Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Sure - because the liberal blogs define it that way.
Note that the article that started this all simply defined it as a school, noting that SOME were radical.

Oh right, right....I knew the "liberals" would be to blame. 

You're being dishonest about the text of the original story, as well.  It defined it not simply as a "school," but a "muslim seminary," and furthermore it intimated that it was probably radicial by american standards, noting that "the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims."

The word "SOME" doesn't appear in the article at all.  Furthermore....

Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it. The sources said the opponents are searching for evidence that Mr. Obama is still a Muslim or has ties to Islam.

That is far from claiming that he went to a "school" of which "SOME" are radical.

(special thanks to oatmeal for hosting this beauty, and to whomever created this timeless classic)

I'll take any excuse I can get to use it.

But everybody does it !

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Sure - because the liberal blogs define it that way.
Note that the article that started this all simply defined it as a school, noting that SOME were radical.

Oh right, right....I knew the "liberals" would be to blame.

I'm willing to bet that > 80% of the people who now know (or think they know) what a madrassa is had no clue what it was before the story broke.

The original article had the definition incorrect, stating that it was an islamic religious school - when it isn't necessarily. They did not however define it as radical, and neither did fox news. That definition came from all the blogs and news sites that wanted to incorrectly accuse Fox of saying that Obama attended a radical religious school.

Last edited by resedit (2008-01-15 10:53 pm)

Hank Rearden wrote:

user wrote:

...but it simply does not apply to this thread.

I'm not sure what DOES apply to this thread anymore.

Something about Fox?

resedit wrote:

I'm willing to bet that > 80% of the people who now know (or think they know) what a madrassa is had no clue what it was before the story broke.

I'm not at all surprised that you would so out-of-touch as to believe that.

The original article had the definition incorrect, stating that it was an islamic religious school - when it isn't necessarily. They did not however define it as radical, and neither did fox news.

The article said that "most" were whahabi....and further intimated that some 'source' believed Obama's school was, as well.  I find it simply astounding that someone could read that article and take away from it that it did nothing but say "some" are radical and it was simply unknown as to whether or not this particular school was radical.

As for FOX News viewers, "I'm willing to bet" that suggesting someone went to an "Islamic seminary" is quite damning enough. 

That definition came from all the blogs and news sites that wanted to incorrectly accuse Fox of saying that Obama attended a radical religious school.

Sorry, you never demonstrated that.  The term "radical" has been used by the media, and it was used in a summary of the events surrounding the media coverage.  Yet again in this thread, you've made several sweeping claims but have utterly failed to substantiate any of them.  You have failed to show any false attacks against FOX that I or others have relied upon, and the only "hate" that you linked to in this thread was on a conservative website (Free Republic).

resedit wrote:

It says they don't know the school he went to was espousing Wahhabism but that their sources believed it to be the case.

Right....their fake, bullsmurf source.  But hey, it looks like they've picked up a new adherent thanks to this thread.  Mission accomplished!

This has all grown terribly boring.  If you don't bring some substantive evidence to the table in your next post, I'm finished dealing with you here.

resedit wrote:

Fox is given a bad rap because of spin, and when you believe the spin (as many have in this case), your opinion is no longer based upon fact.

No, Fox News rightly is given a bad reputation because they lie, mislead, distort, and are dishonest.

resedit wrote:

And I've also shown that several media sites in accusing fox, including the one you did your research on, incorrectly made the claim that fox said it was radical islam - or incorrectly defined Madrassa in a way DIFFERENTLY than the original article (or fox) to make it appear to the reader that fox news claimed it was radical.

You are having serious reading comprehension issues.

The original article cited a "source" that claimed Obama went to a "madrassa" and also noted that the source believed that it taught whahabi (read: a 'radical' madrassa).  The article very clearly posited that the Hillary camp believed and intended to prove that Obama went to a fundamentalist madrassa....certainly "radical" by American standards.
 
The page you linked to at Media Matters wasn't about FOX, but involved the subsequent reporting of the story throughout the media.  In fact, the use of the term "radical" in the summary at the top of the page (describing a question asked of Obama on CNN) was entirely appropriate because the question asked on CNN actually included the word "radical."

The reasoning powers required to process and comprehend what's going on here are not exceptional, but you simply cannot seem to get a handle on it.

Is it any wonder that past polling has demonstrated that those who rely on FOX news are more likely to be misinformed about simple facts regarding world events than those that tune in elsewhere? 

You've brought nothing more to the table (except again suggesting that you actually buy both the story regarding the Clinton camp and the story regarding Obama's schooling, despite the fact that proof of neither exist). 

So as promised, I'm done here.

Res, I'm worried you might hurt your back.