Things sure do keep being interesting. Don't they?
"politicususa.com — The collective activist group Anonymous has made a clear and concise statement after citing Fox News’ propaganda efforts against the Occupy Wall Street movement, to shut the station down. Anonymous, in a YouTube video specifically points out the talking points Fox repeatedly uses to denounce the movement in sweeping stereotypical generalizations such as, “filthy, disgusting and dirty” to describe the protesters..."
http://digg.com/news/politics/anonymous … n_fox_news
I find it interesting that Anonymous/Lulzsec/Antisec get so worked up and passionate about certain topics, but when they strike, they usually just end up with mostly collateral damage, and nothing to further their actual views. Should be interesting to see what happens, and the arrests that follow. (announcing to the FBI when you are going to unleash a cyber attack isn't the best idea, even if you're proxied and running off your neighbor's internet).
A better link.
"November 5th, may the hunt begin."
Well, are they bipolar or just confused in general? Or radical?
First they say they'll "commence attacks" but they don't state whether that just means verbal attacks or what.
Then, although their name is "Anonymous", they make the statement that "we are legion.....expect us". LOL and hey that's actually scary. It's a reference to a Bible verse where devils say they're "legion".
Guess they're in time for Halloween, huh?
That's next Saturday. I think I'll be watching Fox off and on throughout that day...
Could they take out MSNBC while they're at it?? Oh, wait...I think the ratings are doing that.
I wonder what Keith Obermann is up to these days...
"Anonymous hackers are threatening to disable Fox News' website for denouncing the Occupy Wall Street ..."
Remember, remember, the 5th of November. Not a good day historically to attempt an attack. Guy Fawkes wasn't successful.
I had to look that up...
For my fellow illiterates, that was the day he was captured getting ready to blow up Parliament.
they arent going to touch the Simpsons or the NFL, are they?
When I was a kid we'd wheel some character around made from old tights and stuffed with newspaper, in an old stroller and say a penny for the Guy. Funny, I've not heard that expression for years now. Maybe, todays kids are just smart and have realized how much the penny has depreciated.
When I think about it, I do wonder why we have been burning an effigy of a man who was executed over four-hundred years ago, whilst standing around a bonfire, and then lighting a Catherine wheel, to remember the brutal torture to death of Saint Catherine, whilst shoving a lighted firework in the hands of young children, all in the name of fun. An image of the ending of the Wicker Man spings to mind.
Yes, it does appear we may be collectively sadistict.
That was one of the scariest movies ever!
I haven't seen that movie. It's next on the list now you've both menioned it, however, I have the Blair Witch Project to watch tonight.
That one was great too. Some people thought it was silly and too tame. It freaked me out! And the suspense toward the end was almost tangible. I won't give it all away. After you watch it, let us know if you liked it!?
I think the original with Edward Woodward is terrifying. There is a later American version, which wasn't at all scary. I didn't like the camera movements in Blair Witch. In fact, I didn't watch it to the end because of them.
Isn't anonymus affiliated with Wikileaks? They claim to have enough information to take down banks, corporations and even governments. If anything happens to Julian Assange they threaten to release the info.
Do it, I for one want to see this information.
If "Anonymous" would just wait a while, they wouldn't have to try to shut down Fox News. It'll burn itself out all by itself if they keep liberalizing it! There are several commentators who posit very liberal positions on some of the major subjects. And in their quest for "fair and balanced" shows, they're very friendly with liberals usually, and have some specifically-liberal commentators as legitimate group members.
It's becoming almost bland for me. When Glenn Beck left, it took it down a notch too. Although....even he wasn't totally conservative.
I'm wondering if fame kills standards. I know tolerance brings them down.
How can tolerance bring down standards, this statement Brenda, I do not understand.
Progressive tolerance for ideas and things that are wrong, eventually re-sets standards.
But "wrong" is so often a value judgement, based on one's education, biases or beliefs. Tolerance, allows others to air their views. When an approach is tolerant, it allows both sides to present a case, not necessarily re-set standards, but to present both sides of an argument. That way, viewers can determine and define right from wrong. A bit like a court case, both the defence and prosecution believe they are right. However, it takes a jury to examine the evidence and draw a conclusion.
You're correct. But there are some arguments that should never be given airtime.
Well, maybe they should. If they are intrinsically wrong, the jury will see this. Generally speaking, I believe that most people have good intentions and know right from wrong, they should not be denied some of the evidence, even if it is incriminating. The verdict would be more balanced, and based on real evidence, not one sided.
Morality, thankfully has the ability to progress. This doesn't mean that moving away from the old morality means that immorality is bound to follow. There was a time when slavery was considered moral, and anyone who suggested otherwise were mad, bad or dangerous. Old morality believed that a wife was the possession of her husband, women who thought differently were witches or irreligious, because the Bible makes it clear that a wife should obey her husband.
So, it is a mistake to believe that morality cannot change and progress, and tolerance and accepting people who are considered to be different (even socialists) is one indication that morality and liberality can go hand-in-hand.
Eh, I doubt slavery was considered moral by anyone who had good morals.
Morality isn't progressive. It doesn't change. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Although life would seem easier if it didn't. Rules of society and rules of God; how inconvenient!
The Bible makes it clear that a wife should obey her husband when the husband is true to Godly principles. To entertain the idea that a woman has no right to be treated respectfully is akin to Fox News entertaining the notion that the Leftist ideaology is legitimate fodder for discussion.
Sorry to disagree with you about slavery, but the following is a quote from the Bible, which is of course the Word of God.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Or maybe this one.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Maybe that's an example of the problem with new translations (errr....interpretations I call 'em) of the Bible. The NLT may say that, but the KJV doesn't say "slaves". It says "bondsmen" and "bondsmaids", indicating working for pay or housing, etc.
A slave is a slave, no matter what word you use to cover it up or dress it up as.
You are quite right. So, I have turned to the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines bondsman as an archaic term for a slave. And the Universal Dictionary defines it such: - A person obligated to service without wages, a slave or a serf. I then suggests to "See bondage." Which I have done, and it defines it as such:- The condition of a slave or serf; serfdom; servitude. A state of subjection to any force, power or influence. There is always the possibility that the dictionaries are wrongly translated as well.
Well, this may require more research. Other than that, I dunno what to say, except
I think....my husband and I are slaves to Chase Home Finance. We'll be kicked out of our home if we don't pay, and even if we do pay, it'll be many years before we actually own the home. We made an agreement, so we're bound (bonded) to that agreement. Unless we in future reach a point where we need to use the option of "jubilee" (bankruptcy), which, incidentally, is an Old Testament law. I can only assume those so-called "slaves" had that option too. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure there are Scriptures in Deuteronomy on the situation of bondsmen/women and their ability to run from their debts, etc....
It's always such fun to "Wow" you Cagsil. I crave your attention, ya know!
Now, go and repent your sin(lie) woman. Go get your forgiveness for which you're not due.
What specific sin? I know I've had to be forgiven many times over the years. Convince me and I'll repent.
Art thou prepared to repent also?
Please hurry. I'm getting so sleepy.
Your lie: I crave your attention?
Now repent to your imaginary god and get your forgiveness that you're not due.
As for me? I hold myself accountable. I've no reason to speak to your imaginary god.
Eh....my sentence "I crave your attention" was a bit of sarcasm mixed with the fact that I do indeed like conversing with you (sometimes, just sometimes haha). I wasn't trying to make you upset, though, really. If I've upset you, I apologize to you. However, I don't see a need to repent to God in this particular instance. You'll have to convince me better than you have. Forgiveness that I'm not due? Indeed, He did that on the Cross. I'm not worthy of any of it, except in His forgiving and Loving eyes. Amazing Lord He is!
The last I heard, Anonymous supports Ron Paul
However, I was led to believe that they agree not to support any political figure.
Either way, if you read their forums, MANY of them are pro-Ron Paul
by rhamson 8 years ago
With claims of being the "Fair and Balanced" take on reporting and the #1 news network in the nation, are we to believe they have a corner on the truth and spin because of their ratings?
by arizonataylor 19 months ago
Why do so many people hate Fox News?There are many biased channels that do not receive the negative statements Fox News receives. Whether you believe Fox News is biased or not, why does it receive so much negative attention?
by Scott S Bateman 9 months ago
I believe our country is in a political mess in part because of certain cable "news" channels that pander to people's political biases.Yes, MSNBC does it. But Fox created the concept.http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/media/f … index.html
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have both been suspended by Fox News. The suspension is for 60 days. If they don't announce their candidacy for president during this time, they can come back.Now, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin have not been suspended. Both are widely expected to run in 2012 as...
by Melissa Barrett 7 years ago
I knew it!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 … 06305.html
by Scott S Bateman 2 years ago
I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.Fox is not a news channel that seeks the truth. It provides reporting and commentary...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|