Why did FOXNEWS ignore the gay march after making such a huge deal over the tea partiers? John stewart rips into fox

There were not nearly enough signs questioning the President's citizenship for the gay march to get covered by Fox News.

See, here we go again with gay people complaining about fairness. Wow. If they want fair coverage from Fox, they have to make racist comments and hold up banners of Obama wearing tribal gear or some other such nonsense. Until gays learn to act equally, they won't get equal coverage.

;)

/sarcasm off/

More evidence that Fox is not a news station but a noise station.

Well, you see Fox thought they had already covered a gay march in DC. After all they covered a march made up entirely of TEABAGGERS.

Uhmm. I watch Fox and I saw coverage of the Gay Rally in Washington so there was Coverage.

Faux news SUX

I think it's a requirement that you have to have an IQ of <75 to watch

Why do people care what other people are watching?

Liberal or conservative, your life sucks so you can not help but get involved in others and try to make theirlife suck also. If you can not succeed at that, being a loser, you then just whine and cry about it.

Some are just too busy enjoying life and sharing that joy with others to worry about Fox News or CNN or etc...

Zoolopus

You know it's really stupid to call people that peacefully protested against a big corrupt government "TeaBaggers". Fellow citizens that exercised our constitutional right to assemble peacefully, people who truly believe that our country is headed in the wrong direction and willing to voice there opinion. Many like Glenn Beck, have criticized both parties for running up OUR National Debt (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) that is going to bankrupt America, by giving people something FOR NOTHING to get elected.

Do you really believe we can keep spending money we don't have?

Many who attended Tea Parties, like myself are Independents, some even voted for Obama; and we think it is disgusting and vulgar to call these people names because they disagree.

THE NEXT ELECTION WILL SHOW JUST HOW MANY VOTERS REPUDIATE THE DEMS BECAUSE OF IT!

Fox news is number one for a reason! The more you bash it, the more people will want to check it out for themselves. That's why the ratings keep going up!!!

NOW THEY DO, after being called it enough!

Why do people care what other people are watching?

Because some of us remember the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite and understand that the quality of the product issued by the Fourth Estate is important to the health of our Republic.

NOW THEY DO, after being called it enough!

If it were THAT easy, I guess I should've cut to the chase and called them fools.

Gay march ? There are gay marches all the time... Every year in SF... I have never previously seen 2 million conservatives at a rally, however.

I have never previously seen 2 million conservatives at a rally, however.

You nor anyone else this side of fantasyland.

Yeah, that number was debunked. It was attributed by the organizer to be an ABC estimate when ABC later released a statement saying we didn't estimate that.

Perhaps it was because the Annual Rally was in 1 city and happen every year, and the Tea Party was a grass roots campaign that covered all races and sexuality and happened in numerous cities.

You know it's really stupid to call people that peacefully protested against a big corrupt government "TeaBaggers".

well if they didn't throw teabags on people lawns?

the Tea Party was a grass roots campaign that covered all races and sexuality

Astro-turf has no roots. Minorities don't carry Swastikas, and the LGBT community doesn't mix with right-wing Christians, who as a group, think they're an abomination.

Jimster.

Spewed rhetoric, no facts. Astro turf doesn't belong. Anti-Semitism is for another article. Gay Clergy is making inroads in religion. But keep your whatever colored glasses on and whatever you see in your world outranks fact.

"Grass roots" campaign sponsored by Freedom Works and heavily promoted by FOX. LMAO

WASHINGTON -- Thousands of gay and lesbian activists marched Sunday from the White House to the Capitol, demanding that President Obama keep his promises to allow gays to serve openly in the military and work to end discrimination against gays.

Rainbow flags and homemade signs dotted the crowds filling Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House as people chanted "Hey, Obama, let mama marry mama" and "We're out, we're proud, we won't back down." Many children were also among the protesters. A few counter-protesters also joined the crowd, which stretched several blocks by the afternoon.

Jason Yanowitz, a 37-year-old computer programmer from Chicago, held his daughter, 5-year-old Amira, on his shoulders. His partner, Annie, had their 2-year-old son, Isiah, in a stroller. Yanowitz said more straight people were turning out to show their support for gay rights.

"If somebody doesn't have equal rights, then none of us are free," he said.

"For all I know, she's gay or he's gay," he added, pointing to his children.

Some participants in the National Equality March woke up energized by Obama's blunt pledge to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military during a speech to the largest gay rights group in the U.S. Saturday night.

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,"' Obama said Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/11/gay-rights-advocates-march-dc-bring-demands-obama-pledges/

The gay march was on the front page of the fox website for over a week with coverage both before and after the event and it was covered on the air multiple times. It was also not nearly as large as the tea party march and yet still recieved quite a bit of coverage. So this entire seed is nothing but one big lie.

ppll stop with the spamming and advertising you are doing all over the place

A Smith - I didn't see anything on my local or national coverage from FOX and it is pretty much the only station that they have in my break room at work.

Which reporter did they have there covering the event?

None. They used ABC footage.

A Smith I saw the same stuff and watch it on their news on TV. This is just a stupid feed attempting to make them look bad but it's just blatantly false. it's so great we have the internet to just spread misinformation.

Joules how do you know they didn't talk about the gay march? I seriously doubt you watch their programming to know. And if you do you just didn't see it. I'll watch fox and yes it was covered thats how I knew about it gay march.

So what's the point of this feed?

A Smith - I didn't see anything on my local or national coverage from FOX and it is pretty much the only station that they have in my break room at work.

Which reporter did they have there covering the event?

Please tell me your not one of those people who dont realize that their local fox station is not the same as Foxnews. Your use of the word local in there has me worried that might not be the case.

Also if you watch foxnews you will know that they have a rotating group of news anchors throughout the day who cover the news and each of them touch on all of the topics. And finally if you had come in to work on saturday and sunday you probably would of seen the more saturated coverage given that this was when the events took place.

A Smith I saw the same stuff and watch it on their news on TV. This is just a stupid feed attempting to make them look bad but it's just blatantly false. it's so great we have the internet to just spread misinformation.

I wasnteven getting into the way they portrayed the event. Rather I was pointing out that they did indeed cover it making this seed one big lie. Given the obvious bias of those who have come to this thread, and their clear lack of any real knowledge on foxnews, I think it would be quite impossible to objectively look at that issue in this seed.

Wait, John Stewart IS gay? I thought that was just a rumor

Bleat-On, was it a rumor or just your fantasy?

A-Smith, who told you the gay march was not as big as the Teabagger march? I live here in DC, and yes, it was just as big as the teabagger march.

Fox news is number one for a reason!

Yes, because Television viewership is made up mostly of undereducated citizens who waste their brains on the most mindless drug in the world. You do know that your brain has even less activity while watching TV than it does during sleep, don't you?

A-Smith, who told you the gay march was not as big as the Teabagger march? I live here in DC, and yes, it was just as big as the teabagger march.

I'm sorry but I will go with the word of my family who live in the DC area over a faceless entity on a website. Not to mention the fact that not a single news source (right or left) has said they were even remotely comparable in size.

If you want to deny reality that is ok with me. I actually live in DC and saw both marches first hand. If your relatives are saying the teabagger march was bigger than the gay march they are either lying to you or they are just ignorant. I notice that you said the DC area, and not DC. Where in DC do they live exactly?

Clearly, these protests are racist in nature

These people would not be marching and saying all these hateful things if Obama were not Black

They are accusing him of lying and failing to live up to his repeated promises, but the real agenda is one of hate for Blacks

Everyone knows that any disagreement with government these days is all about hate for our first Black president

These teabaggers should show more respect, their agenda is obvious, and fair minded people should condem their dispicable behavior towards Obama

The public access area of the Mall holds nearly 950,000 and some photographs of that area show it to be near capacity, although it has been reported that other groups were holding events in that area.

vs

Unlike the first march in 1979 and others in 1987, 1993 and 2000 that included many celebrity performances and drew as many as 500,000 people, Sunday's event was driven by grassroots efforts.

Washington authorities don't disclose crowd estimates at rallies, though the crowd appeared to number in the tens of thousands, overflowing from the Capitol lawn.

http://www.examiner.com/x-20909-Columbia-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d13-As-many-as-2-million-protestors-attend-912-Washington-DC-Tea-Party-Rally

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/12-0

So you have the press piece put out by the gay march putting it at 500k, that would be the high water number. Then that is compared to someone who is being sceptical of the tea party march numbers who points out all of the false numbers given out and then follows by stating the facts, the area was near capacity and capacity is just under a million people and that was just the people who were in that one part of the city at that time. So even if we are going to go with the hyped number from one side and the low ball on the other your at least 400k people short of being the same size.

Most news put the tea party march at over a million people, none of the news has put the gay march at half that (500k is less than half of "over a million" before anyone decides to play math genius).

Where in DC do they live exactly?

Why on earth would I give you were they live exactly? If your asking if they live inside the district, some do, some dont, and that distinction really doesnt make all that much difference if they were there to see both events.

I was here and saw both marches first hand. The teabagger march was not bigger than the gay march. I wasn't asking for their address. In DC we have quadrants and we also have neighborhoods and Wards, so I was asking what part of DC they live in. People that live in DC don't say they live in the DC area, they say they live in DC. If your relatives were really here for the Gay March then ask them what streets were closed down for it.

Who cares what march was bigger. Both enjoyed many participants and both were covered by fox news. This feed put up by joules is worthless. He just doesn't watch the station and makes opinion based on hearsey. Any chance he gets he'll skew something to make them look biased.

jkrystof, then why are you even here then? It's even more worthless for you to come here and bother to comment if you think the whole thread is worthless. What does that say about you?

According to Boehner being gay is a choice and sinful. Fox is just supporting the Party line.

According to Boehner being gay is a choice and sinful. Fox is just supporting the Party line

Anyone who holds the bible to be true state that homosexuality is a sin. To state otherwise is to state that the bible lies which would immediately put anyone at odds with their faith should they be a Christian. The exact same thing could be said of the Koran and Islam which also holds it to be a sin. Where do you think we got the word sodomy from?

The second part, that it is a choice, the word choice takes some qualifiers. First, the secular bisexual movement would greatly argue with the "its not a choice" argument. But lets stick to the sinful side of the choice argument. The word Paul uses to describe our affinity towards sin is "slave". That is, we are a slave to sin from birth. As a slave to it there is no meaningful choice to be made to stop from sinning as long as sin is our master and we are slave to it. Hence the need for a new master to free us from our sin because we can not free ourselves. Thus, its not a choice, but that doesnt mean that it is a permanent state.

I hope this allows you to better understand people you do not agree with.

First, the secular bisexual movement would greatly argue with the "its not a choice" argument.

Oh, and I guess you have personal experience with this?

abolish taxes

First, the secular bisexual movement would greatly argue with the "its not a choice" argument.

Oh, and I guess you have personal experience with this?

How can one have personal experience with that? I think you might of missed the day in class when the teacher explained what a logic statement is. Let me try and bring it down to your level:

The presence of mules would greatly argue with the "horses can only breed with horses" arguement.

Anyone who holds the bible to be true......

Well that leaves out the RWNJ's, family values anyone. Wonder what skeletons Bonehead has in his closet?

I think you might of missed the day in class when the teacher explained what a logic statement is.

A Smith, if you are going to try and use logic, why not be consistent? Bi-sexuality is in no way an argument against homosexuality being something that one is born with. Hetereosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex and Bi-sexuals are attracted to both sexes. It's simple. My question was calling into question your understanding of bi-sexuals. Your comment implied that you somehow have some kind of personal understanding of how a bi-sexual feels.

Let me try and bring it down to your level:

You obviously think very highly of your ignorance, but that in no way elevates it beyond the reality of its baseness.

A Smith, if you are going to try and use logic, why not be consistent?

There is nothing inconsistent with my statements and you have really proven now that you dont know what a logic statement is based on how your tried to equate it. Your post then continues by contradicting itself by first stating that "it's simple" and then turning around and acting as if personal emotions, feelings, and experience is suppose to be some sort of trump card, which is a logical fallacy given how those inhibit objectivity, but people seem to buy into none the less.

Obviously you are going to continue to go out of your way to ignore the point, which is dont mistake preference for exclusivity, so lets move on. What about the people who are born liking children, or who can only get off by forcing them self onto someone. Is that a sin? and if so does that not make the "I was born this way" argument lose all credibility? The problem is the argument being used to try and explain the situation creates more problems than it solves.

You obviously think very highly of your ignorance, but that in no way elevates it beyond the reality of its baseness.

lol, just keep digging the hole deeper for yourself. Pray thee, tell me how I am ignorant so that thee might enlighten me from my baseness because on this end all I see is one failure at making an argument after another on your part.

How in the world does the existence of bi-sexuals in any way support your idea that homosexuality is a choice??? Are you trying to say it's because they are attracted to both men and women that they then have a choice between men or women? The choice debate is about whether or not they choose to have attraction to whichever sex or sexes attract them. Just because bi-sexuals are attracted to both sexes does not mean that they have a choice as to whether or not they are attracted to both sexes. You make a complete leap in logic by coming to the conclusion that since bi-sexuals exist there is a choice as to which sex we are attracted to, and that makes no sense whatsoever. I do not see how your argument about mules and horses has anything to do with whether or not homosexuals are born attracted to the same sex. It is completely ignorant, illogical and base to compare homosexuality to the breeding of animals. You want to throw around insults about who skipped logic, but I actually hold a degree from William and Mary with a minor in Philosophy and I definitely understand what logic is. You can't even get past the first semester without extensive training and testing in Logic; as a matter of fact it is the first course that is required before moving on to anything else.

What about the people who are born liking children, or who can only get off by forcing them self onto someone. Is that a sin?

These are not consenting adults of whom you speak here. This argument is about consenting adults. Your examples are typical of those who do not seem to recognize or comprehend this.

Also, you never answered the question about what streets were closed for the Gay March, since your "relatives" were supposedly here.

Your failure continues.

"Obviously you are going to continue to go out of your way to ignore the point, which is dont mistake preference for exclusivity" <= prophesy

You make a complete leap in logic by coming to the conclusion that since bi-sexuals exist there is a choice as to which sex we are attracted to, and that makes no sense whatsoever. I do not see how your argument about mules and horses has anything to do with whether or not homosexuals are born attracted to the same sex. It is completely ignorant, illogical and base to compare homosexuality to the breeding of animals. You want to throw around insults about who skipped logic, but I actually hold a degree from William and Mary with a minor in Philosophy and I definitely understand what logic is. You can't even get past the first semester without extensive training and testing in Logic; as a matter of fact it is the first course that is required before moving on to anything else.

Perhaps you need to get your money back. The idea that you still cant understand the sentence even though I substituted other words to show you how the sentence structure works. I never compared anyone to the breeding of animals. If you cant understand that then I guess you cant understand much of anything. Furthermore, you STILL do not know what a logic statement is based again on how you have tried to equate it.

lets try this again, even more basic for you this time:

The presence of shades of green would greatly argue with the "pure blue or pure yellow" argument.

I await your failure of a reply by telling me that it is completely ignorant, illogical and base to compare homosexuality to the mixing of colors.

These are not consenting adults of whom you speak here. This argument is about consenting adults. Your examples are typical of those who do not seem to recognize or comprehend this.

What you obviously do not recognize or comprehend is that while the act may take two people it takes only one individual to have the "feelings" and the argument is not about the act it is about the origin of the "feelings".

Also, you never answered the question about what streets were closed for the Gay March, since your "relatives" were supposedly here.

I thought I already mentioned how ludicrous this is to bring up. No, I have no plans to call my relatives and ask them what streets were closed. They take the metro anyways. Your lack of mental grasp in other areas also seems to be present here as well. What I was pointing out earlier was how silly it is to try and say I live there, so trust me. While observation is useful for gaining facts, the observation of one person is not a trump card so stop playing like it is one. The idea that anyone would take the word of someone on a site like this over other sources of information is ludicrous. I pointed that out by saying I have my own eyes in the area as well as other empirical information that backs up their subjective observation. Empirical evidence that you have yet to even begin to counter with anything other than, "well I say so"

Clearly you do not know how to properly apply logic. Also, even if your relatives took metro they would know what streets are closed if they really saw the Gay March for themselves. It seems you or your "relatives" are just liars.

and yet another failure, I guess that should be expected by now. It seems "well I say so" is all you have.

It seems lies and pseudo-logic is all you have.

It seems lies and pseudo-logic is all you have.

Lets see you prove that. You see, I actually spelled things out. You are still going off of, well, whats your word for it? Base?

You're so desperate to try and prove that the Gay March wasn't as big as the Teabagger march so you made up some BS about "relatives." LOL. Still waiting for you to prove they were here, but you can't because you made it up. Your so called logic does nothing to prove that homosexuality is a choice. You might be able to use that pseudo-logic on the ignorant company you keep, but it doesn't work on the educated. Bible Thumpers trying to use logic is always good for a laugh.

Your failure continues.

The idea that anyone would take the word of someone on a site like this over other sources of information is ludicrous. I pointed that out by saying I have my own eyes in the area as well as other empirical information that backs up their subjective observation. Empirical evidence that you have yet to even begin to counter with anything other than, "well I say so"

But lets stick to the sinful side of the choice argument. The word Paul uses to describe our affinity towards sin is "slave". That is, we are a slave to sin from birth. As a slave to it there is no meaningful choice to be made to stop from sinning as long as sin is our master and we are slave to it. Hence the need for a new master to free us from our sin because we can not free ourselves. Thus, its not a choice, but that doesnt mean that it is a permanent state.

I hope this allows you to better understand people you do not agree with.

Thump that Bible.

It won't matter once we are a communist country!

Homosexuals have often been denied membership or expelled from communist parties^[13] across the globe and this occurrence continues somewhat today, though to a significantly lesser degree.^{[citation needed]} Notable film director Pier Paolo Pasolini, who directed the controversial Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, a commentary against Fascism and Capitalism, was also expelled from the Communist Party of Italy,^[14] though he kept his Marxist ideology.Currently, none of the five existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.^[17] There are also no anti-discrimination laws in place, but homosexuality is legal in each country.^[18] There has been little debate concerning LGBT rights at the present, but other non-governing communist parties have pledged their support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality

Yea that's it LOL, the right wingers are defending the homosexuals from Obama and the communists.

NO I didn't' say that, just that they were used to get elected; and they finding out that Obama's empty promises aren't coming true. lol

Kinda like all the other people who believed Obama's lies and voted for him.

What is it that he isn't doing for homosexual rights? He just came out and vowed to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, he called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act and also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners. You are the ones that lie about what Obama is doing and you bank on uninformed and ignorant citiziens believing your lies.

Don't take my word for it:

Gays aren't buying Obama's promises

October 11, 2009 - 7:11am White House
Some advocates said they already have heard Obama's promises and now they want a timeline. Cleve Jones, a pioneer activist and creator of the AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Obama delivered a brilliant speech, but added "it lacked the answer to our most pressing question, which is when."

"He repeated his promises that he's made to us before, but he did not indicate when he would accomplish these goals and we've been waiting for a while now," said Jones, national co-chair of a major gay-rights rally scheduled for Sunday on the National Mall.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said he was encouraged to hear Obama's pledge but added "an opportunity was missed tonight." He said his group "was disappointed the president did not lay out a timeline and specifics for repeal."

uuuuum just because he hasn't yet repealed it doesn't make him a liar. You would love for him not to repeal it so you can feel you are right, but it has become clear that Don't Ask Don't Tell will be repealed.

So... Lemme get this straight.

The conservatives don't want to see homosexuals get the same rights as everybody else. See the opposition to same-sex marriages, well, everywhere.

However, they're equally happy to complain that Obama hasn't lived up to his promise to give those same rights to homosexuals.

So... essentially, there's no way Obama can come out ahead with the conservatives on this one.

Rainkiss, that is exactly it. They act like they hav taken up the cause of homosexuals, but as soon as he does anything that benefits their cause the right wingers will decry it. They have no other cause than to oppose Obama. It doesn't matter though because they just make themselves more and more irrelevant to our society.

abolish taxes- isn't that a contradiction for someone who is a pro-democrat, the tax and spend party.

Most people in the military like don't ask, don't tell; and Bill Clinton signed it and said, "Bill Clinton: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” The Gays Fault

Gays do have the same rights as everyone else. They can get civil unions which are the equivalent to a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a women according to most people's conservative values, including our founding fathers and um let me get this straight....Bill Clinton a DEMOCRAT said, "

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

60% of Americans considered themselves conservative

Gays do have the same rights as everyone else. They can get civil unions which are the equivalent to a marriage

Incorrect. No state which has civil unions grants the same rights to those civil unions as to marriage. Not even same-sex couples married in the states in which it is permitted get the same right as heterosexual couples, due to the DOMA. For example, they may be able to file joint state taxes, but must file seperate federal taxes.

Marriage is between a man and a women according to most people's conservative values,

Correction: "Marriage is between a man and a women according to most conservative people's values."

As for Bill Clinton, you might want to get his updated opinion:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/tracey

Incorrect- Wa state offers all the same rights!

The Seattle Times reports that state Senator Ed Murray and Representative Jamie Pedersen are among those sponsoring the legislation. Additions to existing benefits would include the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, the right to wages and benefits when a domestic partner is injured or killed, unemployment and disability insurance benefits, workers' compensation coverage, insurance related rights, adoption, child custody and child support rights, and business succession rights.

Under the legislation, "for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses."

According to Lambda Legal, this would add Washington to the list of 5 states giving same sex partners the benefits and responsibilities associated with marriage under the legal name of either domestic partnership or civil union. The list currently includes California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon and Vermont. More states recognize domestic partnerships, but grant them fewer rights. Massachusetts and Connecticut currently recognize same sex marriage rights.

If it's all about being able to file joint tax returns, why not just push for joint tax returns for civil unions.

Instead of messing with the sacred union of a man and women, Marriage is one the most important pillars of our country. By nearly two-to-one, more Americans oppose (59%) than favor (32%) legalizing gay marriage. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=39#4

Bill Clinton like most Dems will say one thing to one group or day; and say another thing the next day or election. Flip Flop

Incorrect- Wa state offers all the same rights!

Nope, no state can offer "ALL" the same rights, as many benefits are federal.

However, as of mid-2009, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies married, civil unionized and domestic partnershipped same-sex couples approximately 1,100 federal benefits currently reserved as special privileges to opposite-sex married couples. Even though their marriage may be recognized within a couple's state, the federal government considers them to be simply roommates; their children are regarded as illegitimate.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

It's not "just" tax returns.

Instead of messing with the sacred union of a man and women, Marriage is one the most important pillars of our country. By nearly two-to-one, more Americans oppose (59%) than favor (32%) legalizing gay marriage.

Aaah, "sacred union." Never mind. I'm going on vacation in a couple days, not getting into this with somebody who's got "sacred union" in the discussion.

Wrong Change just because I think your attacks against Obama are juvenile and inaccurate does not make me a pro-democrat. The Republicans drove people like me away long ago with their religious fanaticism and their lies of fiscal conservatism. I used to think the Republican party stood for states rights, but they proved under Bush that was all a lie when they went after Medical Marijuana. When given a surplus they just squandered it. And then on top of it all we had to listen to republicans calling those who protested the Iraq war un-american and unpatriotic. Carl Rove and the religious right destroyed the republican party. Just because I don't get behind your ridiculous accusations against Obama does not make me a democrat. People like you only seem to understand our options as A or B. You treat politics like a football game and you look for anything you can to bash the other side, no matter how petty, distorted or inaccurate. Go play your silly games with a child.

Rainkiss-The traditional definition of marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman for the benefit of children has always been a cornerstone of our society. This understanding of marriage predates not only our government, but also all organized religions, and is essentially unchangeable in nature.

abolish taxes- I feel the same way about alot of the things you said, I know the republicans messed up when they had power. But the Dems really are taking us to communism, which is far worse than the republicans ever did. You also got to remember the last 2 years of Bush was controlled by the Dems. I would consider myself an independent as well, but the Ross Perot effect is what gave us Clinton. So yes it is an option A or B, until we have a strong enough third party to compete and not just help the Dems win.

I'm not playing silly games like, calling people who disagree with the Dems names is. I backed up all my claims with facts, believe what you want.

If you want to see how the far left are really the ones distorted and inaccurate.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/10/obama-speech-fact-check/

Rainkiss-The traditional definition of marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman for the benefit of children has always been a cornerstone of our society. This understanding of marriage predates not only our government, but also all organized religions, and is essentially unchangeable in nature.

Unchangable?

Funny, but there are likely posters here on Newsvine that can tell you differently. See, in my mother's lifetime, it was unthinkable for a black man to marry a white woman.

But, hey, I'm going on vacation, so, don't bother responding, not getting into it.

I said essentially unchangeable in nature, except the gay penguins; hence that's why essentially unchangeable. But in nature white tail and black tail(mule deer) do breed together.

But I got to get going, so don't bother with your apples and oranges comparisons; which have no value.

Apparently, WrongChange doesn't realize that just about every species which has sex has homosexual behavior. /shrug

but studies constantly show, fox viewers are the least informed of any news watchers.

But they (the viewers) sure love bragging about their ratings, don't they?

but studies constantly show, fox viewers are the least informed of any news watchers.

Joules, if FOX were a reputable news outlet that would be a stinging indictment.

Think of it. You're the most popular news channel, yet your viewers are the least informed in the nation!

It shows FOX is really doing its job.

Rank, I honestly don't think it's a problem for them. How much do you see Fox correcting reported errors? Or any of their personalities saying that they were wrong? They'd have much more credability in my eyes if they cared for reporting accuracy.

Aww, that's so cute the way you're trying to justify a 'News station' that fought for their right to lie to you.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Source

What would make you think that if these things actually had been WMDs at the time of their discovery that the White House wouldn't have jumped on it?

It was in the article: Maybe Bush cared more about the soldiers then the polls.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk - for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

"What would make you think that if these things actually had been WMDs at the time of their discovery that the White House wouldn't have jumped on it?" Oh, I don't know... maybe it was the way that the WH didn't make a big thing of the 500 tons of yellowcake that was removed from Iraq @ 2006, and brought to the USA for destruction... just doing the job, and ignoring critics.

The WMD link was the biggest vindication that the administration could have had. As far as ignoring critics, why do you think the surge even existed? The Iraq war had massive rotations of leaders on the ground, they definitely didn't ignore the critics.

WrongChange, I've seen that article before, it's a quick assessment whereas the link I produced was later after more evidence. As far as your hypothetical, that doesn't hold water. In the article you cited, it stated that they were unusable as a chemical weapon, and that the administration didn't consider them the WMDs they were looking for. WMDs would have vindicated their efforts, silenced the critics, and been a Republican/Conservative win. It isn't logical to think that they would hide that for national security sake when they found no compulsion to out Valerie Plame. Also, you're making a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, where they didn't exist previous to the Iraqi invasion. Why would they have any more luck finding chemical weapons than we would? The PR gain would not have been marginal, that much I can assure you.

George, the yellow cake you're talking about wasn't weapons grade, and the UN inspectors were aware of it's existence. Also, it wasn't brought to the US for destruction.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

Justin, Here's some more proof for you!!!

But another reason for the media silence may stem from the seemingly undramatic nature of the "finds" Hanson and others have described. The materials that constitute Saddam's chemical-weapons "stockpiles" look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble.

"Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice.

Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:

• A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?
• "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
• New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
• A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
• "Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."
• "Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] -- well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."

In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles -- probably the No Dong -- 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents.

Caches of "commercial and agricultural" chemicals don't match the expectation of "stockpiles" of chemical weapons. But, in fact, that is precisely what they are. "At a very minimum," Hanson tells Insight, "they were storing the precursors to restart a chemical-warfare program very quickly."

Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice. At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters -- with unpleasant results.

Again, this January, Danish forces found 120-millimeter mortar shells filled with a mysterious liquid that initially tested positive for blister agents. But subsequent tests by the United States disputed that finding.

"If it wasn't a chemical agent, what was it?" Hanson asks. "More pesticides? Dish-washing detergent

? From this old soldier's perspective, I gain nothing from putting a liquid in my mortar rounds unless that stuff will do bad things to the enemy."

The discoveries Hanson describes are not dramatic. And that's the problem: Finding real stockpiles in grubby ammo dumps doesn't fit the image the media and the president's critics carefully have fed to the public of what Iraq's weapons ought to look like. A senior administration official who has gone through the intelligence reporting from Iraq as well as the earlier reports from U.N. arms inspectors refers to another well-documented allegation.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

More recent Proof:

"Iraq submitted its initial declaration on 12 March 2009, and has declared two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities," Pfirter said last week.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090427_8248.php

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/

Of note in your first comment, the date of that article is April of 2004. A lot of the material you cite is the work of David Kay, who resigned in January of 2004. The BBC article here states the following:

In an interview with Reuters news agency after his resignation was announced, Mr Kay said he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.

"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

"I think we have found probably 85% of what we're going to find."

The thing being that you're citing the ISG's 2004 report when they had later that year put this out there.

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

This somewhat minimizes the claims of rampant chemical weapons when the group doing the inspecting says this.

As far as your second comment, contained in the same article in the first link:

The U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified partly on the threat posed by the regime's alleged WMD activities. No indications of existing unconventional weapons operations were found after the war (see GSN, March 20). Iraq joined the Chemical Weapons Convention earlier this year.

The declaration contained no surprises, OPCW spokesman Michael Luhan indicated. The production facilities were "put out of commission" by airstrikes during the 1991 conflict, while U.N. personnel afterward secured the chemical munitions in the bunkers, he said.

"These are legacy weapons, remnants," Luhan told Global Security Newswire today. He declined to discuss how many weapons were stored in the bunkers or what materials they contained. The weapons are not believed to be in a usable state.

This very much changes the statement in that post. As far as the second link, we have already covered that.

What he said to reporters the whole time is not the same as he said under oath to congress. It also said that, " The discoveries Hanson describes are not dramatic. And that's the problem: Finding real stockpiles in grubby ammo dumps doesn't fit the image the media and the president's critics carefully have fed to the public of what Iraq's weapons ought to look like."

Kay and Duelfer came to a similar conclusion, telling Congress under oath that Saddam had built new facilities and stockpiled the materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment's notice. At Karbala, U.S. troops stumbled upon 55-gallon drums of pesticides at what appeared to be a very large "agricultural supply" area, Hanson says. Some of the drums were stored in a "camouflaged bunker complex" that was shown to reporters -- with unpleasant results.

But believe what you want.

LOL, Fox and the right wingers are afraid if they give the Gay March too much recognition they will themselves become gay, since they believe that homosexuals are recruited to be gay instead of being born homosexual.

Bottom line protect the impressionable children who are still searching for an identity.

Do not give any air time to people who are clearly confused and misguided about the natural laws of nature.

Fulcrom if you see too much gay I guess you think you might feel compelled to fellate men and take it in the butt. The rest of us that know homosexuality is something you are born with know that you can't catch it from exposure. SO, if seeing homosexuals march makes you feel like being gay, then the truth is you've got some gay already.

a.t.

You must not have any reading comprehension skills, please reread post 4.16

Fulcrum I understand clearly, and if you think that children are going to become gay because they saw a Gay March then you must believe that you could be turned gay by being exposed to homosexuality. If that is the case, then you must be a potential homosexual, and that means that really deep down you have homosexual desires to begin with. As a heterosexual male I know that at no point in my life would I ever have been able to choose to be homosexual because i have no homosexual desires, despite growing up with a few friends who were raised by homosexuals (and none of those friends became gay). We were around gay adults who openly kissed and showed affection just like any heterosexual couple, and never once did I think "hey I want to be gay now." People who think this is the case see themselves as potentially choosing to engage in homosexuality. Gay people cannot turn you into someone who is attracted to the same sex. Either you are or you're not.

Or are you making fun of FOX?

So what are your credentials to make this diagnosis on-line ?

Sounds like you have suppressed a molestation from your friends gay parents, try hypnosis, it may help bring this out, you do know that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals, don't you?

you do know that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do heterosexuals, don't you

TOTAL LIE. Heterosexuals are FAR more likely to be child molestors than homosexuals.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tr7388256l7437xh/

In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. Every one of the perpetrators was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults.

His conclusion? That "the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

In the same year, researcher David Newton reviewed the scientific literature and found no reason to believe that anything other than a "random connection" existed between homosexual orientation and child molestation.

In 1988, renowned sex researcher Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto studied two groups of paid volunteers and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli. He later described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males, thus shifting the focus away from their own very high rates of molestation. Since 98-99% of the population is heterosexual, it is technically correct to say that most molestations are done by heterosexuals. However, statistics indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

Fulcrum, if you think homosexuality is a choice then that just proves that you are suppressing your homosexuality. Of course an ignorant individual such as yourself would assume that a homosexual parent is one that molests their children and their children's friends. That is what makes you a bigot. I am sure my friends' gay parents were and are much better parents than you could ever be. They, for one, will not be passing on bigotry to their children. It is clear that people like you who loath and bash homosexuals are just acting out against something that they loath within themselves. You and Tim Haggard would make great bedfellows.

Hm... actual scientific study vs. link from a gay-bashing blog. You decide.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

My study is a double-blind peer-reviewed study from two groups of equal representation. Yours is a gaybashing blog that is lying with anecdotes.

abolish taxes - Fox and the right wingers are afraid if they give the Gay March too much recognition they will themselves become gay

I'm just curious here....

Is there any rational basis for posting such transparent character attacks? Is is just to toss chum into the waters to keep the feeding frenzy going?

When you use the word 'gay', I presume you mean homosexual and are not actually worried about people being joyful and happy by participating and watching a parade

Has it really never occurred to you that FOX is a major business with tens of thousands of employees who represent the full spectrum of races and political beliefs, gender choices and sexual orientation?

Do you really mean that Blacks who work for FOX are race-baiters and that homosexual who work there are truly afraid they will be contaminated by watching a parade of primarily homosexual activists?

Clearly, you and others who display such prejudice and bias are willingly discriminating against the diversity and contributions made by those whom you oppose on ideological grounds

abolish taxes - Fulcrum, if you think homosexuality is a choice then that just proves that you are suppressing your homosexuality.

The choice is whether or not to act on the inclination

Many heterosexual males are attracted to females, but make a conscious choice, which is available to all, not to act on it. There are many who make a choice not to engage in sexual relations despite the attraction and inclination to do so.

Many choose to wait until they are married, many choose to resist because they are attracted to a married female or relative

The facts are clear and indisputable. Engaging in any sexual activity other than rape is a choice

Claiming homosexual attraction makes a person less capable of acting in a responsible manner and unable to make and act on that choice is insulting

There is no reason that they shouldn't choose to act on their homosexual attraction. Just because you follow some religion that says it is wrong doesn't make it so. Sorry buddy. Religion is your personal choice, now leave those with homosexual attractions to their own choice.