Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[Tonus]

Genesis is not meant to tell us exactly how the universe was created. Rather, it is the demythologizing of the universe. The Israelites had just come out of Egypt when this was written, and its purpose is to show that there are not numerous gods controlling the sun, stars, and all life, but rather it is all the work of God the almighty.

I like this part of the first reply. To me, the two versions of the creation account indicate two views regarding the relationship between god and mankind. There is a kind of yin and yang, a very optimistic and hopeful view and a somewhat cynical and pessimistic view. Seen as two separate accounts with two separate ideals, it becomes a more compelling read.

[DeistPaladin]

What liberals have been thrown out at Fox and what were their “forceful arguments”? I am not aware of any.

That's got to be the most uninformed statement you've ever made, and that's saying a lot!

Here's the most famous example:

[fr0d0]

Genesis is not meant to tell us exactly how the universe was created. Rather, it is the demythologizing of the universe. The Israelites had just come out of Egypt when this was written, and its purpose is to show that there are not numerous gods controlling the sun, stars, and all life, but rather it is all the work of God the almighty.

I like this part of the first reply. To me, the two versions of the creation account indicate two views regarding the relationship between god and mankind. There is a kind of yin and yang, a very optimistic and hopeful view and a somewhat cynical and pessimistic view. Seen as two separate accounts with two separate ideals, it becomes a more compelling read.

Yes I agree. I didn't see it at first, but trying to reply to it made me realise that actually he said some good stuff in a few words.

[Statler Waldorf]

@DP, I thought you were talking about Fox’s liberal political analysts, not when guests talk over the interviewer.
Out Foxed? Seriously? That’s your source of information? Lol. You’re more of a far-left zealot than I thought. What was Glick’s “forceful argument”? His microphone was never shut off, he was given plenty of time to speak, and was not behaving as a guest should on a show; so what is your objection? It’s not like they were caught doctoring 911 tapes or anything like that. If that is your best example out of the over 15,000 interviews O’Reilly has done on the air then you’ve done nothing but undermine your argument.

Oh no! CNN does it too! Is Air America the only un-biased source for news around anymore! Oh....wait

[DeistPaladin]

@DP, I thought you were talking about Fox’s liberal political analysts, not when guests talk over the interviewer.

Both really. If you're employed as a liberal analyst on Fox, you're not there to seriously argue the liberal side. You're there to be the punching bag.

You’re more of a far-left zealot than I thought.

Well, you wouldn't be the first to make that accusation. I'm not even sure what "far-left" means anymore. Back in my conservative Republican days, when I said "far left", I was talking about socialists. And by "socialists", I meant it not as a pejorative bandied around to insult anyone left of Lieberman, but as a reference to self-identified socialists who advocated for government control over all businesses and an even re-distribution of wealth.

Times have changed as the GOP has moved into its own alternate reality bubble. Obama is called a "socialist" even though he's not even a liberal (more like an Eisenhower Republican). So I suppose you might see me as a radical leftist even though I believe in regulated capitalism, I own my own business and my political views are about mid-way between liberal and libertarian.

[Statler Waldorf]

Both really. If you're employed as a liberal analyst on Fox, you're not there to seriously argue the liberal side. You're there to be the punching bag.

I think their analysts would disagree with you, and whenever a media study is conducted Fox always comes out with the most balanced coverage. You’re just mad because they destroyed the left-winged monopoly held for 30 years. You obviously have no problem with getting your information from biased sources (Out Foxed and Air America), you must just have a problem with Fox.

Well, you wouldn't be the first to make that accusation. I'm not even sure what "far-left" means anymore. Back in my conservative Republican days, when I said "far left", I was talking about socialists. And by "socialists", I meant it not as a pejorative bandied around to insult anyone left of Lieberman, but as a reference to self-identified socialists who advocated for government control over all businesses and an even re-distribution of wealth.

Anyone who believes Bill O’Reilly is unfair because AL FRANKEN says so is pretty fringe left.

Times have changed as the GOP has moved into its own alternate reality bubble. Obama is called a "socialist" even though he's not even a liberal (more like an Eisenhower Republican). So I suppose you might see me as a radical leftist even though I believe in regulated capitalism, I own my own business and my political views are about mid-way between liberal and libertarian.

Anyone who thinks Obama is not even a Liberal is pretty fringe left.

[DeistPaladin]

I think their analysts would disagree with you,

Of course they would. You think Alan Colmes will ever admit that he was the faux liberal on the Hannity Show?

and whenever a media study is conducted Fox always comes out with the most balanced coverage.

What media studies are these? The studies I've seen portray Fox viewers as the most uninformed. They're part of the reason we can't have a rational discourse on politics anymore. The far right now has its own set of facts delivered by their own alternate "news" (propaganda) source.

You’re just mad because they destroyed the left-winged monopoly held for 30 years.

Oh, I see, you actually believe the conservative whine about the "liberal media". If there ever was one in this country, it certainly hasn't existed since a few major corporations took them over. Now, we get the corporate spin on everything.

If you have any doubts of this, just observe the media's coverage of the recent Iraq War, both in the run-up and during. Not only did the media cheer-lead the drive to war, they did zero in the aftermath to hold the Bush administration accountable for lying us into it. It wasn't until 2006 that a reporter FINALLY had the temerity to ask Bush why we invaded Iraq. No reporter dared ask a follow up question when Bush repeated the lie that it was a response to 9/11. Few questions have been asked since. Phil Donahue was fired from "liberal" MSNBC for telling the truth about the Iraq War. No apology has been offered, as far as I'm aware, since he turned out to be completely right.

"Liberal media" my ass.

you must just have a problem with Fox.

Nope.

CNN (or TeaNN) is Fox light. It wants to be Fox so bad it can sometimes taste it. The nickname comes from the fact that CNN kick started the Tea Bagger movement (I refuse to call them the Tea Party, out of respect for the anti-corporate patriots of some 240 years ago).

MSNBC also owns CNBC (remember Santelli's delusional rant that is credited for starting the equally delusional Tea Bagger movement). While it's trumped up as a "liberal station", even liberal commentators there need to watch their step. Phil Donahue learned this lesson the hard way. Keith Olbermann hasn't been seen or heard from in years (seriously, anyone know what happened to him, I sometimes wonder if he's at the bottom of a river somewhere wearing cement overshoes). If you look carefully, you can see Rachael Maddow treading lightly as she speaks about her colleagues without naming them.

If you're an American who wants to know what's going on, you need to go to foreign sources of journalism like the BBC.

Anyone who believes Bill O’Reilly is unfair because AL FRANKEN says so is pretty fringe left.

Or because he was on video going foaming at the mouth insane and then lying about it afterwards.

Anyone who thinks Obama is not even a Liberal is pretty fringe left.

You say that I am.

Thing is, the base of the GOP has gone so far off the right wing deep end that the entire left wing is just a faint blur. And you listen only to what comes from inside your own alternate reality bubble that you have no idea that what you call "fringe" is becoming increasingly mainstream.

[Statler Waldorf]

Of course they would. You think Alan Colmes will ever admit that he was the faux liberal on the Hannity Show?

Nope, so you’ll have to demonstrate that he really was despite what he claims. Colmes was a co-host of “Hannity and Colmes”; he was not part of “Hannity”.

What media studies are these? The studies I've seen portray Fox viewers as the most uninformed. They're part of the reason we can't have a rational discourse on politics anymore. The far right now has its own set of facts delivered by their own alternate "news" (propaganda) source.

Yes, I realize you only approved when the far left were entitled to their own set of facts. Fox destroyed that, and you resent them for it, I get it.

“Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53% negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative – 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.”-
The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University, 2008 Presidential Campaign

If you have any doubts of this, just observe the media's coverage of the recent Iraq War, both in the run-up and during. Not only did the media cheer-lead the drive to war, they did zero in the aftermath to hold the Bush administration accountable for lying us into it. It wasn't until 2006 that a reporter FINALLY had the temerity to ask Bush why we invaded Iraq. No reporter dared ask a follow up question when Bush repeated the lie that it was a response to 9/11. Few questions have been asked since. Phil Donahue was fired from "liberal" MSNBC for telling the truth about the Iraq War. No apology has been offered, as far as I'm aware, since he turned out to be completely right.

Wait, so MS-NBC cancels a show that nobody was watching and that is supposed to prove your argument?

---

CNN (or TeaNN) is Fox light. It wants to be Fox so bad it can sometimes taste it. The nickname comes from the fact that CNN kick started the Tea Bagger movement (I refuse to call them the Tea Party, out of respect for the anti-corporate patriots of some 240 years ago).

MSNBC also owns CNBC (remember Santelli's delusional rant that is credited for starting the equally delusional Tea Bagger movement). While it's trumped up as a "liberal station", even liberal commentators there need to watch their step. Phil Donahue learned this lesson the hard way. Keith Olbermann hasn't been seen or heard from in years (seriously, anyone know what happened to him, I sometimes wonder if he's at the bottom of a river somewhere wearing cement overshoes). If you look carefully, you can see Rachael Maddow treading lightly as she speaks about her colleagues without naming them.

---

Nobody watches MS-NBC, that’s why there is so much turn over there. Keith works for ESPN 2 now, he’s still alive Mr. Air America.

If you're an American who wants to know what's going on, you need to go to foreign sources of journalism like the BBC.

Sure. Those Brits, they sure keep tabs on what’s happening over here.

Or because he was on video going foaming at the mouth insane and then lying about it afterwards.

I wouldn’t know because I didn’t see the entire interview, you only presented a heavily edited version of it that featured commentary by AL FRANKEN, you’re really out there.

You say that I am.

You prove you are. I know quite a few lefties but you’re pretty radical.

Thing is, the base of the GOP has gone so far off the right wing deep end that the entire left wing is just a faint blur. And you listen only to what comes from inside your own alternate reality bubble that you have no idea that what you call "fringe" is becoming increasingly mainstream.

Did the BBC tell you that?

[DeistPaladin]

Nope, so you’ll have to demonstrate that he really was despite what he claims.

Self-evident point to any non-biased viewer. That you claim that Colmes was either a serious advocate for liberalism or that Fox is balanced indicates that you are the one that's "really out there".

Yes, I realize you only approved when the far left were entitled to their own set of facts. Fox destroyed that, and you resent them for it, I get it.

You like to attribute motives to me when you don't even know me. If you did, you would know that I was a Reagan-worshiping conservative Republican in high school. I was once "pro-life", I believed in trickle-down economics and thought that then President Reagan should be the fifth face on Mount Rushmore. I even read Ayn Rand and thought it was economics gold.

Why did I shift? Because then and now I cherish no ideology. Ideas are things to be debated and discarded when they're shown not to work. I believed then as I do now in getting all sides of a story so well I could convincingly role-play the other side in an argument if I had to.

I didn't change on a dime, I must admit. Even when you're open-minded, beliefs can die hard. My social conservatism was the first to give out, having no religious ideology to bolster it. My pro-life stance, for example, was based on the idea that person A's right to life trumps person B's right to choice. When I studied fetal development and found no significant brain development until week 21, I discovered there was no "person A" in the equation, and so I moved to the pro-choice camp. So by college, I had become a "libertarian Republican".

My first feelings of discomfort with the GOP was in 1994 when Gingrich refined the strategy of calling liberals traitors who hated America. This kind of thinking was always under the surface in the GOP but a kind that I abhorred. There is a difference between being wrong about where to take the country and hating the country. Gingrich did much to break down the concept of "the loyal opposition" in the GOP, leading to their current condition of demands of blind obedience when they're in charge and acting like they're living in an occupied country when they're out of power. Ironically, the GOP with its current attitudes, will now happily crash and burn the USA if they can't rule over it (see the Debt Ceiling showdowns). Who are the traitors now?

Over time, my libertarian beliefs began to moderate into "well, maybe some government regulation is good...". Though most of the mid to late 90s, I described myself as a "moderate libertarian who was uncomfortable with both parties".

I didn't officially switch party affiliation from the GOP to Democrat until around 2003 (although I had voted for Gore in 2000, the first time I had ever voted Democrat in a presidential election). When W Bush lied us into a war in Iraq and committed treason in doing so and also demonstrated that the GOP was now a wholly owned subsidiary of the wacko religious right. I paraphrased Reagan and said "I didn't leave the GOP. It left me."

I've taken some online tests and found my political beliefs are "socially liberal, economically moderate" which puts me mid way between liberal and libertarian. I am hardly "far left" but, as I've said, many loyalists in the GOP are both completely out of touch with reality and have gone so far to the right that the entire left wing is a distant blur.

As I have shifted left, the GOP has and continues to shift right. Just peruse the 1996 Bob Dole for President page still on the web to see how much the GOP has changed. Look, here's their page on health care where they advocate what sounds like Obamacare. And look, here's a page on student loans where Dole promises to increase funding for the program and keep rates low.

Their shift to the right continues as W Bush, who used to be the icon for conservatives, now looks like a level-headed moderate who advocated for the voting rights act. Conservatives these days like to point the finger and say "far left" and center-left Democrats like myself. This is as hypocritical as the GOP's charge of treason and "hating America".

“Fox News Channel’s coverage was more balanced toward both parties than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were split almost evenly – 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates – 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.

Link please? This study sounds awfully subjective and biased. For example I'd like to know how did they determine what is "positive" vs. "negative"?

Meanwhile, I would counter this "study" with observations of reality. See how the whole issue with being lied into the war in Iraq has been swept under the rug by our so-called "liberal media". See also their fawning all over the so-called "Tea Party" (who have as much in common with the anti-corporate patriots of the same name as Obama has with socialism).

Keith works for ESPN 2 now, he’s still alive Mr. Air America.

Good to know.

You prove you are. I know quite a few lefties but you’re pretty radical.

What's your idea of a moderate liberal?

Did the BBC tell you that?

GOPers like you have told me that.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If you're an American who wants to know what's going on, you need to go to foreign sources of journalism like the BBC.

Sure. Those Brits, they sure keep tabs on what’s happening over here.

Actually 'we' do, so do other excellent news outlets such as Al Jazeera.

The BBC has dedicated news time to US affairs (news channel) as well as an entire department that dedicates all its correspondents to reporting and researching in the US.

But I can't recommend AJ enough. It's really a superb news channel that does a lot of research on global news as well as locally based stories.