All male Fox News panel freak out over the numbers of women providing the main income in households

[Something Amyss]

If you plan on quoting scripture, please do more than toss out one sentence without context or explanation.

If you plan on ignoring over a thousand years of linguistics, please don't bother strawmanning me. The quote I offered may have Biblical origins, but it is not scripture as such. It's also not to say what you claimed it was to say, though I'm sure it was more convenient to attack me based on such a soft version rather than ask for clarification.

Understanding the origin of a word or saying is not in itself a bad thing, but using its origin to completely pretend that the existing meaning is either wrong or doesn't exist is ridiculous.

 

[Yuuki]

From this, I can conclude the following:

1) Gay men are unfit parents because neither of them can be "properly nurturing".
2) A lesbian mother who did not carry the child is not as nurturing as a 'real' mother due to lack of magical pregnancy hormones.

I'm not really an expert on gay/lesbian couples or how they raise children. They are unique cases, even acquiring a child in the first place sounds like either adoption or a trip to the sperm bank, or a case of "was hetero, had a child, turned homo" or something. I can't do them justice by generalizing anything about them.

3) Fathers have no real, deep ties to their children because, again, lack of magical pregnancy hormones.

Wait, I said that that fathers have no "real, deep ties" to their children? Real? Deep? Where did I even use those words? Are we playing the word-twisting game now?
As for magical pregnancy hormones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_physiological_changes_in_pregnancy
But if you're one of those people who still refuses to accept basic biology, please continue believing that storms and earthquakes are caused by the gods getting angry

4) Adoptive mothers are not as fit as birth mothers because (say it with me) lack of magical pregnancy hormones.

Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_physiological_changes_in_pregnancy
Also it's a case of "as fit" or "not fit" now? I pity those who can only think in black and white. A person can still feel like becoming a parent without going through pregnancy (or even intercourse), entirely their decision. If it wasn't the case then infertile couples would be really buggered. I was merely pointing out that going through pregnancy is a very deep and bonding experience and can only serve to enhance the emotional connections parents have with their children, especially mothers.
I even mentioned that I was exaggerating the differences a little in that same post to highlight what happens.

Wait...mothers are more fit to tend to children they've birthed, but you're thinking you may be the caretaker of the kids? So are you trying to scar them?

Who said I couldn't be the mother? Assumptions assumptions.

I grew up in a really dysfunctional family; my mother may have given birth to me, but she was NOT a fit parent for it. She's excessively temperamental and takes everything as a slight against her. Meanwhile, my dad's the more compassionate, level-headed one who genuinely loves me despite my going against his beliefs (I'm an atheist, he is fundamentalist Christian) and who does not lash out at me when I do the least little thing wrong.

The plural of anecdote is not data, but the extrapolation of one-sided bias is not truth. Saying that women are more nurturing because hormones and not at all to do with social conditioning is like saying women don't do well in math because tiny woman brains.

But at no point did I deny the impact of social conditioning, so not sure where you got that from. Social conditioning always helps.
And speaking of anecdotes and one-sided bias, you mentioned your mother was really mean and your father was the more compassionate one - why did you label this as "dysfunctional"? Food for thought

This may sound a little crazy, but how my body is shaped and what is "equipped to do" has very little bearing on how I go about my life. I've never given birth, never desired to give birth, never even played with dolls, and if some magic instincts were telling me to care for and nuture kids when I see them, I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed them at some point in my thirty years. Also I'm quite sure that I'm perfectly healthy. Women who are already pregnant generally actually want to be mothers in the first place, so that might have something to do with it.

I dunno, this whole thing just strikes me as pretty insulting to all the men out there who are naturally great with children and wonderful fathers despite the lack of the ability to breastfeed and pregger hormones or whatever.

Correct, the decision to start the process still lies with you. I was merely pointing out the process exists should you ever need it

Also nowhere in my post did I say that men can't be great with children and wonderful fathers. There are countless fathers who have had to watch their wives pass away during birth and left with a child, of course they had to deal with it.
I merely said overall women are naturally placed in a slightly better situation to do so, if you can't see how women have the edge over men when it comes to raising children then I can't really help you.

Grr, lots of weird shit getting pulled out of my posts today. It's like this topic makes people paranoid and jumpy, knee-jerk assumptions galore >_<

 

[zalithar]

snip

Actually it says 'only the pure are worthy of judging the sinful.' essentially, only god can judge who is unworthy.
I attend a christian school and have studied the bible for six years. This is pretty much the conclusion reached every time that story is talked about. So the quote does fit the situation, not perfectly but it fits. You're extending the quote to the whole story.

If you plan on quoting someone, please quote them in the context they gave. He did not want to quote the whole story

Also I am interested in hearing your rendition of 1 Samuel 16: 24-27. (always fun throwing that passage out there)

 

[Berithil]

snip

Spoiler: A single quote?

Yet another reason why I consider myself to be a liberal. Because the conservatives are the most retarded, aging old, obsolete, not-getting-with-the-programme, SEXIST, missing-the-point-of-everything and making-shit-up bastards that this planet has bred into existence.

Feel free to flame me over saying this, I admit I'm not being polite to these people but seriously, at least liberals aren't sexist, at least they don't pull stunts like this to seem smarter than they are. The instant I'm allowed to vote I'm voting for the Labour Party (I live in the UK).

Furthermore conservatives fail to see the economic advantage of more women in the workforce as higher employment equals higher consumption and demand for goods and services resulting in economic growth (I'm also studying Economics), which is something the US economy NEEDS right now.

Honestly, most aren't as obvious as this one. It's just the one that stuck in my mind. There are others, but most of the hateful comments are directed more towards Fox than conservatives in general

But now that I have simmered down a bit, I do admit I overreacted. Quite honestly, I get irritated at any knee-jerk animosity, regardless of topic. I get pissed at my family when they jump to conclusions and assume gross stereotypes about liberals. You can't deny that there is indeed an unnecessary amount of vitriol in this thread.

I'm not innocent, either. I committed the same "broad-strokes" assumptions that I was vilifying, mainly born out of my frustration, and you called me out on it. However, I did say my post was directed at the thread in general, rather than everyone in it.

Now that that's out of the way, I (if I have to put myself into a political alignment) consider myself a Libertarian. Yes, there some things I don't necessarily agree with, but I fit much better into the Libertarian camp than the Republic one I was raised in.

So, I do agree with what you said, even calling me out on my knee-jerk reaction, but like I already stated, you have to admit there is a gross amount of hate in this thread, mainly towards Fox News, but Conservatives aren't escaping the flames either.

 

[Sabitsuki]

You're partially right. Now, of course, Children come from Women. That's a basic fact that every woman should be aware of. Dudes can't have 'em. No way around that. However, historically and naturally, Men HAVE been the primary keepers of their children, at least certainly for their sons. The son would go into the fields or the workshop with his father, and would learn his father's work. Only recently, with the dawn of mass production, does dad go away in the morning and only come back at night when he's too tired to interact with his children. And that's a crime against nature. Fathers are supposed to be there for their children. So are mothers.

And as far as wasting your life if you don't have your own children, well, that's kind of a genetic fact. If you don't have children, everything that you physically ARE is gone when you die. But that's true for both men and women.

My basic point is that both genders need to cut the crap and be parents, and not just progenitors.

I'm going to be completely honest, I am not really getting the point of what you are telling me in your opening paragraph. I agree fathers are supposed to be there for their children. Anyone who wants to take care of their children, should be there for their children, even children that aren't naturally birthed from them. It should be an individual instinct, not a gender-based one, and my problem is that there is a large amount of people who actively MAKE it into a quality of gender and using that as proof that it IS a quality of gender.

I reject the idea that not making children is a waste of your life though. It's such an utterly nonsense notion to me. The fact that nothing will remain of me when I die doesn't make me feel like my life is any less valid. I think there's a sickness in the idea that just encourages people who are parents to project themselves onto their kids as a surrogate instead of another individual life.

 

[Something Amyss]

Always best to treat the Huffington Post with extreme caution. Left wing's Daily Mail.

If you follow the link, you can see video of the segment in question and judge for yourself. Unless, of course, you feel they're editing videos now.

 

[Something Amyss]

snip

Spoiler: A single quote?

Yet another reason why I consider myself to be a liberal. Because the conservatives are the most retarded, aging old, obsolete, not-getting-with-the-programme, SEXIST, missing-the-point-of-everything and making-shit-up bastards that this planet has bred into existence.

Feel free to flame me over saying this, I admit I'm not being polite to these people but seriously, at least liberals aren't sexist, at least they don't pull stunts like this to seem smarter than they are. The instant I'm allowed to vote I'm voting for the Labour Party (I live in the UK).

Furthermore conservatives fail to see the economic advantage of more women in the workforce as higher employment equals higher consumption and demand for goods and services resulting in economic growth (I'm also studying Economics), which is something the US economy NEEDS right now.

Honestly, most aren't as obvious as this one. It's just the one that stuck in my mind. There are others, but most of the hateful comments are directed more towards Fox than conservatives in general

This falls into exactly, EXACTLY what I already addressed. I read the rest of your post, yes. I understand that you're saying you went a bit extreme. But you kind of proved my point. You really didn't come up with an example (whether from this thread or otherwise) that actually said anything of the sort. Again, basic language structure. "Conservatives believe" does not mean "each and every conservative believes."

So, I do agree with what you said, even calling me out on my knee-jerk reaction, but like I already stated, you have to admit there is a gross amount of hate in this thread, mainly towards Fox News, but Conservatives aren't escaping the flames either.

Depends on your definition of hate. If you mean the soft internet version where someone being mocked is "hate" and the person doing it is a "hater," then yes.

Mostly what I see is anger. And honestly, I see much of it as justified anger. Fox News is conservative media with conservatives in mind. It's conservatives who are making this a talking point and conservatives who generally display hostility towards women, at least in public. And I hate that. >.>

Now, I can only speak for myself here, as I'm the only one I truly know (and I'm a liar, so I'm not even sure about that). I don't hate conservatives, but shit like this pisses me off. It outright pisses me off. Now, I don't have a problem with conservatives. I don't have a problem with stay-at-home moms or women who spend their lives as housekeepers. My big thing is self-determination. If a woman stays at home because she wants to, fine. If she stays at home because the culture rejects her as a valuable member of external society or because her husband's gonna give her the back of his hand, that's a problem. So I do qualify it, because there still are women out there who don't really get a choice. But Fox News tends to lose their minds over this sort of thing fairly often, and that makes me angry. And I personally think it's justified anger.

I like to look at things and ask why I'm angry: is it a knee-jerk reaction or is there foundation. And honestly, if I can't find something substantive pretty quick, I try and let it go. There are a couple people on this site who push the wrong buttons, and I don't know why. I try to not let it get in my way. There are those who tick me off for a reason, and I try like hell to avoid them because this isn't the place for an altercation.

So yeah, why does this push my buttons? Because the concept of teh wimminz having teh primary jerbz pushes them to borderline hysteria. Also, partially because this isn't the worst video I've seen on the subject. I don't think it had any of the same people, so I try not to hold that against the individuals, but this sort of thing is pretty common of Fox News, both in their punditry and in their journalism. These are fundamental points that I think make outrage a fairly acceptable response.

The question, I suppose, is "do you disagree?"

Can you separate hate from outrage?

My family's from rural Maine. They're very conservative, especially by New England standards. I was raised in Socialist Vermont, one of the bluest states in the US. Most of my family, as such, is far more conservative than me. IU don't hate them, even when they piss me off. My aunt calls me a Nazi for supporting health care. Even then, I don't hate her. I think she's a hypocrite for pulling benefits from social programs while bitching about socialism, I resent being compared to a NAzi for disagreeing, but I don't hate her.

 

[loc978]

Snip

I call bullshit on that. Politics has become more of a flame war and popularity contest than ever. The majority vote always attempts to create hate for the other side, and now it has reached its height. People throw the name "republican" around like it's an common insult. I wouldn't mind that if it weren't a hindrance to actual progress. And "AFRAID OF CHANGE", that's my favorite thing to hear, because if someone disagrees with you then they are obviously afraid of something. I just wish the left would admit they're just as bad and sometimes much worse than the right. This petty struggle even is on a government level. I mean, remember the Sequester? When congress, on what I believe was a mostly Left-wing decision, passed a "if you don't agree with me, massive budget cuts" to push the republican to agree with the proposed budget, and then the President made a big scare about it, saying that it would ruin everything. The left has politically done worse things and be lionized and praised for it, than what I have ever seen the right do. I have been told, "At least you're not a Republican!" on several occasions. If Republicans are afraid of change, then Democrats are afraid of not having control over every person's opinions.

Again with the emotional reactions. I'm no fan of "the left" (which is as hilariously inaccurate a definition as "the right", but that's a completely [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Assembly_(France)] different [http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012] discussion [http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638]), either... and I agree that both Democrats and Republicans are afraid of not having control of everyone's opinions. That's why we have MSNBC and Fox News, respectively (neither of which do much in the way of actual journalism). Our political situation is most certainly polarized by changes in culture and released constraints on political spending for "both sides"... which actually tend to be much the same on substantive economic issues... it's just that the more socially conservative "right" drew a proverbial line in the sand in 2008 and hasn't budged since on any issue, much less social progress... and it's showing (also, it has the marginally more socially progressive "right" pissed off to the point of hurling insults... as you pointed out).

 

[Screamarie]

And it's funny how the flip the narrative once the kid is born. Suddenly, the mother (or parents) is irresponsible and shouldn't have had kids.

Well, for them it's not that the mother shouldn't have had kids. It's that the mother shouldn't have sex, because these guys don't like contraception or abortions either.

Weeeeeeeeeell....

The thing is, they almost always phrase the narrative like the woman chose to have the baby. Nto everyone, but most of the time. Especially in the conservative echo chamber of Fox News and the like.

EDIT: I'm going to add a bit I always found a little strange. Remember Srah Palin's kid? Bristol, I think? The one who had a baby out of wedlock? Sarah was running on abstinence and family values as her kick was knocked up. When asked about it, she tended to just say that her daughter made the right choice. And I....My brain can't handle the path of logic there. Her kid was demonstrating what was wrong with abstinence-only education as she was preaching it, but she was instead applauding the choice Palin and other conservatives didn't thin kshe should be able to make (whether to keep the baby or not). Meanwhile, Bristol was considered off-limits, despite the fact they weren't attacking her so much as trying to reconcile Palin's stance and her daughter's...."decisions," I guess.

And then Bristol started talking family values and abstinence. Because it did her so well.

And for the record, I'm for sexual freedom. I don't begrudge her having sex OR kids, if that's what she so chooses. But I think it's pretty horrible to get knocked up out of wedlock and then say that we should continue teaching abstinence-only edumacation and all that crap.

...Though I wonder if her stance has changed now that mommy isn't running for President anymore.

Now, if one extrapolates this longer term, you could infer the same: that women who have sex are accepting the consequences. Except they treat rape victims the same way more and more often.
But there is another element to this, which brings me to....

Yeah, because you aren't allowed to have sex when you're not able to sustain children, see demonising birth control.

But the greatest evil of course is big government and the nanny state. Except, you know, when it reaches into your bedroom or into your vagina when transvaginal ultrasound is required for an abortion.

They want government so small it can fit up your vagina!

...But more to the point, they not only demonise birth control and sex if you can't sustain a child, they demonise sex education. A lot of women don't fully understand where teh babbehz come from, so the connection between sex and pregnancy isn't entirely clear. Men too, but men aren't the ones who are generally saddled with a child and medical issues from sex. Especially as we've moved the narrative more and more towards the women being to blame.

So basically, we blame them if they get pregnant because they had sex, even if they don't know sex can lead to babies. They should have taken responsibility for things we refuse to teach them and actively make taboo subjects because...ponies.

Curses! You have discovered our evil plan! You shall have to be assassinated! Um...S-Stay where you are...don't move and you'll get...ice cream, yes that's right, ice cream. Just...stay where you are...

YAY! ICE CREAM!

...Wait, what was that other bit?

(but seriously, don't kill me, I'm on your side!)

Well...I do like your avatar...and I have always enjoyed watching you set people straight...okay, the council of single women gives you pardon. Just don't spread it around too much, we have our evil reputation to keep.

 

[Easton Dark]

And speaking of anecdotes and one-sided bias, you mentioned your mother was really mean and your father was the more compassionate one - why did you label this as "dysfunctional"? Food for thought

Do you really think it wouldn't be considered dysfunctional if the dad over-reacted and seemed to hate his kids, or are you just trying to win an argument?

Food for not-thought.

 

[Lilani]

Weeeeeeeeeell....

The thing is, they almost always phrase the narrative like the woman chose to have the baby. Nto everyone, but most of the time. Especially in the conservative echo chamber of Fox News and the like.

EDIT: I'm going to add a bit I always found a little strange. Remember Srah Palin's kid? Bristol, I think? The one who had a baby out of wedlock? Sarah was running on abstinence and family values as her kick was knocked up. When asked about it, she tended to just say that her daughter made the right choice. And I....My brain can't handle the path of logic there. Her kid was demonstrating what was wrong with abstinence-only education as she was preaching it, but she was instead applauding the choice Palin and other conservatives didn't thin kshe should be able to make (whether to keep the baby or not). Meanwhile, Bristol was considered off-limits, despite the fact they weren't attacking her so much as trying to reconcile Palin's stance and her daughter's...."decisions," I guess.

And then Bristol started talking family values and abstinence. Because it did her so well.

And for the record, I'm for sexual freedom. I don't begrudge her having sex OR kids, if that's what she so chooses. But I think it's pretty horrible to get knocked up out of wedlock and then say that we should continue teaching abstinence-only edumacation and all that crap.

...Though I wonder if her stance has changed now that mommy isn't running for President anymore.

Now, if one extrapolates this longer term, you could infer the same: that women who have sex are accepting the consequences. Except they treat rape victims the same way more and more often.
But there is another element to this, which brings me to....

Well, they have to find some way to deal with the cognitive dissonance I think the reason Sarah Palin was saying her daughter made the "right choice" simply had to do with not choosing to abort the child. Though never did I hear her actually follow through with any criticism of her daughter that she loves to spout in other places--nothing about how she should have waited, or about how the sex was a mistake. All smiles and glossing over, ignoring the real problems and conversations that need to be had, just as this brand of conservative has been doing for several decades now. As long as they can find enough rugs to sweep everything under they'll be okay.

And this is more common than you think. My mom's side of the family are all Baptist and very conservative, and in the last few years two of my cousins have had children out of wedlock. While they do look very much down on sex before marriage, nothing negative was said around them. All smiles and sunshine, "Oh, you're having a baby? That's wonderful! When's the shower?" My theory is the whole "no sex before marriage" thing is supposed to keep everybody happy and to keep the family in order, but when that fails they just go to plan B and pretend everybody is happy and the whole family is order. They're too stubborn and scared to find a new standard for order, so they just pretend anything that falls short of the standard didn't happen. When nobody's pregnant they'll tell you how great purity is and how "just fine" they are, and when all of that falls apart they still pretend they're just fine because they have nothing else to fall back on. They refuse to address it in the open because that shatters the order that they value over the truth and even their own alleged "virtues."

As for the politics that happened after Bristolgate, I'm guessing the reason the conservatives didn't attack Bristol was because it opened the floodgates to too many questions they don't have answers for, and I'm guessing the opposition[footnote]In this case I refuse to call them "liberals" because to me the idea of making sure people are educated on how sex and pregnancy works isn't a "liberal" idea, it's common sense.[/footnote] didn't use her as a rallying point because she wasn't on their side at first and trying to force it would have been in very poor taste.

 

[Bluestorm83]

snip

Actually it says 'only the pure are worthy of judging the sinful.' essentially, only god can judge who is unworthy.
I attend a christian school and have studied the bible for six years. This is pretty much the conclusion reached every time that story is talked about. So the quote does fit the situation, not perfectly but it fits. You're extending the quote to the whole story.

If you plan on quoting someone, please quote them in the context they gave. He did not want to quote the whole story

Also I am interested in hearing your rendition of 1 Samuel 16: 24-27. (always fun throwing that passage out there)

I'm showing 1 Samuel chapter 16 ending with verse 23.

Clearly God can judge everyone. The point I was making to him is that the verse isn't simply saying to allow for sin because of your own sinfulness. Also, everyone's unworthy. Romans 3, verse 10. That's why Mercy is called Mercy, not payment.

 

[Bluestorm83]

You're partially right. Now, of course, Children come from Women. That's a basic fact that every woman should be aware of. Dudes can't have 'em. No way around that. However, historically and naturally, Men HAVE been the primary keepers of their children, at least certainly for their sons. The son would go into the fields or the workshop with his father, and would learn his father's work. Only recently, with the dawn of mass production, does dad go away in the morning and only come back at night when he's too tired to interact with his children. And that's a crime against nature. Fathers are supposed to be there for their children. So are mothers.

And as far as wasting your life if you don't have your own children, well, that's kind of a genetic fact. If you don't have children, everything that you physically ARE is gone when you die. But that's true for both men and women.

My basic point is that both genders need to cut the crap and be parents, and not just progenitors.

I'm going to be completely honest, I am not really getting the point of what you are telling me in your opening paragraph. I agree fathers are supposed to be there for their children. Anyone who wants to take care of their children, should be there for their children, even children that aren't naturally birthed from them. It should be an individual instinct, not a gender-based one, and my problem is that there is a large amount of people who actively MAKE it into a quality of gender and using that as proof that it IS a quality of gender.

I reject the idea that not making children is a waste of your life though. It's such an utterly nonsense notion to me. The fact that nothing will remain of me when I die doesn't make me feel like my life is any less valid. I think there's a sickness in the idea that just encourages people who are parents to project themselves onto their kids as a surrogate instead of another individual life.

Right, and I'm agreeing that it's not a gender quality, it's a responsibility for every single form of life to foster and protect any offspring that it may have. And I'm not saying that your life can't be MEANINGFUL without having children, or that you can't make an incredible contribution to the human race or society or anything. But not having children does in effect end you. Whatever great contribution you can make in your own life can have twice the effect and or duration if you teach your children your values and then they carry on in the same manner. Anything that ends is over, so why let good things end?

 

[zalithar]

snip

That is true, but the specific quote of "he without sin may cast the first stone" has a meaning that compliments the whole passage not identical to the definition of the passage.

Sorry about the confusion with the passage I recommended; it's actually chapter 18 not 16. It was pretty damn funny reading that passage out in front of a christian classroom.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

i'm sorry for sounding so harsh, but America comes accross as really stunted with regards to equality

PLEASE don't take anything you see in the video to be a general attitude amongst Americans, those people are crazy barbaric neanderthals that don't even represent our most fringe conservatives. in fact stop stereotyping us in general, why is America the only country it's perfectly fine to stereotype.

I did say I felt bad

i'm sorry for sounding so harsh, but America comes across as really stunted with regards to equality

The Baby Boomers are -to put it simply- a pretty fucking stupid generation. These last twenty years have really showed us their true colors. As it stands right now, we're just waiting for this generation to die out. Give us a few decades and America might make it all up.

Or we'll get worse. Who knows.

to be honest, i feel bad for making such a sweeping generalisation

 

[Childe]

I was more referring to what each gender is good at in general. Men tend to lean more to the physical side and so therefore have strengths in that area. Women tend to lean less in that direction and lean more to the intellectual side....theoretically. There are more but i don't feel like laying them all out

Just because one sex has a tendency, and trends towards one behavior over another in comparison to the opposite sex, doesn't make it right to treat people on a whole as such, or to foist that expecation on all of society and treat anybody who doesn't fit that mold negatively. Not that I'm thinking you do, but obviously some people do, like the old, dying men in this video who think things that is a sign of the downfall of society.

I know that and i wasn't saying that we SHOULD push anyone into a predefined role just because we think they should be in that role. I was just trying to make the point that men have THEIR skil sets and women have THEIR skill sets and when men and women work TOGETHER more and better things can be done then if there is a competition between them

 

[AgedGrunt]

There really isn't an argument as far as "insanity" goes. Both sides have a massive political slant, but MSNBC has never edited photos to change a story, intentionally fabricate information for scare tactics, or win Politifact's Lie of the Year for 3 straight years.

Politifact has been blasted by both sides over ridiculous "fact checks". It's also taking fire because the gap between it's truthful Democrat quotes versus lies by Republicans is so large. It was also wrong about a Lie of the Year regarding Jeeps being produced in China. Last I've read, to some extent it actually is going to happen. Politifact is a joke I stopped supporting long ago.

MSNBC itself has edited clips and absolutely fabricates scare tactics. I guess you weren't watching or following the thread that broke out here when the media made it look like gun supporters shouted down a father of a child killed in the Newtown massacre. [http://beforeitsnews.com/tea-party/2013/01/msnbc-busted-again-for-deceptively-editing-video-to-make-conservatives-look-bad-video-2475828.html] Many people, even after I posted the full scene, continued the attack under false premises.

I'd really like to see some equivalence to the actual actions and claims of Fox News. ...But I won't hold my breath.

Spoiler: Well, let's see...

Chris Matthews is glad Hurricane Sandy happened, brought "possibilities"[for Obama] [http://youtu.be/zH_pQY_4RhA?t=1m8s]. It should come as no surprise from someone who argues a percentage of America wants to asterisk Obama, believes white race must rule [http://youtu.be/2HK229rAsQw?t=50s]. He also not only thinks America is killing Arabs and Islamic people [http://youtu.be/RUWFirsteuc?t=1m40s], but it's all we seem to do these days [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/28/chris-matthews-killing-islamic-people-its-all-we-seem-do-these-days]. I could make an entire post about Chris Matthews.

Yet insanity comes in a lot of flavors. If you're Chris Hayes, the solution to poverty is easy: give people money [http://youtu.be/9HM1IhiVYSI?t=11m17s]

But I know you aren't satisfied with peanuts. Fox, after all, is pathological and pollutes others, it's not just a few mouth pieces. That's why I prefer to focus on this segment [http://youtu.be/lyZkLHzPV98]; it really captures the essence and meaning of travesty.

But that's just a bawdy group, I know that's not intended to be a factual representation of news. The real treat is to see an internal, on-air struggle to not look as insane as Fox News, like when a speaker misses that memo and consistently argues that Ricin letters sent to politicians are the fault of the "dark" side of gun rights lobby and NRA. [http://youtu.be/wLvK7jnRX9Q] If you watch to the end you can see her successfully snatch victory from the claws of moderate discussion as another speaker throws Michele Bachmann and her base onto the flames of responsibility.

And then the starting line-up returns to tell America that Republicans have to cheat to win. [http://youtu.be/h26P3W2L5xQ?t=49s][Not pictured: tin-foil hats (the crew forgot them)].

But come on, there's nothing wrong with slanted views. Melissa Harris-Perry wants us to break the "private" idea that kids belong to their parents [http://youtu.be/N3qtpdSQox0]. She has a right to her opinion, which may be that, on Independence Day, we should remember that America was stolen, "our story" is founded on slavery and second-class citizenship [http://youtu.be/61ZZDPvbKOk], and that defining the Dream by financial security, "profits" and acquisitions is dangerous. After all, slavery isn't over; we still need to fight big retailers like Wal-Mart.

Honestly, I don't exactly know what you guys are looking for with insanity and "equivalance". Is it when they declare the NRA lobby has won in its efforts make sure bombers get away with crimes [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eCKhDHeo6s] and intentionally guarantee mass murderers are the best-equipped murderers?

Is it a calling the most powerful attorney in the United States the "Moses" of our time [http://youtu.be/dstV_vqnHug] and that the black official is the right-wing's "whipping boy"? Is it at least a bit insane for the network to play host to a white journalist that says to a black news anchor that the NRA President sounds like a tired, old white guy clinging to the past [http://youtu.be/qV_F9dzRO3g?t=1m1s] and has "tar-baby" as part of her vocabulary?

When you consider the Democrats hired into their ranks, like former Senior Adviser to Barack Obama, David Axelrod, the picture becomes clearer. As I said, insanity comes in different varieties. I personally liken both Fox and MSNBC to the political parties: one is popular for being a living joke while the other is just far more convincing about its bullshit.

I just think this is given a slanted view; these "panels" do not represent people and as is being shown, not even others in the network. Mainstream media is how everyone gets the wrong perspective; it's unfortunate that too many people buy into propaganda.

 

[sleeky01]

Fox News is designed to appeal to [FONT SIZE=7]old[/FONT] white people who long for a return to a idealistic 1950s society that never existed. This doesn't shock me at all

OLD white people.

You would think Fox might have a better business model then one....you know.....that's soon to die off.

 

[Sabitsuki]

Right, and I'm agreeing that it's not a gender quality, it's a responsibility for every single form of life to foster and protect any offspring that it may have. And I'm not saying that your life can't be MEANINGFUL without having children, or that you can't make an incredible contribution to the human race or society or anything. But not having children does in effect end you. Whatever great contribution you can make in your own life can have twice the effect and or duration if you teach your children your values and then they carry on in the same manner. Anything that ends is over, so why let good things end?

My mistake, for some reason I thought we were at some sort of disagreement on the gender issue. Seems I was only confusing myself. My apologies.

Though I still fail to see why not having children qualifies your life being a 'waste'. I would heavily dispute the logic that just because something ends that it was a waste, especially when you yourself say that you can indeed live a meaningful life at the same time. So you can do absolutely amazing things with your life that might even go on for generations, but if you failed to take the time to raise a child, it's all for nothing? Because that's what calling it a waste is implying.

It seems silly to me. It's an idea that pressures people in spending a huge portion of their life dedicated to something they may not have wanted. Raising a child puts a person's life through a heavy amount of change and may prevent them from doing things they otherwise might have yearned to do. Not to mention heavily pushes people towards taking time to pursue relationships. For someone who may not have otherwise wanted that life, how is that not itself a waste?

It also continues to throw weight on the implication I mentioned previously. It encourages parents to treat their children like surrogates for themselves instead of individuals. That if your child fails to absorb the ideas and values that YOU want it to, or live in a way that YOU want it to, then it is making YOUR life a waste.