The Gaming Den

In news totally related to gaming ...

Court Rules That Upper Deck Sold Counterfeit Yu Gi Oh! Cards

You know, if you had a facebook account and were friends with a certain famous D&D writer you too would have known about this.

Yeah, but that case is like five years old in the courts at this point.

-Crissa

tzor wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:I sure hope you like Sarah Palin, because there's gonna be a LOT more of her on TV real soon!

Yea, but it's Fox News, which the PTOUS has stated is not a news organization. I mean who the fuck is going to watch Fox News?

It's not a new organization. It's the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Everyone knows that. Fuck, babies know that. The only people that watch Fox Noise are racists, religious kooks, and old, rich white people? They're just "appealing to the base" by hiring her on. She'll be like Glenn Beck, but fuckable.

tzor wrote:Did you know that former and still possible presidental candidate Mike Huckabee as been on Fox News for a while? Heck the first Republican Primary of 2012 might be a ratings war between them in 2010. Stay tuned.

Yeah, I knew that. And Huckabee is also a cockbag. But Sarah isn't going to become President. She'll drop out of the race before that comes to pass. But, you know, she'll be quitting to help Real Americans... somehow.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:It's not a new organization. It's the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Everyone knows that.

Fuck no, and anyone with half a brain knows that. It’s got Glen Beck for starters. For those people who have really short memories he was the one who really hated G.W. Bush (when he was on another network) and still doesn’t think highly of him. He has started a movement (the 912 project) that most leaders in the Republican Party despise more than they do Obama.

Then what about Palin; do you think that the leaders in the Republican Party hate her guts? You Betcha! She supported the conservative candidate in New York when the party hierarchy was supporting the most liberal Republican in the state assembly for a special election. She continues to support the tea party and 912 movements and she is strongly pro-life (most national party leaders would love to have that issue go away). P.S. They also think she was the reason why McCain lost.

And that, of course has nothing to do with whether it is a news organization. Of course it is; what sort of fool question is that. It is as much a news organization as the New York Times. (Yes I just either insulted Fox News or the NY Times depending on your political viewpoint.)

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Yeah, I knew that. And Huckabee is also a cockbag. But Sarah isn't going to become President. She'll drop out of the race before that comes to pass. But, you know, she'll be quitting to help Real Americans... somehow.

Ha ha. You know, I thought nothing could be scarier than President Obama. I was wrong. The reign of true terror begins. You have been warned; you cannot resist …

Glenn Beck... Yeah. No liberals liked him when he 'hated' W, either.

What a specious argument. Of course people who work for the company might include people who self-describe themselves as Democrats. So does the Republican Party. You always have some people who screw with identification.

-Crissa

tzor wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:It's not a new organization. It's the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Everyone knows that.

Fuck no, and anyone with half a brain knows that.

Are you fucking serious Are you from Bizarro World? Everyone but deluded fuckers like yourself know that Fox News is anything but fair or balanced.

tzor wrote:It’s got Glen Beck for starters. For those people who have really short memories he was the one who really hated G.W. Bush (when he was on another network) and still doesn’t think highly of him.

Oh yeah. He was real tough on Bush for what, the last 6 months of his Presidency? What a crock of shit. And he wasn't being a conservative "maverick" or a "rebel" by any means - he was just setting the stage for the next set of Party Talking Points that would allow Republicans to distance themselves from GWB and his failures. I have a number of Conservative acquaintances that are more then happy to parrot the new talking points about how "Bush was actually a liberal", despite the fact that by saying so, they just come off as being dangerously retarded.

tzor wrote:He has started a movement (the 912 project) that most leaders in the Republican Party despise more than they do Obama.

You mean the 912 Project and the Tea Party protests that are being organized and funded by big conservative organizations like FreedomWorks and Americans For Prosperity? These people aren't angering the leaders of the GOP - they are the leaders of the GOP. They share an identical agenda with the folks that run Fox News. And they all hate Obama unequivocally.

tzor wrote:Then what about Palin; do you think that the leaders in the Republican Party hate her guts? You Betcha! She supported the conservative candidate in New York when the party hierarchy was supporting the most liberal Republican in the state assembly for a special election.

Doug Hoffman - the Conservative candidate - was heavily supported by Republicans at the national level. Fiscal and social conservative groups backed Hoffman's candidacy, including the Club for Growth, the Susan B. Anthony List, the National Organization for Marriage, Concerned Women for America PAC, Citizens of the Republic, the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, and Family Research Council PAC. Many notable Republicans, including former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, endorsed Hoffman rather than the Republican candidate because they - much like yourself - deemed Scozzafava "insufficiently conservative and ideologically indistinguishable from the Democrat". That's too bad, because her record indicates that she is in fact what most sane people would call a Moderate Republican. From Wikipedia:

Scozzafava is pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage. However, she opposes gun control; she has a lifetime "A" rating from the National Rifle Association. She also has strong ties to organized labor, something which is not common for most Republicans. In agreement with most Republicans, she is against cap-and-trade and is in favor of maintaining the Bush tax cuts.

But The Party isn't interested in "moderation". They are interested in purging themselves of all ideologically impure elements that are holding them back from achieving success. They believe that they were rejected by America in the last national election not because they were too extreme, but because they were not extreme enough. And they are more then happy to use Fox News as a propaganda machine to achieve this goal.

Fox News' blatant biases are blatant. The fact that they are not a news outlet is not just a matter of public record, it's FOX's own explanation for their behavior. Hannity and Beck are their prime guys, but neither one of them is classified as a news anchor. They are "opinion entertainment."

-Username17

Slug Goes Green

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

tzor wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:It's not a new organization. It's the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Everyone knows that.

Fuck no, and anyone with half a brain knows that.

Are you fucking serious Are you from Bizarro World? Everyone but deluded fuckers like yourself know that Fox News is anything but fair or balanced.

Lol will not help your argument. Reading might help your argument. You stated, and I will quote the damn thing again and again. “It's the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.” You didn’t say “Conservative” nor did you say “Fiscally Conservative” or a tool of “Conservative Corporations.” You said “Republican Party” … that organization with Michael Stephen Steele as the National Party Chairman.

And clearly it is not. Anyone with a half a brain knows that.

So before you get into the bullshit about “Fair and Balanced” (I’ve gone cringing whenever I hear that and am now into the maniacal laughter stage) or the state of their bias (which is really no different from the New York Times or a lot of many other news organizations these days; even news feeds like the AP are somewhat biased in one way or another) or accusations over who controls the content (I often wonder how much influence Rosland Capital has in their content … bad news sells more gold you know) the question of whether the news channel is a propaganda arm of a political party is the question I replied to.

Fox News is about as balanced as the New York Times (for those not used to irony that means not a chance in hell) it reports its mistakes as prominently as the New York Times (again for those with irony impairment that means the 8 point type on the corner of page 87) and verifies its sources as accurately as the New York Times (for those not used to irony that means if it supports the article it must be good, whether it is true or not).

Neither are the bottom of the barrel; that would be the Shūkanshi weekly tabloid newspapers in Japan 'A Public Betrayed': The Power of Japan's Scandal-Breaking Weeklies (I highly recommend reading this book; on second thought no one has a right to complain about US media until they read this book; then you can draw parallelisms between what exists in Japan and what is happening in the US right now).

"I knew at least one famous political scientist who reads (weeklies) faithfully ... so as not to miss anything of real importance that the respectable press had chosen to ignore." -- Ivan P. Hall

FrankTrollman wrote:Fox News' blatant biases are blatant. The fact that they are not a news outlet is not just a matter of public record, it's FOX's own explanation for their behavior. Hannity and Beck are their prime guys, but neither one of them is classified as a news anchor. They are "opinion entertainment."

-Username17

Show me one channel that is 100% NEWS and 0.00000000000% Opinion. There isn’t one. The fact that two of the programs on Fox News is not “News” doesn’t make the entire channel “Not News.”

tzor wrote:

Frank wrote:Fox is so biased it hurts to even think about it.

Lol no one is 100% perfect.

Tzor, are you a deliberately lying and fact-contorting piece of shit or are you just as dumb as a piece of road?

Frank clearly stated is Fox is blatantly biased. I am not even a native speaker and to me there is no way at all to mistake Frank's statement as "Fox are not 100% news". Not even close to it. Just to be sure Frank also elaborated and stated that Fox themselves admitted they are not really a new channel. "Not being 100% unbiased" and "so fucking biased they are not new" are not remotely reconcilable and yet this is what you use to "rebut" (note the quotes) Frank's argument. I can only conclude that either a) I am too dumb to understand the english language and Frank really meant to say something every web dictionary disagrees with, b) you are too dumb to understand the english language or c) you are deliberately building a blatant strawman to attack. Or, in other words, being a dishonest piece of shit who is not simply mistaken but lying through his teeth.

Or I guess you might be too brainwashed to form thoughts for yourself. Of course that ties in with b).

tzor wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:Fox News' blatant biases are blatant. The fact that they are not a news outlet is not just a matter of public record, it's FOX's own explanation for their behavior. Hannity and Beck are their prime guys, but neither one of them is classified as a news anchor. They are "opinion entertainment."

-Username17

Show me one channel that is 100% NEWS and 0.00000000000% Opinion. There isn’t one. The fact that two of the programs on Fox News is not “News” doesn’t make the entire channel “Not News.”

It's not that it's not all news, but it's rather those shows that everyone I know seems to site when giving their arguments. [/anecdotal evidence]

Indeed, Fox explicitly came out and declared:

"We are news from hours X to Y, and then not from Y to Z, and then are from Z to X."

But guess what, Y to Z includes 90% of their viewing audiance.

So when a given person watches the fox news channel, there is a 90% chance that person is not watching news, but rather "opinion entertainment."

Mind you, that 90% is just the part that fox news has been forced to declare "not news" for legal reasons because it's lack of news quality is so blatant and obvious that it can be genuinely legal trouble for not conforming to FCC regulations to call it news.

The other 10% is still stuff that is just barely skirting the line.

CNN on the other hand, is 100% news according to FCC regulations, and not any of it is "opinion entertainment." So you can bet that large parts of it, probably in excess of 50% are more news than even the most newslike part of fox news.

Seriously, they aren't news.

The people they use to advertise their network have their shows outside the "news period" so theoretically they aren't even claiming that FOX frontliner shows like FOX & Friends or Papabear Bill O' are news.

CNN and MSNBC have plenty of things to ridicule, but FOX isn't even pretending any more.

-Username17

Kaelik wrote:CNN on the other hand, is 100% news according to FCC regulations, ...

Which is why CNN has the ratings of the Weather Channel

"In all of cable, Fox News finished the quarter as the second-most-watched network in primetime, behind only USA Network. CNN ranked 17th, MSNBC placed 24th and HLN, CNN’s sister news channel, came in 30th. For the total programming day, Fox News was 5th, CNN was 14th and MSNBC was 28th."

What about MSNBC, or CNBC, or the regular networks, heck what about NPR? (Like the OMG Car Talk isn't news, who knew?)

tzor wrote:What about MSNBC, or CNBC, or the regular networks, heck what about NPR? (Like the OMG Car Talk isn't news, who knew?)

What are you even getting at? Who even made the claim that NPR is all news?

No one is saying that Fox is the only station to have non-news programs. It's just that when people site Fox in arguments, more often than not, they site the opinion entertainment programs and not the news. Those are the things people watch. They're confusing opinion as fact.

Strangely, the number of people watching CNN and MSNBC is greater than the number of people watching FoxNews channel.

The number of people watching Headline + CNN often beats out Fox News.

Comparing News shows to entertainment? Hilarious.

-Crissa

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... gethisweek

THIS is what gets on my nerves about how climate change is reported.

Remember when I said that climate change isn't the apocalypse people make it out to be?

Yeah, there will probably be a time of upheaval and human suffering as people adjust to the new climate zones. Famine and starvation and collapse of civilization in some areas. That's not good. Not good at all.

But equating global warming with nuclear war?

FUCKERS. MOTHER FUCK FUCKITY FUCK.

Collapse of modern man is collapse of modern man.

-Crissa

Maxus wrote:Yeah, there will probably be a time of upheaval and human suffering as people adjust to the new climate zones. Famine and starvation and collapse of civilization in some areas. That's not good. Not good at all.

But equating global warming with nuclear war?

You know, we totally had a nuclear war, and no civilizations collapsed. If civilization collapses "in some areas" that's actually worse than nuclear war.

-Username17

Pat Robertson explains on 700 club how Haitians made a pact with the devil to free themselves from Napoleon the Third, hence their terrible luck as a country since.

-Crissa

FrankTrollman wrote:You know, we totally had a nuclear war, and no civilizations collapsed. If civilization collapses "in some areas" that's actually worse than nuclear war.

-Username17

Oh Frank, stop with this bullshit. Two bombs (and two primitive bombs at that) from one side of a war do not a nuclear war make.

Let's look at a real example of one side of a potential nuclear war: India.

In 2005, it was estimated that India had between 40 and 50 warheads.
In November 2008, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that India has about 70 assembled nuclear warheads, with about 50 of them fully operational.
A report by David Albright, published by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2000, estimated that India at end of 1999 had 310 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium, enough for 65 nuclear weapons. He also estimated that India had 4,200 kg of reactor grade plutonium which is enough to build 1,000 nuclear weapons. By the end of 2004, he estimates India had 445 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium which is enough for around 85 nuclear weapons considering 5 kg of plutonium required for each weapon. India has the capability of fielding the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world after Russia and the United States.
Former R&AW official J.K. Sinha, claimed that India is capable of producing 130 kilograms of weapon grade plutonium from six "unsafeguarded" reactors not included in the nuclear deal between India and the United States.

Crissa wrote:Pat Robertson explains on 700 club how Haitians made a pact with the devil to free themselves from Napoleon the Third, hence their terrible luck as a country since.

-Crissa

Where is Daniel Webster when we need him?