They willfully chose to ignore them.

This time leading from behind, their words, bit them or rather these 4 in the behind. Other countries had pulled personnel. Closed facilities or drastically reduced their footprint.
This administration chose not to. They chose to hire out "security" who couldnt find the car keys for those that arrived at the airport 7-8 hours later. How convenient.

No, how dispicable. Blood cries out. Innocent blood.
But Rick's defends it. He minimizes the results. Deflects blame. Cowardly. Not a stand up guy in the least.

(11-27-2012 04:01 PM)EA3 Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 03:49 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  That's your opinion. I think we can talk about Fox all we want, when we want, if we so choose. You confuse (counter)"productive" with banter and web board discussion.

In other words, get over yourself, it's just a frickin web board.

LOL.

Have at it.

The next time someone wants to talk about Big Ten teams...remind yourself that it's a "frickin web board" and that you should "get over yourself".

Yeah right, you guys get righteous with me about blasting your Big Ten talk, cry like babies, make your cases, take it all serious, go on about how I have to get over Cubit's firing, but you can come here and tell us not to talk about your beloved Fox?

BS.

At least MSNBC comes right out and states what they are - a media and opinion channel aimed at a liberal audience. They don't hide it or promote phony slogans. But Fox News treats their viewers like idiots by sticking to their guns with their "Fair and Balanced" crap. I would have more respect for them if they were just straight up with people about the right-wing agenda they relentlessly push, instead of constantly claiming to be something they're not. Fox News is even stupid enough to put a running "Bias Alert" segment on their webpage that calls out other media outlets that are just as biased as them. I just really grow tired of them insulting my intelligence.

Ohhh now you're going to have EA3 telling you not to talk about Fox without talking bad about NBC!

(11-27-2012 06:09 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  The issue isnt Fox.

It's Rick's willingness to sweep Benghazi under the rug for political reasons. Plain and simple.

His justification and rationalization for minimizing the importance of Petreaus's action and the murderous debacle at Benghazi which cost 4 American lives is the height of immorality. Four innocent Americans murdered when every shred of evidence points to malfeasance on the part of decision makers.

One could rationally dismiss Benghazi IF it wasnt a direct result of the administration's policy. They knew every indicator pointed to the end results potential. They willfully chose to ignore them.

This time leading from behind, their words, bit them or rather these 4 in the behind. Other countries had pulled personnel. Closed facilities or drastically reduced their footprint.
This administration chose not to. They chose to hire out "security" who couldnt find the car keys for those that arrived at the airport 7-8 hours later. How convenient.

No, how dispicable. Blood cries out. Innocent blood.
But Rick's defends it. He minimizes the results. Deflects blame. Cowardly. Not a stand up guy in the least.

Leading causes of death in the US in 2009:
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

16,000 people are killed every year from homicide. 5 people have died this year from drinking Monster energy drinks.

More people die every year in each one of these categories than died in "The Benghazi Incident": shark attacks, vending machine accidents, electrocution, lightning strike, wild animal attacks, domesticated animal attacks, etc...

So yes, I believe that the deaths of 4 Americans in a hostile part of the world being plastered all over the media was a little hyped.

Hell, hundreds of my brothers in arms are dying every year in Afghanistan, but you don't see that in the news anymore. I think the 3,233 coalition forces killed in Afghanistan are more concerning than 4 people in Libya.
http://icasualties.org/oef/

The truth will come out. Who funded the Bengazi attack? Was the response deliberately delayed by the military?Motive?

Why would the White House deliberately set up the security mission to fail and response to fail? How would that benefit the White House?

Anybody remember Iran-Contra? Which party has a proven track record of exploiting terrorists for political gains?

The next day McCain was already acting like he had all the answers. If he already knew everything, how did he find out so fast? Was he in on it too? Hoping to foment the collapse of the Obama campaign?

And who is to say the terrorist cell wasn't inspired by the video reaction? Who funded that video guy? Why was he scooted off to jail before he could reveal who set up the video production to so neatly dovetail with the October time line?

A lot of questions for sure.

(11-27-2012 06:25 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 04:01 PM)EA3 Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 03:49 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  That's your opinion. I think we can talk about Fox all we want, when we want, if we so choose. You confuse (counter)"productive" with banter and web board discussion.

In other words, get over yourself, it's just a frickin web board.

LOL.

Have at it.

The next time someone wants to talk about Big Ten teams...remind yourself that it's a "frickin web board" and that you should "get over yourself".

Yeah right, you guys get righteous with me about blasting your Big Ten talk, cry like babies, make your cases, take it all serious, go on about how I have to get over Cubit's firing, but you can come here and tell us not to talk about your beloved Fox?

BS.

You guys? Confusing me with others?

Talk about Fox all you want. I just find it rich when the vast majority of news outlets have a liberal spin.

The whole point of the thread was to blow up Fox for cutting the guy off. Point being, it happens plenty of times with other news outlets as well.