I just needed a place to come and vent a little... because the whole Syria thing is just something else for people to personally attack each other with, and it just gets on my nerves.

I've gotten in a few debates on the Book of Faces and have immediately regretted it each time... why is it no one can seem to have an intelligent conversation anymore without insulting the other person for not agreeing with them?

I do support the Syria move, and I hope it's passed.... but man oh man am I tired of dealing with the world of social media over every event that happens in the world... I can see why more people continue to remove their internet presence. It's exhausting.

Quick response - rarely. People buy into absolutes and assumptions far too much. They are more worried about being "more correct" than you rather than exchanging ideas. I find that too many people simply read a headline or something a talking head says and believe that to be factual evidence. They end up defending things they don't even believe in for the sake of seeming superior to you.

I'm not really in favor of the Syria action because I think the time to act has come and passed. There is too much confusion over who the rebels are and what affect it will have on America. Do we go after every dictator or group that slaughters innocent people?

Had Obama approached Congress earlier in the year to preemptively be granted authority it might work better. As Dennis Miller recently said, we must be the only country that sends a Save the Date card prior to a bombing.

The real problem is people forming opinions without complete information because the media only tells part of the story.

The media is telling us certain things, like Syria used chemical weapons on its own citizens, which is a violation of international law. So now based on that information some support bombing Syria. Seems reasonable given the circumstances and information provided.

What the media doesn't mention is that the rebel groups in Syria are partially made up of Al Qaeda affiliates. There are also conflicting reports about the use of chemical weapons.

So should we go drop some bombs on Syria because of their alleged violation of international law and possibly empower terrorists that want to destroy us in the process?

Would these people support bombing Syria and helping topple the government if they knew the new government would be a hardline Muslim government partially run by the same groups that want to destroy us?

Look at what has happened when we help topple governments in the Middle East. We supported regime change in Egypt and a dictator was replaced by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Al Qaeda was created out of. Now Egypt is in civil war again because that Muslim Brotherhood leader was more worried about implementing Sharia law than fixing Egypt's economy. And in Lybia, we helped topple Qaddafi, but once again wound up helping Al Qaeda affiliates in the process.

The awesome thing about social media is that you can choose to not participate in it.

I hardly check facebook because of all the ignorant comments people post.

During campaign season last year I unfollowed probably 60% of my "friends" due to ignorant, arrogant and snarky comments.

Political comments on any social media site are annoying and show how poorly informed people truly are.

Absolutely. And it sure doesn't help that our "news" agencies like FoxNews and MSNBC encourage and brainwash with their ideologically driven propeganda.

Why limit it to Fox and MSNBC? CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc have been doing it for decades...

Fox and MSNBC are just more upfront about it.

Fox is BY FAR more extreme about their partisanship. I have never actually watched MSNBC but their reputation is that they are in the same league as Fox.

But remember...."Fair and Balanced" LOL!

The awesome thing about social media is that you can choose to not participate in it.

Yep, you won't find me on fakebook. A self promoting website of what people portray themselves as when in real life, they are nothing like that. WHat a joke. The media is supposed to be the 3rd arm of the gov't, but they have become platforms for certain agendas and the sheeple willingly follow.

You call it extreme, I call it upfront. I'd rather know what I am getting than have it delivered to me in a subtle manner. That's what the major networks and CNN do. That is far more nefarious than being open and upfront about it.

Call it what you want. Just don't call it "fair and balanced" and don't call it journalism.
It is none of those things.

There is very little journalism, period, in our society these days.

Like I said, at least Fox and MSNBC are upfront about it. The other networks are full of progressives and pretend to be objective sources of information.

They're not.

Fox is BY FAR more extreme about their partisanship

To answer the thread's question, no.

lol excellent post.

Actually the first half hour of Brett Baier is fairly straightforward reporting on events that happened that day. When he brings in the opinion panel it shifts, however...

I'm quite certain Andrea Mitchell was busted for editing tape on Mitt Romney for NBC News with the intent to distort a story and make him look dumb. Wouldn't that make Fox News more accurate journalism than NBC? They may bring a different perspective but at least it is authentic.

All of the networks have "opinion" shows.

I'm not sure why Fox gets singled out here.

They all do it. The only difference between Fox and the rest of the networks is the ideology of the journalists. The fact is they ALL have a slant.

Exactly. Its the reason why Fox says "Fair and Balanced". Everyone else is the same as them yet seems to feel entitled to the reputation of being objective.

This is turning into an intelligent conversation!!!

I think cbs also used forged documents in a "news"(?) report about a serving President who was not as liberal as most of the so called main stream media.

Was that the Dan Rather "forged but accurate" debacle on George W Bush's service record?