Are you really so willfully obtuse as to not realize that the Bible saying 2 + 2 = 5 presents a bit of a problem for the 'Bible as Literal Truth' brigade? If you insist 'well that passage shouldn't be taken literally' then you have to admit the same can apply for any other passage in the Bible.
And there goes the 'Literal Truth' crap out the window...as long as you aren't a dishonest hack, of course.
This is what you choose to take issue with against biblical literalists? That's a tiny bit myopic, isn't it? Perhaps we could get a bit of a bigger picture.
What better to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion of 'the Bible as literal truth' than something anyone can falsify in a matter of seconds with a shoelace and a round object? And obviously, if that passage can't be taken as Literal Truth, then no passage should be taken as Literal Truth. Obviously.
Seriously, people are being a wee bit willfully obtuse here.
That's quite the word salad to dodge a simple point: that the Bible lays out Pi in a clear cut (but false) fashion that presents a bit of a problem for those who insist that the book is the Literal Gospel Truth.
Other than the massacres, forced starvation, theft of land and possessions, treated as chattel...just because the U.S. government didn't employ gas chambers and ovens doesn't mean that they didn't perpetuate genocide on multiple native tribes.
And of course, what do we call forced migrations nowadays? "Ethnic cleansing". What do you think the Trail of Tears and pushing natives onto reservations was all about?
Just they fact it was edited in the first place before release is the point moron.
Then we're back to every nightly and cable news show being unfair because they also edit footage to cut to the action. Moron.
Look, this isn't that hard. Really. The Brietbart clips of the ACORN takedown were beyond unfair because they spliced in footage of a "pimp and his hooker" who weren't even there. The media orgy over the "Dean Scream" was unfair, because while the recording was funny, if you played the audio from the viewpoint of the audience you never heard it, as it was taken from noise-canceling microphones - a fact left out of the storyline. Or how Rev. Wright and Shirley Sherrod were treated unfairly by having all the context left out of the soundbytes played on TV.
So where, AGAIN, EXACTLY, was Wikileaks unfair to the U.S. armed forces?
What footage was spliced in from another site? Answer: none.
What context was removed from the "Collateral Murder" video? Did one of the now-dead reporters say, fire off a couple shots at the attack helicopter, inviting a retaliation? Answer: no.
You don't have a beef, you have irrelevant, situational nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
What gave him the right to do any thing to manage exclusivity? Wikileaks stated purpose was to release information to the public and keep the source from being identified. Who are they to determine who gets to see what and when they get to see it? That sounds pretty much like any other news organization to me. You know the king of new organizations who slant the information to support their editorial line. In short Assange is a fraud who duped a bunch of idiots into believing his interpretation of the data instead of making up their own minds by looking at the raw data.
More nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking - with a side order of self-contradiction to boot. You compare Wikileaks for acting like a media organization and them complain at them for acting like a media organization? Okaaaaay.
As for why making news exclusive to certain media outlets, this has already been explained ad nausiem, and no doubt you've seen it already. Wikileaks tried the "release everything, all at once" method and the scoops were ignored by the media. If something was commonly available, it had no value. So how to artificially create value? Why, by releasing the information to select media outlets first, like the New York Times. By having a "valuable" piece of news, the Times would actually print it.
Now, one last time: just how, exactly was the "Collateral Murder" video unfair to the U.S. Military in either events or context? Where is your there there?
You first. The "War on Poverty" did end generational medical debt. It did keep the poor and the elderly from dying on the streets. It did make the difference in making the poorest parts of the country indistinguishable from third world nations.
This notion that all poverty had to be forever eliminated from the United States is one from your mouth, not Johnson's.
he banks that defrauded the rest of the financial system are just as culpable as the idiots who thought their job at Wal Mart gave them the right to have a house that cost $500k. There wasn't a one way "evil banks" bullshit.
You bullshit. Banks committed massive fraud from the beginning to the end of the loan process, and knew it. Modifying applications and statements of income to get applicants qualified for liar loans that the banks knew the borrowers could never repay. Then they submitted false documents in foreclosure proceedings - which is either perjury, fraud, or both.
And did you notice the blatant conflict between your storylines? On one hand you say the War on Poverty didn't accomplish anything, then on the other you blame the poor for the financial crisis. If that's the case, why didn't they blow up the worldwide economy in 1970? 1980? 1990? 2000? Why is it that a crisis only happened after the banks had all meaningful oversight removed?
As for the rest of your crusade, consider this. How did the United States survive before social programs? Pretty damned well, if you'd bother to notice. The problem is, people weren't accustomed to being in bondage to a system that perpetuates generational poverty... they worked hard, paid their bills, and didn't think they were entitled to anything they didn't earn by the sweat of their brow.
They ALL survived quite well and the nation prospered. So how did the Great Society and New Deal do anything positive? Their negatives FAR outweigh their positives, and if you would spare us the bleeding heart revisionism, you'd see that.
No, seriously, spare us the elitism. Plenty of 3rd world countries have been around for decades or even centuries with widespread poverty - does that mean that they were doing just fine? No, it meant the majority of the populace was miserable with only a tiny minority enjoying the fruits of society.
You know, just like the U.S. before the end of World War II. Why don't you try talking to some elderly sharecroppers - black or white - to find out just what kind of a rosy existence it is to work 80+ hours of backbreaking work a week for little pay.
They ALL survived quite well and the nation prospered. So how did the Great Society and New Deal do anything positive? Their negatives FAR outweigh their positives, and if you would spare us the bleeding heart revisionism, you'd see that.
No. SERIOUSLY. Spare us the elitism. The Great Society and New Deal are what gives the middle and working classes decent living conditions and economic mobility. Your going Galt bullshit would return the U.S. to an aristocracy based on wealth, where the vast majority of Americans work from paycheck to paycheck while a tiny class is permanently exempt from work because their last name is Walton.
No. Pepsi's and Budweiser's marketing is par for the course within their market segments ("our products are cold and refreshing, and you will be happy if you drink them").
So the "branding responsibility" game ends if other companies make similar ads? Looks like Samsung has completely let Apple off the hook then - emo types and independent hipsters as far as the eye can see in their ads.
In contrast, think of the image that Apple presents of itself in its marketing. They portray and call themselves "different" from any other computer/electronics company. They sell themselves as a symbol of freedom and breaking away from the old establishment.
Which translates to support for better working conditions....how, exactly? Makes as much sense as "Cool and Refreshing"/Global Warming.
In short, Apple tries really hard to show themselves as different (specifically better in terms that would appeal to environmentally and socially conscious consumers) from any other company in their market segments.
As opposed to...every other commercial company on the planet, no matter what the product? Making your product seem different from everyone else is pretty much Branding 101.
Any more reasons why 100% of the blame should be focused on 10% of the problem?
So far you had only displayed your failure in elementary logic, now you display failure in reading comprehension. Great going.
Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for your projection? Apple's supposed "unfairness" to developers is only the entire point of this entire thread:
Well apart from the fact that they're fully at the mercy of Apple's whims and are destroying their own career prospects and the future of user choice by producing apps for a walled garden, they aren't making much money.
My understanding is apple takes a 30% cut of sales through the app store. if they cannot make money on what is effectively storage and credit card processing @ 30% they should hire dropbox.
That's funny, my Sensation was free. It's pretty hard these days to get a crappy Android phone.
That's funny, so are plenty of other smartphones with a heavily subsidized contract - including some iPhones. But you're dodging the point - who could have seen that coming - that Android covers the "cheap" end of market as well as the high end - and people like cheap phones.
None of which translates to a mass movement to Android because it has a swappable battery. But you knew that already, too.
Whoopee, a whopping 2mm.
Whoopee, nearly a 20% difference in thickness. I know your head is planted deep, but even you can see that's not "just as thin".
Apple is successful because they redefine markets with innovative products
Fixed that for you. If your sophist Haterade-based storyline was accurate, the iPod and iPhone would have gone down the toilet the way Palm did, as competitors to both products emerged a long time ago that perform similar functions at similar (or lesser) prices.
So pull your head out already - can even go fuck yourself in the process, bonus! Jobs would have been the first one to tell you go to right ahead and buy whatever it is you want if you don't like Apple products. So stop being a Whiny Assed Titty Bitch and pretending that your personal preferences are Apple's design flaws.
The incentive to keep your nose clean is to be out of prison.
Criminals expect to get away with committing crimes - it's why they're criminals in the first place. It's same base calculation you make when you exceed the speed limit or don't come to a full stop at a stop sign - you don't think you'll be caught by the man - just to a different degree.
Then there's the fact that people currently behaving themselves don't like being treated as subhuman. Say your wife finds out that you cheated on one of your girlfriends in high school - and spends the next 10 years acting as if you are going behind her back, no matter that you've been faithful to her. Would that make you more or less likely to say, "fuck it - as long as I'm going to be treated as a guilty person, I might as well be guilty" and bang your secretary?
The threat of going back to prison is the stick. Rehabilitation and the chance at resuming a normal life is the carrot.
Besides, convicts released from prison have already served their time. They are already going to pay lifelong consequences for their actions. If you declared bankruptcy in 2000, that's been off your record for a couple of years. If you got a felony conviction for writing bad checks in the same year, that will be with you for the rest of your life.
In a country where major decisions (say, who is President) are made on incredibly thin margins (say, a couple hundred votes in one county), it would be irresponsible to allow criminals to overwhelm those margins.
But where is the "there there"? Felons, even if they somehow formed a monolithic voting block, would do....what?
Looks like the Android fanboys had one extra mod point to spare, as you got hit with a Flamebait as well. No big whoop - this is like the third Slashdot story were I've noticed we've been in agreement in the last couple days, so you have a new Slasdot 'fan'.:)
You bullshit. Again. 11.3 mm (HTC) vs 9.3 mm (iPhone).
And Android has surpassed iOS according to the latest stats, so apparently consumers do give a shit about these things.
Speaking of morons, I suppose you could see it that way if you were a dishonest one. Androids have been available on more networks and at more price points from many more manufacturers than the iPhone, which will of course lead to increased marketshare, but for some reason those facts didn't make it into your storyline. A $50 POS special might run the Android operating system, but it's not remotely in the same class as the Sensation or the 4GS. And again, if any signifigant portion of consumers actually insisted on a swappable battery, then the iPod would have been a quaint fad that passed 8 years ago.
You're wrong, and always have been wrong. Deal with it, bitch.
So does that mean that gun control has at time been a "conservative" goal because gun control laws have at times been backed by Republicans?
Also - if Democrat != liberal, then what's the point of having a Democratic party?
To present voters with the illusion of choice. To ensure that when a "vote the bums out" election occurs, that voters have a choice between Corporate Whore Warmonger A and Corporate Whore Warmonger B. To keep the rubes distracted with TV debates over abortion rights to fight the shared agenda of both parties: endless war, shredding the Constitution, and selling out the vast majority of Americans to make the rich richer.
No True Scottsman. Guessing you might be a financial conservative....but freaking out over something remotely pornographic (in print) is the epitome of social conservatism.
The problem is people who are simply pants on head retarded. They come in so-called progressive flavors too.
"So called" indeed. When Tipper Gore was having the vapors over rap music, she wasn't being "progressive", she was being....socially conservative.
So a parent whining about "pornography" - an inherently conservative position - is the fault of the left? And there is one thing that helps to stop stupid crap like this in it's tracks: teacher's unions.
I wonder how conservatives maintain the disconnect between complaining over nontroversies like Ender's Gate threatening a teacher AND then with a straight face claim that our schools will magically improve when we kill off the last teacher's union.
When it comes to propping up your business model with government regulation, the publishers have nothing on car dealerships.
And if there were literally hundreds to thousands of scientific journals in nearly every state in the union, like car dealerships, that would be a great analogy.
Those old arguments Apple had about having to make cases not-easily-openable to be thin are bullshit
The HTC is 20% thicker, heavier, and 50% larger by volume. Now, you were saying something about being full of bullshit? You want a device with a swappable battery and flash card slot - go right ahead and fucking buy one, no one's holding a gun to your head. But the vast majority of consumers simply do not give a shit about either of those things, as proven by the 10 year dominance of the iPod. Which has never had a swappable battery or card slot.
Just buy what you want and stop being a WATB. It's like having to explain to your idiot fundie neighbor that his remote comes with an "off" button and that TV's have come with parental controls for 20 years.
Then you're as divorced from reality as he is. The network that has Morning Joe on for three hours and fired their top-rated hosts when they spend too much time challenging conservative power.
As a liberal
Doubt it. You want a polar opposite to Fox, try Korean Central Television. Trying to float MSNBC as an example is embarrassing, even as farce.
MSNBC makes the old Soviet News service TASS look right wing. MSNBC is by far the most liberal of all American news broadcasters.
Then you should schedule an appointment with a proctologist in North Korea at the earliest opportunity. Once he's done removing your head from your ass, you can take a look around and see what left wing really looks like.
MSNBC, the network that ha the right wing Joe Scarborough on for three hours every morning. MSNBC, the network that forces out their top-rated hosts when they spend too much time questioning the powerful (first Donahue, then Olbermann).
Only Obamabots who defend their Dear Leader in the same way as the dead-end Bush 20%ers did through all of his fuckups. Not all liberals have surrendered their stances against war and unitary executive action they held in 2008 just because it's a guy from "their team" doing it now.
Instead of holding the media to a higher standard, posters have digressed into "it's not as bad as Fox News"-style argument.
Um....because they aren't remotely close to being as bad as Fox News? When was the last time Fox aired an hour long correction to one of their previous programs?
"A single letter falsified"...don't you think thats minimizing a bit?
Nope. CBS did verify the memos in question - for the accuracy of their content.
If the physical memos were forged - and they never have been proven to have been forged - someone forged the truth about Bush's service (or lack thereof).
Not to mention the fact that this was obviously an argument of convieience brought to bear on Rather and the Guard story and only on Rather and the Guard story. How many journalists at how many networks/publications were fired for repeating the (false) meme about Gore "inventing the internet"? Aside from Comedy Central, how many people raked Fox News over the coals for using footage of an older Glenn Beck rally to puff up his numbers at a newer rally?
My take on the Fox News court case was that they were defending themselves from a baseless lawsuit.
Define "baseless". Two reporters were fired after they went after Monsanto, who had paid for ads to run on Fox. Monsanto complains, reporters got fired. Fox News (successfully) claimed in court that their wrongful termination suit was "baseless" because media outlets like Fox News have no obligation to tell the truth.
CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times are all media outlets that serve liberals every bit as much as Fox News serves the interests of conservatives.
Yes, nevermind David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Nancy Grace, etc etc. That wonderful conservative math, where huge numbers of hosts and corporatist memes pushed by management simply don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you really so willfully obtuse as to not realize that the Bible saying 2 + 2 = 5 presents a bit of a problem for the 'Bible as Literal Truth' brigade? If you insist 'well that passage shouldn't be taken literally' then you have to admit the same can apply for any other passage in the Bible.
And there goes the 'Literal Truth' crap out the window...as long as you aren't a dishonest hack, of course.
What better to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion of 'the Bible as literal truth' than something anyone can falsify in a matter of seconds with a shoelace and a round object? And obviously, if that passage can't be taken as Literal Truth, then no passage should be taken as Literal Truth. Obviously.
Seriously, people are being a wee bit willfully obtuse here.
That's quite the word salad to dodge a simple point: that the Bible lays out Pi in a clear cut (but false) fashion that presents a bit of a problem for those who insist that the book is the Literal Gospel Truth.
Other than the massacres, forced starvation, theft of land and possessions, treated as chattel...just because the U.S. government didn't employ gas chambers and ovens doesn't mean that they didn't perpetuate genocide on multiple native tribes.
And of course, what do we call forced migrations nowadays? "Ethnic cleansing". What do you think the Trail of Tears and pushing natives onto reservations was all about?
Then we're back to every nightly and cable news show being unfair because they also edit footage to cut to the action. Moron.
Look, this isn't that hard. Really. The Brietbart clips of the ACORN takedown were beyond unfair because they spliced in footage of a "pimp and his hooker" who weren't even there. The media orgy over the "Dean Scream" was unfair, because while the recording was funny, if you played the audio from the viewpoint of the audience you never heard it, as it was taken from noise-canceling microphones - a fact left out of the storyline. Or how Rev. Wright and Shirley Sherrod were treated unfairly by having all the context left out of the soundbytes played on TV.
So where, AGAIN, EXACTLY , was Wikileaks unfair to the U.S. armed forces?
What footage was spliced in from another site? Answer: none.
What context was removed from the "Collateral Murder" video? Did one of the now-dead reporters say, fire off a couple shots at the attack helicopter, inviting a retaliation? Answer: no.
You don't have a beef, you have irrelevant, situational nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.
More nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking - with a side order of self-contradiction to boot. You compare Wikileaks for acting like a media organization and them complain at them for acting like a media organization? Okaaaaay.
As for why making news exclusive to certain media outlets, this has already been explained ad nausiem, and no doubt you've seen it already. Wikileaks tried the "release everything, all at once" method and the scoops were ignored by the media. If something was commonly available, it had no value. So how to artificially create value? Why, by releasing the information to select media outlets first, like the New York Times. By having a "valuable" piece of news, the Times would actually print it.
Now, one last time: just how, exactly was the "Collateral Murder" video unfair to the U.S. Military in either events or context? Where is your there there?
You first. The "War on Poverty" did end generational medical debt. It did keep the poor and the elderly from dying on the streets. It did make the difference in making the poorest parts of the country indistinguishable from third world nations.
This notion that all poverty had to be forever eliminated from the United States is one from your mouth, not Johnson's.
You bullshit. Banks committed massive fraud from the beginning to the end of the loan process, and knew it. Modifying applications and statements of income to get applicants qualified for liar loans that the banks knew the borrowers could never repay. Then they submitted false documents in foreclosure proceedings - which is either perjury, fraud, or both.
And did you notice the blatant conflict between your storylines? On one hand you say the War on Poverty didn't accomplish anything, then on the other you blame the poor for the financial crisis. If that's the case, why didn't they blow up the worldwide economy in 1970? 1980? 1990? 2000? Why is it that a crisis only happened after the banks had all meaningful oversight removed?
No, seriously, spare us the elitism. Plenty of 3rd world countries have been around for decades or even centuries with widespread poverty - does that mean that they were doing just fine? No, it meant the majority of the populace was miserable with only a tiny minority enjoying the fruits of society.
You know, just like the U.S. before the end of World War II. Why don't you try talking to some elderly sharecroppers - black or white - to find out just what kind of a rosy existence it is to work 80+ hours of backbreaking work a week for little pay.
No. SERIOUSLY. Spare us the elitism. The Great Society and New Deal are what gives the middle and working classes decent living conditions and economic mobility. Your going Galt bullshit would return the U.S. to an aristocracy based on wealth, where the vast majority of Americans work from paycheck to paycheck while a tiny class is permanently exempt from work because their last name is Walton.
Fuck. That. Shit.
So the "branding responsibility" game ends if other companies make similar ads? Looks like Samsung has completely let Apple off the hook then - emo types and independent hipsters as far as the eye can see in their ads.
Which translates to support for better working conditions....how, exactly? Makes as much sense as "Cool and Refreshing"/Global Warming.
As opposed to...every other commercial company on the planet, no matter what the product? Making your product seem different from everyone else is pretty much Branding 101.
Any more reasons why 100% of the blame should be focused on 10% of the problem?
Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for your projection? Apple's supposed "unfairness" to developers is only the entire point of this entire thread:
That's funny, so are plenty of other smartphones with a heavily subsidized contract - including some iPhones. But you're dodging the point - who could have seen that coming - that Android covers the "cheap" end of market as well as the high end - and people like cheap phones.
None of which translates to a mass movement to Android because it has a swappable battery. But you knew that already, too.
Whoopee, nearly a 20% difference in thickness. I know your head is planted deep, but even you can see that's not "just as thin".
Fixed that for you. If your sophist Haterade-based storyline was accurate, the iPod and iPhone would have gone down the toilet the way Palm did, as competitors to both products emerged a long time ago that perform similar functions at similar (or lesser) prices.
So pull your head out already - can even go fuck yourself in the process, bonus! Jobs would have been the first one to tell you go to right ahead and buy whatever it is you want if you don't like Apple products. So stop being a Whiny Assed Titty Bitch and pretending that your personal preferences are Apple's design flaws.
Criminals expect to get away with committing crimes - it's why they're criminals in the first place. It's same base calculation you make when you exceed the speed limit or don't come to a full stop at a stop sign - you don't think you'll be caught by the man - just to a different degree.
Then there's the fact that people currently behaving themselves don't like being treated as subhuman. Say your wife finds out that you cheated on one of your girlfriends in high school - and spends the next 10 years acting as if you are going behind her back, no matter that you've been faithful to her. Would that make you more or less likely to say, "fuck it - as long as I'm going to be treated as a guilty person, I might as well be guilty" and bang your secretary?
The threat of going back to prison is the stick. Rehabilitation and the chance at resuming a normal life is the carrot.
Besides, convicts released from prison have already served their time. They are already going to pay lifelong consequences for their actions. If you declared bankruptcy in 2000, that's been off your record for a couple of years. If you got a felony conviction for writing bad checks in the same year, that will be with you for the rest of your life.
But where is the "there there"? Felons, even if they somehow formed a monolithic voting block, would do....what?
Looks like the Android fanboys had one extra mod point to spare, as you got hit with a Flamebait as well. No big whoop - this is like the third Slashdot story were I've noticed we've been in agreement in the last couple days, so you have a new Slasdot 'fan'. :)
You bullshit. Again. 11.3 mm (HTC) vs 9.3 mm (iPhone).
Speaking of morons, I suppose you could see it that way if you were a dishonest one. Androids have been available on more networks and at more price points from many more manufacturers than the iPhone, which will of course lead to increased marketshare, but for some reason those facts didn't make it into your storyline. A $50 POS special might run the Android operating system, but it's not remotely in the same class as the Sensation or the 4GS. And again, if any signifigant portion of consumers actually insisted on a swappable battery, then the iPod would have been a quaint fad that passed 8 years ago.
You're wrong, and always have been wrong. Deal with it, bitch.
So does that mean that gun control has at time been a "conservative" goal because gun control laws have at times been backed by Republicans?
To present voters with the illusion of choice. To ensure that when a "vote the bums out" election occurs, that voters have a choice between Corporate Whore Warmonger A and Corporate Whore Warmonger B. To keep the rubes distracted with TV debates over abortion rights to fight the shared agenda of both parties: endless war, shredding the Constitution, and selling out the vast majority of Americans to make the rich richer.
No True Scottsman. Guessing you might be a financial conservative....but freaking out over something remotely pornographic (in print) is the epitome of social conservatism.
"So called" indeed. When Tipper Gore was having the vapors over rap music, she wasn't being "progressive", she was being....socially conservative.
So a parent whining about "pornography" - an inherently conservative position - is the fault of the left? And there is one thing that helps to stop stupid crap like this in it's tracks: teacher's unions.
I wonder how conservatives maintain the disconnect between complaining over nontroversies like Ender's Gate threatening a teacher AND then with a straight face claim that our schools will magically improve when we kill off the last teacher's union.
And if there were literally hundreds to thousands of scientific journals in nearly every state in the union, like car dealerships, that would be a great analogy.
The HTC is 20% thicker, heavier, and 50% larger by volume. Now, you were saying something about being full of bullshit? You want a device with a swappable battery and flash card slot - go right ahead and fucking buy one, no one's holding a gun to your head. But the vast majority of consumers simply do not give a shit about either of those things, as proven by the 10 year dominance of the iPod. Which has never had a swappable battery or card slot.
Just buy what you want and stop being a WATB. It's like having to explain to your idiot fundie neighbor that his remote comes with an "off" button and that TV's have come with parental controls for 20 years.
Then you're as divorced from reality as he is. The network that has Morning Joe on for three hours and fired their top-rated hosts when they spend too much time challenging conservative power.
Doubt it. You want a polar opposite to Fox, try Korean Central Television. Trying to float MSNBC as an example is embarrassing, even as farce.
Then you should schedule an appointment with a proctologist in North Korea at the earliest opportunity. Once he's done removing your head from your ass, you can take a look around and see what left wing really looks like.
MSNBC, the network that ha the right wing Joe Scarborough on for three hours every morning. MSNBC, the network that forces out their top-rated hosts when they spend too much time questioning the powerful (first Donahue, then Olbermann).
Only Obamabots who defend their Dear Leader in the same way as the dead-end Bush 20%ers did through all of his fuckups. Not all liberals have surrendered their stances against war and unitary executive action they held in 2008 just because it's a guy from "their team" doing it now.
Um....because they aren't remotely close to being as bad as Fox News? When was the last time Fox aired an hour long correction to one of their previous programs?
Nope. CBS did verify the memos in question - for the accuracy of their content.
If the physical memos were forged - and they never have been proven to have been forged - someone forged the truth about Bush's service (or lack thereof).
Not to mention the fact that this was obviously an argument of convieience brought to bear on Rather and the Guard story and only on Rather and the Guard story. How many journalists at how many networks/publications were fired for repeating the (false) meme about Gore "inventing the internet"? Aside from Comedy Central, how many people raked Fox News over the coals for using footage of an older Glenn Beck rally to puff up his numbers at a newer rally?
Define "baseless". Two reporters were fired after they went after Monsanto, who had paid for ads to run on Fox. Monsanto complains, reporters got fired. Fox News (successfully) claimed in court that their wrongful termination suit was "baseless" because media outlets like Fox News have no obligation to tell the truth.
Yes, nevermind David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Nancy Grace, etc etc. That wonderful conservative math, where huge numbers of hosts and corporatist memes pushed by management simply don't exist.
Very clearly more Americans should take vacations to North Korea so they can see what "very left-wing" actually looks like.