The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Trekky0623 on December 15, 2010, 08:28:54 AM

Title: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 15, 2010, 08:28:54 AM
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/networkmadashell1.JPG)

This, basically.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 15, 2010, 09:27:20 AM
The best part is their slogan.

Fair and Balanced

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 15, 2010, 01:29:03 PM
The people who watch Fox News are much more misinformed. It's still undetermined whether being an idiot makes you more likely to watch and believe Fox News, or if watching and believing fox news turns you into an idiot.

Quote
"Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three."

Quote
"The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

Quote
"PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three."

-Fox Attacks DVD
-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27061-2003Oct14.html
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on December 15, 2010, 01:37:44 PM
The people who watch Fox News are much more misinformed. It's still undetermined whether being an idiot makes you more likely to watch and believe Fox News, or if watching and believing fox news turns you into an idiot.

Once you believe them you already are an idiot.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wendy on December 15, 2010, 01:54:51 PM
Beorn... What the fuck? BBCode isn't that difficult.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on December 15, 2010, 01:59:17 PM
Beorn... What the fuck? BBCode isn't that difficult.

Sorry programming python atm got confused
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 15, 2010, 02:32:45 PM
The people who watch Fox News are much more misinformed. It's still undetermined whether being an idiot makes you more likely to watch and believe Fox News, or if watching and believing fox news turns you into an idiot.

Once you believe them you already are an idiot.
To clarify, and assuming both aren't correct, are you contending the former scenario is the more correct one?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on December 15, 2010, 02:36:17 PM
The people who watch Fox News are much more misinformed. It's still undetermined whether being an idiot makes you more likely to watch and believe Fox News, or if watching and believing fox news turns you into an idiot.

Once you believe them you already are an idiot.
To clarify, and assuming both aren't correct, are you contending the former scenario is the more correct one?

No I think that it should be like this: It's still undetermined whether being an idiot makes you more likely to watch and believe Fox News, or if watching fox news turns you into an idiot, causing you to believe Fox News.
So, in the second case, once you've become the idiot you start believing Fox News. I think the former scenario is the more correct one tho.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 15, 2010, 03:34:41 PM
People believe that someone on the news has to tell the truth.  They think they couldn't say it (whatever "it" happens to be) on TV if it wasn't true.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wendy on December 15, 2010, 03:45:05 PM
Tell that to Adolf Hitler.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 15, 2010, 05:45:44 PM
People believe that someone on the news has to tell the truth.  They think they couldn't say it (whatever "it" happens to be) on TV if it wasn't true.

Beck has used that line a few times, and apparently it's working.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 15, 2010, 05:50:28 PM
I love that the rest of the media is left out of these posts.  Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.  Its actually laughable.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on December 15, 2010, 09:46:53 PM
Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.
Because they are. I'm not going to claim they're ideal, but Fox News is far and away the worst offender.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 16, 2010, 02:22:33 AM
I love that the rest of the media is left out of these posts.  Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.  Its actually laughable.
Fox pioneered bias, and destroyed their own potential for legitimate journalism. Watch "Fox Attacks" and read the memo's headquarters were sending their employees. They prohibited talking about things embarrassing for republicans, pushed social issues, and invented speculative material to defame democrats. They have been so successful that other news outlets are beginning to adjust their own behavior.

This is why all information one get's from the news needs to be screened and verified through independent research conducted by the viewers. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the population holds a mentality in which they would prefer to reach an easy conclusion over a correct one.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 16, 2010, 04:05:12 AM
I partially blame 24-hours news media.  If there wasn't so much time to fill, I like to think Fox and other broadcasting networks wouldn't have so much filler-bullshit.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 16, 2010, 04:41:48 AM
Fox pioneered bias,

MSNBC. First aired July 15 1996
FoxNews. First aired Oct 7 1996


Which came first and is more bias.  I WIN!
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wendy on December 16, 2010, 05:04:18 AM
MSNBC came first and Fox News is more biased = you win?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 16, 2010, 07:18:25 AM
I love that the rest of the media is left out of these posts.  Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.  Its actually laughable.

The rest of the media is pretty bad, Wardogg... but not for the same reason.

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 16, 2010, 08:37:29 AM
I think Wardogg missed Saddam's post.
Quote
"Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three."

Quote
"The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

Quote
"PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three."
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wendy on December 16, 2010, 08:41:33 AM
Saddam?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 16, 2010, 08:49:24 AM
Saddam?

D'oh!

His Santa looks like Saddam Hussein. It confuses me.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on December 16, 2010, 10:49:02 AM
I think Wardogg missed Saddam's post.

Or he watches Fox News and doesn't know that those are un-facts.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on December 16, 2010, 10:52:41 AM
I love that the rest of the media is left out of these posts.  Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.  Its actually laughable.

I love that you think American news agencies make up the entirety of "the rest of the media". There's CCTV, RTV, Al-Jazeera and the BBC, and those are just the ones I watch. RTV and Al-Jazeera in particular, as they're willing to deal with the people that nobody else will touch to get stories and opinions out there that would never see the light of day otherwise.

I think Wardogg missed Saddam's post.

Or he watches Fox News and doesn't know that those are un-facts.


Or that he's paid not to care.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 16, 2010, 11:49:46 AM
No one is suggesting that other news groups are unbiased, but the fact is, just like Franklin said, that Fox is simply the worst.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 16, 2010, 12:03:45 PM
His Santa looks like Saddam Hussein.
<----  fix'd.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wendy on December 16, 2010, 12:08:56 PM
That actually looks even more like Saddam Hussein. :D
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 16, 2010, 12:14:19 PM
Conclusion: Saddam Hussein is Santa Claus.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: berny_74 on December 16, 2010, 12:48:55 PM
Conclusion: Saddam Hussein is Santa Claus.

And lives in Canada?

Berny
Remember South Park!
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on December 16, 2010, 04:02:31 PM
I love that the rest of the media is left out of these posts.  Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.  Its actually laughable.

Considering that Fox News legally pioneered being able to lie in a news cast under the first amendment, I'm going to say you're laughable.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: theonlydann on December 16, 2010, 05:05:11 PM
THIS JUST IN: ALL NEWS COMPANIES ARE BIASED. THEY HIRE COMMENTATORS, NOT JOURNALISTS.

That is all.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on December 16, 2010, 05:14:39 PM
THIS JUST IN: ALL NEWS COMPANIES IN AMERICA ARE BIASED. THEY HIRE COMMENTATORS, NOT JOURNALISTS.

That is all.

fix
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wendy on December 17, 2010, 01:47:05 AM
Thanks, Beorn.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 17, 2010, 04:04:43 AM
Dunno about anyone else, but I usually just watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and browse online for my news.  Half an hour a few days a week is plenty for me.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 17, 2010, 04:06:42 AM
Colbert is better.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 04:13:22 AM
I think Wardogg missed Saddam's post.
Quote
"Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three."

Quote
"The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

Quote
"PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three."


So because the viewers believe those things makes the network bias?  Im not really seeing the correlation.  It has nothing to with the current discussion.
I love that the rest of the media is left out of these posts.  Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.  Its actually laughable.

Considering that Fox News legally pioneered being able to lie in a news cast under the first amendment, I'm going to say you're laughable.

I saw the court case....now show me one clip of a flat out lie about a news subject by Fox.  I guarantee I can match you clip for clip with a another news outlet if you find one.
No one is suggesting that other news groups are unbiased, but the fact is, just like Franklin said, that Fox is simply the worst.
I disagree.
Dunno about anyone else, but I usually just watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and browse online for my news.  Half an hour a few days a week is plenty for me.

You do know Stewart isnt a news show right?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on December 17, 2010, 04:43:23 AM
I think Wardogg missed Saddam's post.
Quote
"Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three."

Quote
"The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three."

Quote
"PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three."


So because the viewers believe those things makes the network bias?  Im not really seeing the correlation.  It has nothing to with the current discussion.
It does when that network is where they got the wrong idea from.

Quote
I love that the rest of the media is left out of these posts.  Because NBC ABC CBS MSNBC are all soooooooo much better.  Its actually laughable.

Considering that Fox News legally pioneered being able to lie in a news cast under the first amendment, I'm going to say you're laughable.

I saw the court case....now show me one clip of a flat out lie about a news subject by Fox.  I guarantee I can match you clip for clip with a another news outlet if you find one.
I doubt you could for the 100th clip.  The first 99, sure.
But the fact that Fox news specifically told it's journalists NOT to report facts is just as bad as lying.

Oh look, found one:


That was easy.

Quote
No one is suggesting that other news groups are unbiased, but the fact is, just like Franklin said, that Fox is simply the worst.
I disagree.
Dunno about anyone else, but I usually just watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and browse online for my news.  Half an hour a few days a week is plenty for me.
You do know Stewart isn't a news show right?
I don't know...
I'd trust the Daily Show over Fox, CNN, ect...
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 04:58:01 AM
Oh look, found one:


That was easy.


Talk about easy.....next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy



I'd trust the Daily Show over Fox, CNN, ect...

Yeah propaganda is enticing.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on December 17, 2010, 05:01:33 AM
Oh look, found one:


That was easy.


Talk about easy.....next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

Exactly.  I don't know of any news network besides maybe NPR that has a flawless track record.  It's just that, in the pile of shit called mainstream media, Fox news is at the top.

Quote
I'd trust the Daily Show over Fox, CNN, ect...
Yeah propaganda is enticing.
Yes because a comedy show is full of propaganda....  ::)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 05:55:46 AM
Oh look, found one:


That was easy.


Talk about easy.....next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

Exactly.  I don't know of any news network besides maybe NPR that has a flawless track record.  It's just that, in the pile of shit called mainstream media, Fox news is at the top.
If they can be matched one for one...im not sure how that makes them the top.


Yes because a comedy show is full of propaganda....  ::)

As long as you understand its comedy and satire...and not news.....
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 05:59:49 AM
Quote
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath. CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers.

Fox routinely makes false claims. Some examples off the top of my head is substituting footage of one thing for another, or just plain making stuff up. Rarely if ever are there any repercussions. So I'm not sure how this one incident matches CBS with Fox News.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 06:06:20 AM
Quote
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath. CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers.

Fox routinely makes false claims. Some examples off the top of my head is substituting footage of one thing for another, or just plain making stuff up. Rarely if ever are there any repercussions. So I'm not sure how this one incident matches CBS with Fox News.

Ive seen corrections.  No story put on fox was as bad as this one.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: John Davis on December 17, 2010, 06:09:02 AM
O hai, all American Media fails.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 06:16:26 AM
Quote
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath. CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers.

Fox routinely makes false claims. Some examples off the top of my head is substituting footage of one thing for another, or just plain making stuff up. Rarely if ever are there any repercussions. So I'm not sure how this one incident matches CBS with Fox News.

Ive seen corrections.  No story put on fox was as bad as this one.

CBS didn't create those documents. They just didn't fact check, and it was horrible journalism. However, CBS did not directly act unethically or spread misinformation. The same cannot be said of Fox News.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/FNC_Controversy_Steinberg.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/FNC_Controversy_Reddicliffe.png)

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 06:22:11 AM
What are you showing me there?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 06:24:31 AM
What are you showing me there?

Photo manipulation used to incite opposition based on appearance.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 17, 2010, 07:00:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

In that playlist is 141 videos detailing Fox News bias, misrepresentation of facts, and lies.  Your move.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 07:34:46 AM
What are you showing me there?

Photo manipulation used to incite opposition based on appearance.

Wow.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 07:38:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

In that playlist is 141 videos detailing Fox News bias, misrepresentation of facts, and lies.  Your move.

I expect to now see exactly 141 examples of lies from another news network or a concession now. Aaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 17, 2010, 07:43:33 AM
Wardogg, there's being conservative, and then there's defending Fox News.  This is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 07:44:40 AM
Fox News is biased, there is no denying that, but to say they are worse than MSNBC just tells me that you happen to be more liberal and are inclined to believe more of what MNSBC says.  i'm more conservative so i happen to believe more of what Fox News says, but i know there is a slant in all news.  someone had said NPR has probably the most flawless record, but i have listened to the Diane Rehms (spelling?) show quite a bit recently and she is obviously biased against conservatives.  the only good thing i can say is that it seems like they usually have guests on there with her who stay neutral on most topics.  that is the extent of my exposure to NPR so i can't really comment on them more than that.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: John Davis on December 17, 2010, 08:03:54 AM
I think its all a symptom of  national based news programming instead of internationally based.  It always turns into a mix match of entertainment and selling some agenda. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 08:09:55 AM
Wardogg, there's being conservative, and then there's defending Fox News.  This is ridiculous.

Well it may look like im defending Fox on the outside.  All im really doing is showing the unfair bias that is placed on them because Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart say so.  All the media is exactly the same.  The only reason Fox gets picked on because they lean to the right instead of to the left or the extreme left in MSNBCs case as the rest of the media does.  They are the only mainstream media outlet that leans to the right.  The ONLY one.  Every other station does it.  And as long as thats admitted to....then im fine.  For the record,  I stop getting my news solely from Fox.  

All these high and mighty people on here that say...Fox is teh terrible....make me sad, because they are blinded by their own ignorance.

Im proud to be a conservative.  I am proud to stand behind the Constitution.  Im proud to be a traditionalist.  I have no problems defending my views.  
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 08:13:48 AM
I think the reason Fox News is picked on is because they frequently lie in a way no other news media does. MSNBC and CNN don't replace footage to make rallies look bigger or photoshop people to make them look like Jews.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 08:23:17 AM
I think the reason Fox News is picked on is because they frequently lie in a way no other news media does. MSNBC and CNN don't replace footage to make rallies look bigger or photoshop people to make them look like Jews.

No they just flat out lie in totally different ways.  BTW your second accusation is ridiculous.  Im just sayin.



Thats just one....There are MANY others....do you want those as well?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 08:26:05 AM
And things like "Obama is a muslim" and "He doesn't have a birth certificate" have been kept alive almost exclusively by Fox. I mean it wasn't great during Bush, but I don't think any news organization ever has tried to actively undermine a presidency through lies as bad as Fox with Obama.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 08:36:14 AM
And things like "Obama is a muslim" and "He doesn't have a birth certificate" have been kept alive almost exclusively by Fox. I mean it wasn't great during Bush, but I don't think any news organization ever has tried to actively undermine a presidency through lies as bad as Fox with Obama.

But see thats just it.  I dont agree with either of those statements about Obama...and I dont like him one bit.  But with every station beating on Bush how many libs or independents for that matter believed everything they heard.....Dan Rather is a prime example there.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 08:41:30 AM
And things like "Obama is a muslim" and "He doesn't have a birth certificate" have been kept alive almost exclusively by Fox. I mean it wasn't great during Bush, but I don't think any news organization ever has tried to actively undermine a presidency through lies as bad as Fox with Obama.

But see thats just it.  I dont agree with either of those statements about Obama...and I dont like him one bit.  But with every station beating on Bush how many libs or independents for that matter believed everything they heard.....Dan Rather is a prime example there.

You may not believe it, but Fox is still lying about it, and actively trying to undermine his presidency.

Other news stations were basically saying Bush was a bad president. Fox is saying Obama doesn't have the right to be president.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on December 17, 2010, 08:45:11 AM
I normally check any interesting story against the reporting of The Christian Science Monitor which oddly enough is not about Christian Science (LOL).  I think it's one of the last usually unbiased sources out there.

Despite its name, the Monitor is not a religious-themed paper, and does not promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisors who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.
From Wikipedia
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 08:46:33 AM
I think the reason Fox News is picked on is because they frequently lie in a way no other news media does. MSNBC and CNN don't replace footage to make rallies look bigger or photoshop people to make them look like Jews.

well MSNBC did do this recently, it sounds a lot like what you are saying they dont do.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/

there is a link in the article that shows a full picture of the man with the assualt rifle.  
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 08:49:05 AM
And things like "Obama is a muslim" and "He doesn't have a birth certificate" have been kept alive almost exclusively by Fox. I mean it wasn't great during Bush, but I don't think any news organization ever has tried to actively undermine a presidency through lies as bad as Fox with Obama.

But see thats just it.  I dont agree with either of those statements about Obama...and I dont like him one bit.  But with every station beating on Bush how many libs or independents for that matter believed everything they heard.....Dan Rather is a prime example there.

You may not believe it, but Fox is still lying about it, and actively trying to undermine his presidency.

Other news stations were basically saying Bush was a bad president. Fox is saying Obama doesn't have the right to be president.

i seem to remember a lot of "Bush stole the election" talk back in 2000, so isn't that kind of the same as saying he doesn't have the right to be president?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 08:54:28 AM
and actively trying to undermine his presidency.
 Fox is saying Obama doesn't have the right to be president.

He's doing that to himself just fine.  I saw a poll the other day.  71% of Americans, dont think he will win again.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 09:04:10 AM
No one is saying MSNBC doesn't do things like this. We're just saying Fox News does it more frequently and with more malice.


and actively trying to undermine his presidency.
 Fox is saying Obama doesn't have the right to be president.

He's doing that to himself just fine.  I saw a poll the other day.  71% of Americans, dont think he will win again.

"Not good" and "not a citizen" are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 09:05:45 AM
Well I take, doesnt have the right....to mean he is incompetent.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 09:08:28 AM
It comes down to the difference between "an idiot", and "a secret Muslim Kenyan socialist who is trying to destroy the country".
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 09:08:44 AM
Well I take, doesnt have the right....to mean he is incompetent.

In context, that's not what that means. He was just talking about the birth certicate stuff and the Muslim mud flinging.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 09:10:04 AM
It comes down to the difference between "an idiot", and "a secret Muslim Kenyan socialist who is trying to destroy the country".

an idiot who got his degree from Yale.  probably a little more prestigious than any school anyone posting on here went to.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 09:12:31 AM
He's "an idiot", and "a secret socialist who is trying to destroy the country".

Fix'd
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 09:14:08 AM
Idiots are perfectly within their rights to be the president of this country.

He's "an idiot", and "a secret socialist who is trying to destroy the country".

Fix'd

Except that's the point, Fox News is perpetuating the lie that Obama is a muslim who was born in another country.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 09:15:14 AM
He's "an idiot", and "a secret socialist who is trying to destroy the country".

Fix'd

Uh huh. Look, I don't really like Obama, but probablt not for the same reasons you do. But he's not trying to destroy the country, and he's not a "secret socialist" or a secret anything. He's just not a good president who bows into corporations, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 09:20:59 AM


Uh huh. Look, I don't really like Obama, but probablt not for the same reasons you do. But he's not trying to destroy the country, and he's not a "secret socialist" or a secret anything. He's just not a good president who bows into corporations, in my opinion.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.

Actually i dont think he's a secret socialist.  I think he's out in the open about it.  You can see it every time he endorses something.  Minus of course some recent compromises after the ass whooping the Dems got in the mid-terms.

To me socialist ideas are destroying the country.  Regardless if other people agree with that or not.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 09:21:33 AM
Idiots are perfectly within their rights to be the president of this country. 

Sad, but true.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 09:23:18 AM
I just think it's hilarious when I hear anyone saying that someone is "destroying the country". Just like they have for decades. The country is still here.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 09:23:43 AM
No one is saying MSNBC doesn't do things like this. We're just saying Fox News does it more frequently and with more malice.



wouldnt you say that trying to imply that there is some movement by white tea party members to assassinate the president is pretty malicious?  
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 17, 2010, 09:24:51 AM


Uh huh. Look, I don't really like Obama, but probablt not for the same reasons you do. But he's not trying to destroy the country, and he's not a "secret socialist" or a secret anything. He's just not a good president who bows into corporations, in my opinion.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons.

Actually i dont think he's a secret socialist.  I think he's out in the open about it.  You can see it every time he endorses something.  Minus of course some recent compromises after the ass whooping the Dems got in the mid-terms.

To me socialist ideas are destroying the country.  Regardless if other people agree with that or not.

You've got next to no faith at all in the people, huh?  Stop acting like we conciously voted for an illegitimate Muslim Socialist with a country-destroying agenda.  
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 17, 2010, 09:25:32 AM
No one is saying MSNBC doesn't do things like this. We're just saying Fox News does it more frequently and with more malice.



wouldnt you say that trying to imply that there is some movement by white tea party members to assassinate the president is pretty malicious?  

Of course that's malicious.  What's your point?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 09:28:26 AM
Ahem.

Pointing at someone and saying "They do it, too!" is not a defense. Especially when you do it better.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 09:32:18 AM
Ahem.

Pointing at someone and saying "They do it, too!" is not a defense. Especially when you do it better.

i'm not defending anyone, i'm just pointing out that MSNBC is just as guilty as Fox News when it comes to biased reporting.  saying one organization does it better is a matter of opinion.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 09:37:15 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 09:40:36 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.

well actually i provided proof of them doing exactly what Trekky said Fox News was guilty of doing, so there is some evidence to back up my claim that they are just as guilty.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 09:43:15 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.

well actually i provided proof of them doing exactly what Trekky said Fox News was guilty of doing, so there is some evidence to back up my claim that they are just as guilty.

In one instance. Someone else provided a link with 141 instances of bias that hasn't been matched yet.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 17, 2010, 09:56:52 AM
The most appalling thing about Fox news isn't their bias, imo, it's that they allow Glenn Beck to fear-monger, and then allow him to use the station to make money off the fear he creates.  Sell all your possessions, buy gold, buy "food insurance" THE END IS NIGH! To me that is horribly irresponsible.   
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 17, 2010, 10:02:50 AM
The most appalling thing about Fox news isn't their bias, imo, it's that they allow Glenn Beck to fear-monger, and then allow him to use the station to make money off the fear he creates.  Sell all your possessions, buy gold, buy "food insurance" THE END IS NIGH! To me that is horribly irresponsible.   

Glenn Beck is such an unimaginably huge asshole.  I can't even describe how much I hate him.

Anyone who accuses the President of the US of being a a Nazi hellbent on destroying America deserves something truly horrible.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 10:07:18 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.

well actually i provided proof of them doing exactly what Trekky said Fox News was guilty of doing, so there is some evidence to back up my claim that they are just as guilty.

In one instance. Someone else provided a link with 141 instances of bias that hasn't been matched yet.

have you checked the validity of all 141, because i haven't.  i could probably provide instances to you where i feel like MSNBC was being dishonest but you dont feel the same way.  i'm not trying to match a number, because quite honestly if you think either of the two organiztions have only been dishonest 141 times you are naive.  they both lie, i haven't said that fox news doesn't, i've only said that they both lie and that makes them both guilty.  here is a good example.

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 10:12:56 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.

well actually i provided proof of them doing exactly what Trekky said Fox News was guilty of doing, so there is some evidence to back up my claim that they are just as guilty.

In one instance. Someone else provided a link with 141 instances of bias that hasn't been matched yet.

have you checked the validity of all 141, because i haven't.  i could probably provide instances to you where i feel like MSNBC was being dishonest but you dont feel the same way.  i'm not trying to match a number, because quite honestly if you think either of the two organiztions have only been dishonest 141 times you are naive.  they both lie, i haven't said that fox news doesn't, i've only said that they both lie and that makes them both guilty.  here is a good example.



Yes, but the deceat is so numerous that someone was able to collect 141 instances of it. The same cannot be said of MSNBC. And they have their haters. So where is the YouTube channel of over 100 instances of MSNBC lying?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 17, 2010, 10:15:29 AM
What I don't get about Fox news fans is why you guys don't demand better. I have conservative political views myself, but that doesn't mean I"m going to accept what someone says just because they claim to be Republicans or conservatives or whatever.  The bullshit in TV news is the reason I still read a newspaper everyday... although the quality of news in the paper has gone down quite a bit over the last few years.  
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 10:16:03 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.

well actually i provided proof of them doing exactly what Trekky said Fox News was guilty of doing, so there is some evidence to back up my claim that they are just as guilty.

In one instance. Someone else provided a link with 141 instances of bias that hasn't been matched yet.

have you checked the validity of all 141, because i haven't.  i could probably provide instances to you where i feel like MSNBC was being dishonest but you dont feel the same way.  i'm not trying to match a number, because quite honestly if you think either of the two organiztions have only been dishonest 141 times you are naive.  they both lie, i haven't said that fox news doesn't, i've only said that they both lie and that makes them both guilty.  here is a good example.



Yes, but the deceat is so numerous that someone was able to collect 141 instances of it. The same cannot be said of MSNBC. And they have their haters. So where is the YouTube channel of over 100 instances of MSNBC lying?

so unless someone spends the time making a youtube channel of MSNBC lying then we must accept that Fox News lies more?  you guys have to have more sense than that.  also have you checked the validity of all 141 instances of lying?  i haven't, so there may be some debate over whether all of the instances are actually lies.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 10:19:24 AM
What I don't get about Fox news fans is why you guys don't demand better. I have conservative political views myself, but that doesn't mean I"m going to accept what someone says just because they claim to be Republicans or conservatives or whatever.  The bullshit in TV news is the reason I still read a newspaper everyday... although the quality of news in the paper has gone down quite a bit over the last few years.  

i could ask the same question to people who watch MSNBC.  i know Fox has told lies, that doesnt mean they always lie.  i know MSNBC lies, that doesn't mean they always lie.  my point is that they both lie, they are both equally guilty.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 10:20:12 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.

well actually i provided proof of them doing exactly what Trekky said Fox News was guilty of doing, so there is some evidence to back up my claim that they are just as guilty.

In one instance. Someone else provided a link with 141 instances of bias that hasn't been matched yet.

have you checked the validity of all 141, because i haven't.  i could probably provide instances to you where i feel like MSNBC was being dishonest but you dont feel the same way.  i'm not trying to match a number, because quite honestly if you think either of the two organiztions have only been dishonest 141 times you are naive.  they both lie, i haven't said that fox news doesn't, i've only said that they both lie and that makes them both guilty.  here is a good example.



Yes, but the deceat is so numerous that someone was able to collect 141 instances of it. The same cannot be said of MSNBC. And they have their haters. So where is the YouTube channel of over 100 instances of MSNBC lying?

so unless someone spends the time making a youtube channel of MSNBC lying then we must accept that Fox News lies more?  you guys have to have more sense than that.  also have you checked the validity of all 141 instances of lying?  i haven't, so there may be some debate over whether all of the instances are actually lies.

That's a weak argument. We have some evidence that Fox News is a bad news station. No claims were made about MSNBC in the OP. It was brought up later. So unless you have some evidence that MSNBC is just as bad, which you haven't provided, you don't really have an argument.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 10:22:59 AM
The most appalling thing about Fox news isn't their bias, imo, it's that they allow Glenn Beck to fear-monger, and then allow him to use the station to make money off the fear he creates.  Sell all your possessions, buy gold, buy "food insurance" THE END IS NIGH! To me that is horribly irresponsible.   

I had to stop listening to him.  I was ready to run for the hills.  Actually, Im still ready, but for other reasons.  =)

Monsanto = I have a garden and a chicken.  Ive been hunting alot more this year as well.  Tanning a nice coyote hide as we speak.  My next effort will be to make buckskin.  Should be quite the learning experience.


. So unless you have some evidence that MSNBC is just as bad, which you haven't provided, you don't really have an argument.

Yes we have Trekky, but as usual, you just ignore it. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 10:28:32 AM
Saying "just as guilty" is also a matter of opinion.

well actually i provided proof of them doing exactly what Trekky said Fox News was guilty of doing, so there is some evidence to back up my claim that they are just as guilty.

In one instance. Someone else provided a link with 141 instances of bias that hasn't been matched yet.

have you checked the validity of all 141, because i haven't.  i could probably provide instances to you where i feel like MSNBC was being dishonest but you dont feel the same way.  i'm not trying to match a number, because quite honestly if you think either of the two organiztions have only been dishonest 141 times you are naive.  they both lie, i haven't said that fox news doesn't, i've only said that they both lie and that makes them both guilty.  here is a good example.



Yes, but the deceat is so numerous that someone was able to collect 141 instances of it. The same cannot be said of MSNBC. And they have their haters. So where is the YouTube channel of over 100 instances of MSNBC lying?

so unless someone spends the time making a youtube channel of MSNBC lying then we must accept that Fox News lies more?  you guys have to have more sense than that.  also have you checked the validity of all 141 instances of lying?  i haven't, so there may be some debate over whether all of the instances are actually lies.

That's a weak argument. We have some evidence that Fox News is a bad news station. No claims were made about MSNBC in the OP. It was brought up later. So unless you have some evidence that MSNBC is just as bad, which you haven't provided, you don't really have an argument.
how is that any weaker than saying i need to find a youtube channel that shows MSNBC lying over 100 times?  i provided a link as an example showing them doing the same thing already, take it or leave it, i'm not scouring the internet for 100+ more examples.  the link i provided shows that they are just as willing to be deceitful, which is the point i was making.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 10:29:09 AM
The most appalling thing about Fox news isn't their bias, imo, it's that they allow Glenn Beck to fear-monger, and then allow him to use the station to make money off the fear he creates.  Sell all your possessions, buy gold, buy "food insurance" THE END IS NIGH! To me that is horribly irresponsible.  

I had to stop listening to him.  I was ready to run for the hills.  Actually, Im still ready, but for other reasons.  =)

Monsanto = I have a garden and a chicken.  Ive been hunting alot more this year as well.  Tanning a nice coyote hide as we speak.  My next effort will be to make buckskin.  Should be quite the learning experience.


. So unless you have some evidence that MSNBC is just as bad, which you haven't provided, you don't really have an argument.

Yes we have Trekky, but as usual, you just ignore it.  

You haven't provided proof or data. You provided some anecdotes.

Once again, no one is saying that MSNBC is the holy grail of journalism, or even that they are remotely good. However, they've never made claims of the type that Obama is a secret Muslim.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 17, 2010, 10:30:17 AM
What I don't get about Fox news fans is why you guys don't demand better. I have conservative political views myself, but that doesn't mean I"m going to accept what someone says just because they claim to be Republicans or conservatives or whatever.  The bullshit in TV news is the reason I still read a newspaper everyday... although the quality of news in the paper has gone down quite a bit over the last few years.  

i could ask the same question to people who watch MSNBC.  i know Fox has told lies, that doesnt mean they always lie.  i know MSNBC lies, that doesn't mean they always lie.  my point is that they both lie, they are both equally guilty.

I'm not asking why MSNBC fans don't demand better from MSNBC.  I'm asking why FOX fans don't demand better.  This is a typical argument, though.. and it baffles me.  I asked someone awhile back why conservatives don't demand better than Sarah Palin, and the person responded by saying she's no worse than the opposition.  Why is it more important to put down the competition than it is to demand excellence from our own party?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 10:36:11 AM
What I don't get about Fox news fans is why you guys don't demand better. I have conservative political views myself, but that doesn't mean I"m going to accept what someone says just because they claim to be Republicans or conservatives or whatever.  The bullshit in TV news is the reason I still read a newspaper everyday... although the quality of news in the paper has gone down quite a bit over the last few years.  

i could ask the same question to people who watch MSNBC.  i know Fox has told lies, that doesnt mean they always lie.  i know MSNBC lies, that doesn't mean they always lie.  my point is that they both lie, they are both equally guilty.

I'm not asking why MSNBC fans don't demand better from MSNBC.  I'm asking why FOX fans don't demand better.  This is a typical argument, though.. and it baffles me.  I asked someone awhile back why conservatives don't demand better than Sarah Palin, and the person responded by saying she's no worse than the opposition.  Why is it more important to put down the competition than it is to demand excellence from our own party?

We should all ask better of all our media.  Actually fuck the media.  We all need to ask better of our government. They are seriously in shambles right now. 

I like Palin for who she is.  A grass roots American.  A reality TV personality.  She should NOT be president.  She should NOT be allowed to run.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 17, 2010, 10:41:07 AM
There's no market for good journalism these days.  Americans don't want information, they want entertainment.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on December 17, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
There's no market for good journalism these days.  Americans don't want information, they want entertainment.

HOLY SHIT BATMAN!!! I think we have a winner.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on December 17, 2010, 10:45:40 AM
What I don't get about Fox news fans is why you guys don't demand better. I have conservative political views myself, but that doesn't mean I"m going to accept what someone says just because they claim to be Republicans or conservatives or whatever.  The bullshit in TV news is the reason I still read a newspaper everyday... although the quality of news in the paper has gone down quite a bit over the last few years.  

i could ask the same question to people who watch MSNBC.  i know Fox has told lies, that doesnt mean they always lie.  i know MSNBC lies, that doesn't mean they always lie.  my point is that they both lie, they are both equally guilty.

I'm not asking why MSNBC fans don't demand better from MSNBC.  I'm asking why FOX fans don't demand better.  This is a typical argument, though.. and it baffles me.  I asked someone awhile back why conservatives don't demand better than Sarah Palin, and the person responded by saying she's no worse than the opposition.  Why is it more important to put down the competition than it is to demand excellence from our own party?
well i dont watch fox news all that much anyways, but i would like them to be more neutral.  its ok to have people who are conservative on the program, but you can tell when they are starting to let their beliefs get in the way of actuality.

why dont MSNBC fans demand better from MSNBC?

i hope we find a better person that Sarah Palin to run for president, i lost all respect for her as soon as she quit as governor of Alaska to become a public speaker so she could make millions.  if she really was devoted to her work she would have waited until her term ended and just not ran again.  and now with her reality television show, i think she is a joke.  not that i disagree with the things she says or does on her show, i just dont think she is sincere.  she sees dollar signs and is chasing after them, not that there is a problem with that.  i think she wants to be president to make herself even more famous and marketable, not because she wants to help the country.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 17, 2010, 10:46:10 AM
I agree with you on that Wardogg, our government is shameful regardless of whether the people we elect call themselves Republican or Democrat.  Something has to be done about the endless electioneering or it's never going to get better.  Both parties serve their corporate sponsors.  

I've been pissed off at the news ever since I watched a "year in the news" special on PBS a few years ago. Two respected journalists were hosting the show, and I think it was the year Michael Jackson had been arrested... anyway most of the news that year centered around some dipshit celebrity and one of the hosts said "well, if that's what the people want to know about" (or something like that, it's been too long to remember exactly).  I couldn't believe she said that, because the news isn't supposed to be what we want to hear, it's supposed to be what we need to know. If I want to know about a celebrity I can watch one of the many inane tabloid tv shows. bah
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 10:50:52 AM
She should NOT be allowed to run.

She meets all the constitutional qualifications to be president, why should she not be allowed to run?

Also, you're trying to change the subject from a news organization which consistently lies to the government not doing as well as it could.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 17, 2010, 11:02:11 AM
I agree with Wardogg. The original point of this thread is that Fox News seems to be the embodiment of what is wrong with the American media. As in Network, news organizations are more interested in making their people happy rather than giving them news. And the reason for this is because they more people who watch their channel, the more money they get. The reason I think PBS and NPR are more neutral, in fact a lot more neutral, is that their income does not depend on whether they adhere to a certain political agenda. It's a public news system, paid for in donations and government help.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on December 17, 2010, 11:30:59 AM
NPR has accepted large corporate grants which I consider 'not a good idea' if they wish to be thought of as non-biased.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on December 17, 2010, 12:27:19 PM
There's no market for good journalism these days in America.  Americans don't want information, they want entertainment.

You guys get the BBC, Al Jazeera, RTV and such?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on December 17, 2010, 12:45:35 PM
There's no market for good journalism these days in America.  Americans don't want information, they want entertainment.

I agree.


The Tom Joyner Morning Show is widely considered a middle left radio program aimed at African Americans.  As far as I'm concerned, Tom Joyner as well as Obama himself is middle of the road at best and not leftist at all.  My suspicion was confirmed when I recently discovered that the Tom Joyner Morning Show is owned by Fox News. 

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=tjms

That indicates that popular dissent is controlled.  Fox uses Tom Joyner to appease the masses.  He is basically a sort of Stalinist in the sense that Joyner's major purpose is to undermine dissent which exactly characterized the Stalinist oriented foreign policy of the Soviet Union.  The fact that the KGB's whole purpose was to undermined revolutionaries who looked to them for guidance was powerfully confirmed by Russian defector and ex-KGB agent Vasili Mitrokhin who ten years ago brought to the United States the most extensive collection of KGB and FSB files ever amassed.   

http://www.amazon.com/World-Was-Going-Our-Way/dp/0465003133/ref=pd_sim_b_3

A review Mitrokhin's second book 'The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the the Third World: Newly Revealed Secrets from the Mitrokhin Archive' says that "SOVIET INITIATIVES - WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, LIKE THE AFGHANISTAN INTERVENTION - SEEM CAUTIOUS, REACTIVE AND UNCOMFORTABLY DEPENDENT ON FICKLE CLIENT REGIMES; WARY OF CONFRONTING THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA OFTEN EXERTED A RESTRAINING INFLUENCE ON LOCAL ALLIES."  This confirmed the views of Leon Trotsky about the nature of the Comintern as an instrument of Stalin.  The reason that the US military occasionally conducts joint exercises with Putin's military is that they are not enemies.  Both are forces of oppression.  Nazism triumphed in Spain in the 1930's because Stalin was more concerned with undermining Trotskyites than with defeating Nazism in Spain.  The reason Mao took the leadership of the revolution in China in the mid-1930's (and eventually triumphed) was because the other revolutionaries realized he was right to insist that they abondone the disastrous policy of following Stalin's guidance. 

Russia ceased to be Bolshevik in the 1920's, and the same fate happened to the civil rights movement.  Jim Crow laws have been replaced by mass imprisonment, but Tom Joyner, Barrack Obama, and Bill Clinton are what Malcolm X would have called house negros.  They are the shadow of the republican fascists.

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mykael on December 17, 2010, 01:03:48 PM
To me socialist ideas are destroying the country.  Regardless if other people agree with that or not.
Can we at least agree that authoritarian ideas are destroying the country? Authoritarian right-wing governments are just as bad as authoritarian left-wing ones IMO.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 01:18:02 PM
destroying the country

Stop that.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mykael on December 17, 2010, 01:59:50 PM
destroying the country

Stop that.
AMERICA ROONT
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on December 17, 2010, 03:09:08 PM
There's no market for good journalism these days in America.  Americans don't want information, they want entertainment.

You guys get the BBC, Al Jazeera, RTV and such?
Only with Cable packages and because of the high anti-Muslim feelings in this nation, Al Jazeera doesn't get a whole lot of support in America.


Anyway:
Wardogg, you seem to be missing my point.  All the major news networks lie to make their viewers happy.  We can spend all day matching one to one clips but at some point one network will run out of times that lies occurred and the other will not.  Fox won't run out anytime soon and here's why.

Fox News viewers are conservative traditionalists who have a very narrow view of how the world should be.  Making sure that the people are angry at what they see (anger is the easiest way to get an emotional reaction) requires them to paint those people and groups as "evil".  This isn't hard, mind you, but it does require the news casters to actively work for it.
Liberal news networks, however, are tailored to the liberals, which are more accepting of various ideas and cultures.  They don't conform to traditional values so painting anyone as "evil" isn't easy nor is it necessary.  The best way to do it is simply to paint them as narrow minded which is what conservatives are anyway. 

17 November:
I couldn't find any "owned by Fox" on that link.  Can you show me where it is?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on December 17, 2010, 06:53:56 PM
17 November:
I couldn't find any "owned by Fox" on that link.  Can you show me where it is?

That particular link was intended to give people some idea of Tom Joyner rather than a source for his Fox News connection. 
I confess that a politically aware friend of mine who listens to Tom Joyner informed me of that.  Reach Media is Joyner's umbrella organization, and I will ask my friend for his source of information for the connection of Tom Joyner and Reach Media ownership with Rupert Murdoch.

Do not get me wrong.  Sometimes Joyner goes over the line and indiscriminately bashes "white" people which is an unwarranted indiscretion as far as I am concerned, but all things considered Joyner , of course, is better than Rush Limbaugh et al by a long shot. 

Patrick Buchanan has long seemed to me one of the most reasonable voices on the right.  About a month ago he was seated next to a Monica Crowley of the Washington Times (neoconservative newspaper) as the two r=conservative guests on the MacLaughlin Group TV news show which was discussing Harry Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in 1945.  Crowley went on and on about how Truman allegedly exhausted every other option and did not really want to bomb Japan.  Buchanan corrected her by quoting Truman who said that he never even had a second thought about it.  The Washington Times reporter defended the bombing of Japan which is an unpopular position which is why she was talking all this rubbish about the alleged humanity of Truman's decision to murder Japanese masses.  Buchanan is rightly against it, and Crowley was silenced by his comment.

The 20 minute to 21:40 mark in the following video segment of the MacLaughlin Group:



Buchanan's persistent and illogical loyalty to the american right with whom he disagrees on so many issues is his major fault.  Patrick Buchanan is worthy to be shat upon when he says things like "Now I have my differences with McCain, BUT..."  Buchanan also has a couple of ideological flaws, but in my opinion the controlled medias (left and right) overreacted to these things while he was running for president during the 1990's while the same exact medias were comparatively mild in their criticism of Bush.  I have always said that Buchanan would have made a far better republican president than Bush, and I completely believe that history has confirmed this.  There is something intolerably wrong with any media that fell over itself criticizing Buchanan while comparatively ignoring Bush.  The fact that most left and right medias were simultaneously criticizing Buchanan is not a coincidence - they are centrally managed by a fascist elite.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on December 17, 2010, 07:06:29 PM
17 November:
I couldn't find any "owned by Fox" on that link.  Can you show me where it is?

That particular link was intended to give people some idea of Tom Joyner rather than a source for his Fox News connection. 
I confess that a politically aware friend of mine who listens to Tom Joyner informed me of that.  Reach Media is Joyner's umbrella organization, and I will ask my friend for his source of information for the connection of Tom Joyner and Reach Media ownership with Rupert Murdoch.

Apparently it's not just his umbrella organization, it's his organization.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10714662

However, I can't seem to find any link between Reach Media and Rupert Murdoch.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on December 17, 2010, 07:41:54 PM
Fox news is the master of using 9/11 first responders to their advantage when it suits them politically, yet when the republicans decide to block the bill which would grant them healthcare because rich people don't have their tax cuts yet, they don't say a word. Curious.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on December 17, 2010, 07:48:34 PM
Fox news is the master of using 9/11 to their advantage when it suits them politically, yet when the republicans decide to block the bill which would grant them healthcare because rich people don't have their tax cuts yet, they don't say a word. Curious.

Yeah, heard that on NPR a few weeks ago.  This is why I'm in favor of a "One Issue, One bill" policy.  No more of this "I'll agree to your bill if you add something I want to it".
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 17, 2010, 08:09:39 PM
Fox news is the master of using 9/11 to their advantage when it suits them politically, yet when the republicans decide to block the bill which would grant them healthcare because rich people don't have their tax cuts yet, they don't say a word. Curious.

Yeah, heard that on NPR a few weeks ago.  This is why I'm in favor of a "One Issue, One bill" policy.  No more of this "I'll agree to your bill if you add something I want to it".

You have a problem with the concept of political compromises?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on December 17, 2010, 08:38:20 PM
Fox news is the master of using 9/11 to their advantage when it suits them politically, yet when the republicans decide to block the bill which would grant them healthcare because rich people don't have their tax cuts yet, they don't say a word. Curious.

Yeah, heard that on NPR a few weeks ago.  This is why I'm in favor of a "One Issue, One bill" policy.  No more of this "I'll agree to your bill if you add something I want to it".

You have a problem with the concept of political compromises?
That's not political compromise, that's bribery.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on December 19, 2010, 11:30:30 PM
Fox news is the master of using 9/11 to their advantage when it suits them politically, yet when the republicans decide to block the bill which would grant them healthcare because rich people don't have their tax cuts yet, they don't say a word. Curious.

Yeah, heard that on NPR a few weeks ago.  This is why I'm in favor of a "One Issue, One bill" policy.  No more of this "I'll agree to your bill if you add something I want to it".

You have a problem with the concept of political compromises?
That's not political compromise, that's bribery.

I agree.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on December 19, 2010, 11:35:17 PM
Alexander Cockburn compiled a great set of essays on the decline of journalism:
'End Times:  The Death of the Fourth Estate'
http://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Fourth-Estate-Counterpunch/dp/1904859372

There's no market for good journalism these days.  Americans don't want information, they want entertainment.

HOLY SHIT BATMAN!!! I think we have a winner.

This pervasive lack of awareness is the sunset of freedom.  It is one of many indications of the rise of fascism.

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression.  In both instances, there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged.  And it is in such a twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

- Justice William Douglass 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 20, 2010, 06:38:24 AM
Lol, "Cockburn".
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 20, 2010, 09:24:17 AM
Lol, "Cockburn".

John Boehner (http://johnboehner.house.gov/).
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on December 20, 2010, 06:27:11 PM
and

especially second is funny
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on December 21, 2010, 09:34:58 AM
This pervasive lack of awareness is the sunset of freedom.  It is one of many indications of the rise of fascism.

Why do you say 'fascism'?  Pervasive lack of awareness leaves room for vulnerability in government, which any number of political groups can take advantage of.  Communism is just as likely to rise out of unawareness as fascism is.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on January 02, 2011, 01:12:40 AM
17 November:
I couldn't find any "owned by Fox" on that link.  Can you show me where it is?

That particular link was intended to give people some idea of Tom Joyner rather than a source for his Fox News connection. 
I confess that a politically aware friend of mine who listens to Tom Joyner informed me of that.  Reach Media is Joyner's umbrella organization, and I will ask my friend for his source of information for the connection of Tom Joyner and Reach Media ownership with Rupert Murdoch.

Apparently it's not just his umbrella organization, it's his organization.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10714662

However, I can't seem to find any link between Reach Media and Rupert Murdoch.

I asked my friend who is a regular listener, and he said they say on the Tom Joyner show itself that their program is owned by Fox news.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on January 02, 2011, 03:35:55 AM
This pervasive lack of awareness is the sunset of freedom.  It is one of many indications of the rise of fascism.

Why do you say 'fascism'?  Pervasive lack of awareness leaves room for vulnerability in government, which any number of political groups can take advantage of.  Communism is just as likely to rise out of unawareness as fascism is.

For God's sake, let's hope that's exactly what happens, but I don't think that communism is creating the unawareness.  Communism has been given a bad name over the last sixty-five years for two reasons:
1) a capitalist counterrevoltionary named Joseph Stalin who overthrew the revolution undermined the communist movement from within by using Marxist rhetoric to disguise capitalist brutality and exploitation
and
2) because of so much spent on capitalist propaganda. 

Why are so many people unaware that people like Henry Ford, Renee DuPont, Rockefeller, and Prescott Bush funded Hitler from his early days?  Old school laissez faire economics of the robber barons is disguised as free trade.  Right wing movements like McCarthyism, libertarian philosophy, the John Birch society, Reaganomics, Rush Limbaugh, the kkk and confederate revivalists, Fox news, and the tea party movement have not contributed any intelligence to society.  Capitalists favor the anti-communist stance common to all of these movements.

Rock music is a phenomenon that has multiplied ignorance and passivity.  The Beatles first came to america during the height of the civil rights movement.  Since the rock music phenomenon could only distract peoples' attention away from important issues, the interest of the enemies of the civil rights movement is served by such music since the movement threatens their control of society. 

I hardly think communism is at the helm of such things.  Fascism is a derivative of capitalism by virtue of the fact that fascism is defined as the control of government by capitalists.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on January 02, 2011, 07:03:52 AM
17 November:
I couldn't find any "owned by Fox" on that link.  Can you show me where it is?

That particular link was intended to give people some idea of Tom Joyner rather than a source for his Fox News connection. 
I confess that a politically aware friend of mine who listens to Tom Joyner informed me of that.  Reach Media is Joyner's umbrella organization, and I will ask my friend for his source of information for the connection of Tom Joyner and Reach Media ownership with Rupert Murdoch.

Apparently it's not just his umbrella organization, it's his organization.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=10714662

However, I can't seem to find any link between Reach Media and Rupert Murdoch.

I asked my friend who is a regular listener, and he said they say on the Tom Joyner show itself that their program is owned by Fox news.
How interesting...

Thanks.

This pervasive lack of awareness is the sunset of freedom.  It is one of many indications of the rise of fascism.

Why do you say 'fascism'?  Pervasive lack of awareness leaves room for vulnerability in government, which any number of political groups can take advantage of.  Communism is just as likely to rise out of unawareness as fascism is.

For God's sake, let's hope that's exactly what happens, but I don't think that communism is creating the unawareness.  Communism has been given a bad name over the last sixty-five years for two reasons:
1) a capitalist counterrevoltionary named Joseph Stalin who overthrew the revolution undermined the communist movement from within by using Marxist rhetoric to disguise capitalist brutality and exploitation
and
2) because of so much spent on capitalist propaganda. 

Why are so many people unaware that people like Henry Ford, Renee DuPont, Rockefeller, and Prescott Bush funded Hitler from his early days?  Old school laissez faire economics of the robber barons is disguised as free trade.  Right wing movements like McCarthyism, libertarian philosophy, the John Birch society, Reaganomics, Rush Limbaugh, the kkk and confederate revivalists, Fox news, and the tea party movement have not contributed any intelligence to society.  Capitalists favor the anti-communist stance common to all of these movements.

Rock music is a phenomenon that has multiplied ignorance and passivity.  The Beatles first came to america during the height of the civil rights movement.  Since the rock music phenomenon could only distract peoples' attention away from important issues, the interest of the enemies of the civil rights movement is served by such music since the movement threatens their control of society. 

I hardly think communism is at the helm of such things.  Fascism is a derivative of capitalism by virtue of the fact that fascism is defined as the control of government by capitalists.
While I agree with your points about how communism was distorted and twisted as well as your point that pervasive lack of awareness is the sunset of freedom, I disagree about Rock music.   The style changes with the generation.  If anything, a generation creates it's own soundtrack rather than a style of music defining a generation.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: doyh on January 08, 2011, 08:52:47 PM
Fox pioneered bias,

MSNBC. First aired July 15 1996
FoxNews. First aired Oct 7 1996


Which came first and is more bias.  I WIN!

MSNBC admits to being biased. They say that they are trying to counter the effects of Fox. Furthermore, neither was biased when they started.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on January 14, 2011, 05:28:08 PM
Fox news at its best (http://)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: optimisticcynic on January 14, 2011, 06:02:08 PM
Fox news at its best (http://)
the statistic quote is my favorite one. "they have a smaller population so it doesn't work"
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 14, 2011, 06:25:26 PM
I don't understand how Fox News can plausibly claim to be fair when virtually every single show they air is run by a conservative.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on January 14, 2011, 08:10:07 PM
I don't understand how Fox News can plausibly claim to be fair when virtually every single show they air is run by a conservative.

Freedom of speech.
They can say that their word is the word of God and no one can stop them.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on January 14, 2011, 10:15:35 PM
Fox news at its best (http://)

Excellent video.  This clearly shows that the viewpoint of FOX news and Bill O'Reilly in particular is generally opposed to freedom.

and no one can stop them
...unless their source of funds is eliminated.

Therefore, the objective is to have Rupert Murdoch stripped of everything he owns and sent to prison performing agricultural labor for life while his assets are distributed to the homeless.  Someone would have to successfully sue him and receive court order to this effect.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on January 15, 2011, 04:11:58 AM
and no one can stop them
...unless their source of funds is eliminated.

Therefore, the objective is to have Rupert Murdoch stripped of everything he owns and sent to prison performing agricultural labor for life while his assets are distributed to the homeless.  Someone would have to successfully sue him and receive court order to this effect.
He is currently protected under the first amendment and any lawsuit will have little effect on his wealth.
Best way is to use greed to your advantage. Plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of his fellow investors and let them tear their empire apart.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on January 15, 2011, 09:35:37 AM
and no one can stop them
...unless their source of funds is eliminated.

Therefore, the objective is to have Rupert Murdoch stripped of everything he owns and sent to prison performing agricultural labor for life while his assets are distributed to the homeless.  Someone would have to successfully sue him and receive court order to this effect.
He is currently protected under the first amendment and any lawsuit will have little effect on his wealth.
Best way is to use greed to your advantage. Plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of his fellow investors and let them tear their empire apart.

I N C E P T I O N
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 15, 2011, 10:59:06 AM
and no one can stop them
...unless their source of funds is eliminated.

Therefore, the objective is to have Rupert Murdoch stripped of everything he owns and sent to prison performing agricultural labor for life while his assets are distributed to the homeless.  Someone would have to successfully sue him and receive court order to this effect.
He is currently protected under the first amendment and any lawsuit will have little effect on his wealth.
Best way is to use greed to your advantage. Plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of his fellow investors and let them tear their empire apart.

Assange claims to have a great deal of information relating to Murdoch's under-the-table business in his insurance file, that's why FOX stopped calling for his execution so abruptly.

So if Assange gets murdered or somebody cracks the encryption, Murdoch is fucked. Or Assange was bluffing and I'm going to need to murder him in revenge/hatred depending on which. I don't really care so long as he stops poisoning the world with lies and vitriol.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 15, 2011, 11:40:55 AM
I don't understand how Fox News can plausibly claim to be fair when virtually every single show they air is run by a conservative.

Freedom of speech.
They can say that their word is the word of God and no one can stop them.

I'm not suggesting that they should be stopped or something.  I'm just saying that even a cursory examination of their shows should make it clear that they're a Republican mouthpiece.

Assange claims to have a great deal of information relating to Murdoch's under-the-table business in his insurance file, that's why FOX stopped calling for his execution so abruptly.

So if Assange gets murdered or somebody cracks the encryption, Murdoch is fucked. Or Assange was bluffing and I'm going to need to murder him in revenge/hatred depending on which. I don't really care so long as he stops poisoning the world with lies and vitriol.

I talked about this before in one of the WikiLeaks threads, but just to reiterate; if Assange is telling the truth, then he's in the wrong business.  Withholding material that would normally be published for personal gain is contrary to the spirit of journalism.  I sympathize with Assange's predicament, but he made the decision to be a journalist, and to report on important and powerful targets.  Woodward and Bernstein didn't stop writing about Watergate so that they could run a play on Nixon, did they?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on January 15, 2011, 12:40:51 PM
I don't understand how Fox News can plausibly claim to be fair when virtually every single show they air is run by a conservative.

Freedom of speech.
They can say that their word is the word of God and no one can stop them.

They also can (and do) say that if the crap they make up wasn't true, they couldn't say it on TV.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 15, 2011, 12:54:35 PM
I talked about this before in one of the WikiLeaks threads, but just to reiterate; if Assange is telling the truth, then he's in the wrong business.  Withholding material that would normally be published for personal gain is contrary to the spirit of journalism.  I sympathize with Assange's predicament, but he made the decision to be a journalist, and to report on important and powerful targets.  Woodward and Bernstein didn't stop writing about Watergate so that they could run a play on Nixon, did they?

Nixon wasn't openly demanding the murder of whistleblowers (after the whistle was blown, gods only know how much he got away with). We can also hardly call it "running a play" when it's his life he's bartering for.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 15, 2011, 02:44:26 PM
I talked about this before in one of the WikiLeaks threads, but just to reiterate; if Assange is telling the truth, then he's in the wrong business.  Withholding material that would normally be published for personal gain is contrary to the spirit of journalism.  I sympathize with Assange's predicament, but he made the decision to be a journalist, and to report on important and powerful targets.  Woodward and Bernstein didn't stop writing about Watergate so that they could run a play on Nixon, did they?

Nixon wasn't openly demanding the murder of whistleblowers (after the whistle was blown, gods only know how much he got away with). We can also hardly call it "running a play" when it's his life he's bartering for.

And Obama isn't openly advocating the murder of whistleblowers either.  If Assange is in danger from anyone, it's the government, not a bunch of loud-mouthed pundits.  Fox encouraging the government to murder Assange is just them falling into lockstep.  They personally don't have anything to gain by killing him.

As for him bartering for his life, though, he's still making a personal gain at the expense of the rest of society.  If he can't put his duty to society ahead of his own interests, then he ought to find himself a more egocentric job.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 15, 2011, 03:46:11 PM
I talked about this before in one of the WikiLeaks threads, but just to reiterate; if Assange is telling the truth, then he's in the wrong business.  Withholding material that would normally be published for personal gain is contrary to the spirit of journalism.  I sympathize with Assange's predicament, but he made the decision to be a journalist, and to report on important and powerful targets.  Woodward and Bernstein didn't stop writing about Watergate so that they could run a play on Nixon, did they?

Nixon wasn't openly demanding the murder of whistleblowers (after the whistle was blown, gods only know how much he got away with). We can also hardly call it "running a play" when it's his life he's bartering for.

And Obama isn't openly advocating the murder of whistleblowers either.  If Assange is in danger from anyone, it's the government, not a bunch of loud-mouthed pundits.

Tell that to Dr. Tiller and Gabrielle Giffords. Well, you'll need to wait for Giffords to start responding to stimuli again and for Tiller to crawl out of his grave first.

Mass media is the biggest money-spinner on Earth at the moment, and these companies are raking it in by just commenting on plane crashes and natural disasters whilst massacred and corruption carry on unseen. People like Assange are bringing real political issues to the forefront and if they're allowed to continue then people will question why FOX or MSNBC, with all their power and funding, never found shit like this out.

tl;dr Assange is making them look incompetent by virtue of being competent and it's already been made clear that you can get away with incitement to commit murder if you're on TV, so why not issue a fatwa?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 15, 2011, 06:28:10 PM
Tell that to Dr. Tiller and Gabrielle Giffords. Well, you'll need to wait for Giffords to start responding to stimuli again and for Tiller to crawl out of his grave first.

What do they have to do with it?  They were targeted by nuts, not members of the media.

Quote
Mass media is the biggest money-spinner on Earth at the moment, and these companies are raking it in by just commenting on plane crashes and natural disasters whilst massacred and corruption carry on unseen. People like Assange are bringing real political issues to the forefront and if they're allowed to continue then people will question why FOX or MSNBC, with all their power and funding, never found shit like this out.

tl;dr Assange is making them look incompetent by virtue of being competent and it's already been made clear that you can get away with incitement to commit murder if you're on TV, so why not issue a fatwa?

By that logic, we could question why Entertainment Weekly is still in business, when they report on such trivial things compared to the rest of the media.  The fact is that just like EW, Assange isn't in the same business as the mainstream media.  You might say that plane crashes and natural disasters are less important than political corruption, but that doesn't mean that people don't want to hear about them.  What WikiLeaks deals in - and I don't mean this pejoratively - is dirt.  Corruption.  Negative news.  That is only one branch of what there is to report on.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on January 16, 2011, 12:16:02 AM
We can tell who has the upper hand in the Federal government when Assange is in danger of going to prison for telling the truth while Murdoch is a seemingly safe pathological liar.

I first looked into Assange in an interview with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! several months before his name was all over the big media.
http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/7/28/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_transparent_government

The guy is exposing murderers for who they are.  The US military is far and away the biggest terrorist organization in the world.
If Assange goes to prison, then I think he deserves international tribute concerts like Mandela had back in the 1980's.

----------------------------------------

It sounds like the political assessment that characterized General D as a hippie was on target.  
Must be a fan of pacifists like Bertrand Russell.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 16, 2011, 02:47:47 AM
Tell that to Dr. Tiller and Gabrielle Giffords. Well, you'll need to wait for Giffords to start responding to stimuli again and for Tiller to crawl out of his grave first.

What do they have to do with it?  They were targeted by nuts, not members of the media.

No, they were shot by nuts. Tiller was targeted specifically by O'Reilly, he called him "Tiller the baby killer", referred to his procedures as executions and completely made shit up about Tiller performing partial birth abortions.


It's Olbermann, I know, but I can't find the original clip anywhere and the full highlight reel starts at 2:05.

Crazy people don't do shit for no reason, they do it for bad reasons. The claim that he was just a crazy guy murdering people is absurd, he drove past plenty of killable people just to get to Giffords, he planned it in advance, he called it an assassination. He was a crazy guy murdering liberals, as so many FOX commentators commanded, and he targeted Giffords who Palin called for by name.

Quote
Mass media is the biggest money-spinner on Earth at the moment, and these companies are raking it in by just commenting on plane crashes and natural disasters whilst massacred and corruption carry on unseen. People like Assange are bringing real political issues to the forefront and if they're allowed to continue then people will question why FOX or MSNBC, with all their power and funding, never found shit like this out.

tl;dr Assange is making them look incompetent by virtue of being competent and it's already been made clear that you can get away with incitement to commit murder if you're on TV, so why not issue a fatwa?

By that logic, we could question why Entertainment Weekly is still in business, when they report on such trivial things compared to the rest of the media.  The fact is that just like EW, Assange isn't in the same business as the mainstream media.  You might say that plane crashes and natural disasters are less important than political corruption, but that doesn't mean that people don't want to hear about them.  What WikiLeaks deals in - and I don't mean this pejoratively - is dirt.  Corruption.  Negative news.  That is only one branch of what there is to report on.

EW covers celebrity gossip, which isn't news. Mass political corruption, secret wars, gunning down and running over civilians, that's news. That's what people expect news organisations to cover, but as long as none of them mention it then people won't be aware of it and won't notice a lack of coverage.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 16, 2011, 11:09:19 AM
No, they were shot by nuts. Tiller was targeted specifically by O'Reilly, he called him "Tiller the baby killer", referred to his procedures as executions and completely made shit up about Tiller performing partial birth abortions.


It's Olbermann, I know, but I can't find the original clip anywhere and the full highlight reel starts at 2:05.

Crazy people don't do shit for no reason, they do it for bad reasons. The claim that he was just a crazy guy murdering people is absurd, he drove past plenty of killable people just to get to Giffords, he planned it in advance, he called it an assassination. He was a crazy guy murdering liberals, as so many FOX commentators commanded, and he targeted Giffords who Palin called for by name.

Fox commentators ordered hits on Tiller and Giffords?

Quote
EW covers celebrity gossip, which isn't news. Mass political corruption, secret wars, gunning down and running over civilians, that's news. That's what people expect news organisations to cover, but as long as none of them mention it then people won't be aware of it and won't notice a lack of coverage.

That doesn't change the fact that it is only one part of all reportable news.  People aren't going to just stop watching other news channels so they can read what's on WikiLeaks.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: boomshakalak on January 18, 2011, 07:49:48 PM
Point of thread is what exactly?  No minds are ever changed on the internet.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on January 18, 2011, 07:52:57 PM
Point of thread is what exactly?  No minds are ever changed on the internet.
False and irrelevant. Congratulations, you double-suck.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 19, 2011, 02:14:17 PM
Point of thread is what exactly?  No minds are ever changed on the internet.

This forum is where I became an atheist. It's where I became a communist, an anarchist and finally a social democrat. It's where I turned against gun laws (until I saw a fairly simple argument which completely destroyed the point which swayed me, which in hindsight was retarded, on YouTube). It's where I went from slightly conservative to totally liberal in every area. It's where I stopped being homophobic and a little bit racist, it's where I stopped loving my country until it earns it, it's where I learned pretty much everything I understand about society and where I developed almost every opinion I currently hold on it.

tl;dr it's a wall of you being totally fucking wrong.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on January 19, 2011, 02:25:19 PM
Point of thread is what exactly?  No minds are ever changed on the internet.

This forum is where I became an atheist. It's where I became a communist, an anarchist and finally a social democrat. It's where I turned against gun laws (until I saw a fairly simple argument which completely destroyed the point which swayed me, which in hindsight was retarded, on YouTube). It's where I went from slightly conservative to totally liberal in every area. It's where I stopped being homophobic and a little bit racist, it's where I stopped loving my country until it earns it, it's where I learned pretty much everything I understand about society and where I developed almost every opinion I currently hold on it.

tl;dr it's a wall of you being totally fucking wrong.

You got all that from this forum? Wowzers.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 19, 2011, 04:06:18 PM
No, he got all that from the internet.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Eddy Baby on January 19, 2011, 05:45:15 PM
Before FES: If the government says weed is bad, then it probably is. They know the score.

After FES: Erm, come on, government.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 20, 2011, 04:28:38 AM
Before FES: The Earth is round duh

After FES: The Earth is flat and you are fat
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wendy on January 20, 2011, 04:29:33 AM
I am, you know. It's all true.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 20, 2011, 03:15:02 PM
No, he got all that from the internet.

Mostly this forum. There was erowid/420chan giving me actual facts about drugs rather than bullshit, giving me a generally liberal attitude to all drugs (I'd never do crack, heroin or meth myself under any circumstances, but I'm not going to judge) and the Youtube clip I mentioned, but that's pretty much it for that shithole's contribution.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Eddy Baby on January 20, 2011, 06:52:16 PM
I'm all, liberal and shit.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on January 24, 2011, 09:39:08 AM
Before FES: If the government says weed is bad, then it probably is. They know the score.

After FES: Erm, come on, government.

You got that from here?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on January 24, 2011, 09:40:14 AM
No, he got all that from the internet.

Mostly this forum. There was erowid/420chan giving me actual facts about drugs rather than bullshit, giving me a generally liberal attitude to all drugs (I'd never do crack, heroin or meth myself under any circumstances, but I'm not going to judge) and the Youtube clip I mentioned, but that's pretty much it for that shithole's contribution.

I think the best place to get info about drugs is your doctor. They don't have to be the moral police, and they should know via patient experience
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Eddy Baby on January 24, 2011, 09:50:24 AM
Before FES: If the government says weed is bad, then it probably is. They know the score.

After FES: Erm, come on, government.

You got that from here?

Trouble?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on January 24, 2011, 10:06:52 AM
Before FES: If the government says weed is bad, then it probably is. They know the score.

After FES: Erm, come on, government.

You got that from here?

Trouble?

most people get that sort of info in highschool or college, when they realize that their more adventurous peers aren't dropping down dead
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Eddy Baby on January 24, 2011, 10:14:44 AM
Interesting. I was one of those people, having first smoked weed at 14, but I was worried about the amount of people I know who have ruined their lives because of weed. But this is up to the individual.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on January 26, 2011, 09:59:34 AM
Just curious... how do you guys feel about the Tucson as relating to Fox New's rhetoric?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 26, 2011, 10:35:58 AM
Just curious... how do you guys feel about the Tucson as relating to Fox New's rhetoric?

The fact that he is a psychopath is irrelevant IMHO. Crazy people don't do things for no reason, they just do things for bad reasons. Glenn Beck saying "SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD" over and over was also unrelated however, because FOX said so.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Disarray on January 26, 2011, 10:41:08 AM
I say that if you devote so much of your time and effort into spreading fear, you shouldn't be surprised if someone acts on that fear. This incident may be (and probably is) completely unrelated, but Fox News certainly isn't helping the situation.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 26, 2011, 10:46:53 AM
I agree, I don't think Fox rhetoric had anything to do with this particular shooting... but it sure has been fun watching them deny responsibility.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on January 26, 2011, 10:58:21 AM
Just curious... how do you guys feel about the Tucson as relating to Fox New's rhetoric?

The fact that he is a psychopath is irrelevant IMHO. Crazy people don't do things for no reason, they just do things for bad reasons. Glenn Beck saying "SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD" over and over was also unrelated however, because FOX said so.
that was a dumb thing to say, but he said it once, not over and over.  he also said to shoot him in the head earlier in that same piece.  i'm not trying to say it was ok for him to say that, but there is more to it than just that one little quote.  and people shouldnt have tailor their speeches or radio shows to the mentally unstable.  people on the left want to blame beck because they don't agree with him, plain and simple.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 26, 2011, 11:00:13 AM
Plus, Beck is batshit.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 26, 2011, 11:07:06 AM
Just curious... how do you guys feel about the Tucson as relating to Fox New's rhetoric?

The fact that he is a psychopath is irrelevant IMHO. Crazy people don't do things for no reason, they just do things for bad reasons. Glenn Beck saying "SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD" over and over was also unrelated however, because FOX said so.
that was a dumb thing to say, but he said it once, not over and over.  he also said to shoot him in the head earlier in that same piece.  i'm not trying to say it was ok for him to say that, but there is more to it than just that one little quote.  and people shouldnt have tailor their speeches or radio shows to the mentally unstable.  people on the left want to blame beck because they don't agree with him, plain and simple.

Are you kidding? That's his fucking catchphrase! I've seen countless separate instances of him saying it, and in the one full episode I've seen (I'm in the UK, the closest to FOX we have is Sky) he said it twice, and not even in a context that made sense.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: soupnazi on January 26, 2011, 11:14:45 AM
Just curious... how do you guys feel about the Tucson as relating to Fox New's rhetoric?

The fact that he is a psychopath is irrelevant IMHO. Crazy people don't do things for no reason, they just do things for bad reasons. Glenn Beck saying "SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD" over and over was also unrelated however, because FOX said so.
that was a dumb thing to say, but he said it once, not over and over.  he also said to shoot him in the head earlier in that same piece.  i'm not trying to say it was ok for him to say that, but there is more to it than just that one little quote.  and people shouldnt have tailor their speeches or radio shows to the mentally unstable.  people on the left want to blame beck because they don't agree with him, plain and simple.

Are you kidding? That's his fucking catchphrase! I've seen countless separate instances of him saying it, and in the one full episode I've seen (I'm in the UK, the closest to FOX we have is Sky) he said it twice, and not even in a context that made sense.
you must have more examples than Google then because i've searched and the only instance it brings up is the one time.  i used to listen to Beck quite a bit but not hardly at all anymore, and i never heard him say it.  i've read  a few articles about this particular time he said it by people who are not supporters of his, so it would be in their interest to bring up the fact that he says it all the time, but not one of them does.  i'm not saying you are wrong but i can only find reference to this one time.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on January 26, 2011, 11:16:07 AM
Just curious... how do you guys feel about the Tucson as relating to Fox New's rhetoric?

The fact that he is a psychopath is irrelevant IMHO. Crazy people don't do things for no reason, they just do things for bad reasons. Glenn Beck saying "SHOOT THEM IN THE HEAD" over and over was also unrelated however, because FOX said so.
that was a dumb thing to say, but he said it once, not over and over.  he also said to shoot him in the head earlier in that same piece.  i'm not trying to say it was ok for him to say that, but there is more to it than just that one little quote.  and people shouldnt have tailor their speeches or radio shows to the mentally unstable.  people on the left want to blame beck because they don't agree with him, plain and simple.

Are you kidding? That's his fucking catchphrase! I've seen countless separate instances of him saying it, and in the one full episode I've seen (I'm in the UK, the closest to FOX we have is Sky) he said it twice, and not even in a context that made sense.
you must have more examples than Google then because i've searched and the only instance it brings up is the one time.  i used to listen to Beck quite a bit but not hardly at all anymore, and i never heard him say it.  i've read  a few articles about this particular time he said it by people who are not supporters of his, so it would be in their interest to bring up the fact that he says it all the time, but not one of them does.  i'm not saying you are wrong but i can only find reference to this one time.

I know the instance you're speaking of and it's the most famous by far, I'm not surprised it's the only one to come up from a cursory Google search. I'll shuffle around on YouTube and try to dig up a montage or something.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on January 26, 2011, 02:14:37 PM
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101260007
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2011, 04:36:36 PM
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101260007

I'm going to agree with the first commentator there.  When are they going to, you know, let the adults do the reporting instead of the kids?  There was an overwhelming uproar from the media and politicians from both parties when MoveOn.org made that "General Petraeus or General Betray-Us?" joke years ago, not just because of its disrespectful nature, but also because it was so sophomoric and childish.  Now Fox News does this...and it will be largely ignored.  I guarantee it.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on February 01, 2011, 11:35:06 AM
(http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/foto/07276751_Egypte.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: optimisticcynic on February 03, 2011, 10:12:01 AM

not sure if anyone posted this clip but it is needed to give context to this next one.
http://gawker.com/5750082/
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on February 08, 2011, 10:38:22 PM
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101260007

A reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the obvious fact of Fox bias:

Private ownership (depending upon whom) and advertisers in particular are generally responsible for infinitely more media censorship than government censors.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on February 11, 2011, 07:04:09 AM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/09/maddow-takes-fox-news-over-new-black-panther-party/
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on February 11, 2011, 09:25:55 AM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/09/maddow-takes-fox-news-over-new-black-panther-party/

Your point being...?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on February 11, 2011, 09:28:19 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/video_2324.html?1271360625
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Benocrates on February 11, 2011, 09:42:21 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/video_2324.html?1271360625

bololol, oh billy
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on February 11, 2011, 09:46:15 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/video_2324.html?1271360625

Just finished watching that.

...unbelievable.  Those idiots at Fox are the ones who "can't get their facts straight."

EDIT: I also love the reference to America turning into Nazi Germany in there.  Missed it? Skip to 3:13
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Particle Person on February 11, 2011, 09:49:30 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/video_2324.html?1271360625

People don't appreciate him enough. It obviously isn't easy living with that sort of mental disability, let alone hosting your own comedy news show.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on February 11, 2011, 10:44:29 AM
Do all presentators think that if they start screaming they are right (around 2:00)?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on February 11, 2011, 12:41:29 PM
I usually turn on Fox when there's nothing good on Comedy Central.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Benocrates on February 11, 2011, 01:18:25 PM
listen here to Glenn Beck lose his fucking mind, hilarious: (http://)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on February 11, 2011, 04:25:39 PM
THE LOUNDER YOU ARE, THE MORE RIGHT YOU ARE!!!
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on February 11, 2011, 04:34:31 PM
I think the reason why main stream news consistently fails to report news as well as many radical journalists and weeklies is their advertisers prevent them. 

News that relies upon advertising is the key ingredient of censorship.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on February 11, 2011, 04:36:26 PM
Glen Beck makes me think of flat earther

"Health care is wrong"
'But it works good in Europe, people can't afford hospital visits here in the US, people suffer'
SHITFUCK HEALTHCARE IS BAD LISTEN TO ME SHOUT RARARGAGRGARHHGAHRHG
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on February 11, 2011, 04:38:27 PM
I think the reason why main stream news consistently fails to report news as well as many radical journalists and weeklies is their advertisers prevent them. 

News that relies upon advertising is the key ingredient of censorship.

Hey, waddaya know?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/National_Public_Radio_logo.svg/200px-National_Public_Radio_logo.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/PBS_Logo.svg/200px-PBS_Logo.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/BBC.svg/200px-BBC.svg.png)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on February 11, 2011, 05:03:29 PM
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/fox-news-cuts-away-for-breaking-news-to-read-palin-tweet-on-egypt-video-1
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on February 11, 2011, 06:14:17 PM
I think the reason why main stream news consistently fails to report news as well as many radical journalists and weeklies is their advertisers prevent them.  

News that relies upon advertising is the key ingredient of censorship.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/National_Public_Radio_logo.svg/200px-National_Public_Radio_logo.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/PBS_Logo.svg/200px-PBS_Logo.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/BBC.svg/200px-BBC.svg.png)

I think that BBC news is a far more objective and definitely gives wider coverage than CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox combined.  
I also think that the programming of PBS has generally been better than the corporate networks.  
The news on NPR is not the same as the Socialist Workers Party, but I would still prefer it over CBS and the like every time.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on February 11, 2011, 10:05:40 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/video_2324.html?1271360625
I'm putting that link on as many forums as i can!!!

Edit:
Changed lik to link
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on February 14, 2011, 11:38:27 AM
Speaking of ethical journalism.  I came accross this today:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/fox-news-liz-trotta-anderson-cooper_n_822745.html

There has been a lot of critisism of Anderson Cooper about him calling several claims by the former Egypt dictator a lie. 

Is a journalist adding his own spin, or opinion, when he labels something that is factually incorrect, a lie?  Or should he just report what was said and let the veiwer figure out for themselves whether or not what was said was actually the truth?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on February 14, 2011, 11:53:15 AM
I don't have a problem with journalists calling a lie a lie. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on February 14, 2011, 11:53:56 AM
Fox News criticizing someone for journalistic integrity?

(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg/500px-HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on February 14, 2011, 12:16:03 PM
Fox News criticizing someone for journalistic integrity?

(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg/500px-HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg)
I don't have a problem with journalists calling a lie a lie.

You guys are the greatest.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on February 14, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
While Anderson Cooper isn't as good as what you might get from NPR, he is one of the best journalists on the mainstream media right now.

I mean, just look at this interview. (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/11/30/ac.berman.birther.debate.cnn)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on February 14, 2011, 12:18:42 PM
Speaking of ethical journalism.  I came accross this today:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/fox-news-liz-trotta-anderson-cooper_n_822745.html

There has been a lot of critisism of Anderson Cooper about him calling several claims by the former Egypt dictator a lie.  

Is a journalist adding his own spin, or opinion, when he labels something that is factually incorrect, a lie?  Or should he just report what was said and let the veiwer figure out for themselves whether or not what was said was actually the truth?


Do you like Fox news or is this article an exception?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on February 14, 2011, 12:25:50 PM
Speaking of ethical journalism.  I came accross this today:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/fox-news-liz-trotta-anderson-cooper_n_822745.html

There has been a lot of critisism of Anderson Cooper about him calling several claims by the former Egypt dictator a lie.  

Is a journalist adding his own spin, or opinion, when he labels something that is factually incorrect, a lie?  Or should he just report what was said and let the veiwer figure out for themselves whether or not what was said was actually the truth?


Do you like Fox news or is this article an exception?

Where did I indicate that I agreed with Fox News in this case?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on February 14, 2011, 12:33:05 PM
I love hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: 17 November on February 14, 2011, 12:39:29 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/stewart-on-mubarak-video_n_817963.html

It sounds like Anderson Cooper was deliberately singled out for a violent attack (perhaps murder was intended) by pro-Mubarak goons in which case the pro-Mubarak people with assistance from Fox and the american media might even blame it on the protestors.

That is exactly what happened when the fascist puppet government of Greece had Greek mafia murder CBS correspondent George Polk in 1948.  They blamed it on the communists.  In recognition of George Polk's commitment to getting the truth about the greek civil war, the annual Polk award was named in his honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Polk_Awards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Polk

'The Polk Conspiracy' By Kati Morton
http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/polk.html

One of the very best books ever written about the greek civil war.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 09, 2011, 04:03:29 PM
Beck was just on a dutch talk show to show how ridiculous the populistic american talk shows are.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 10, 2011, 04:14:26 PM
Beck was just on a dutch talk show to show how ridiculous the populistic american talk shows are.

I bet that went over well. Here's Beck being torn apart by Whoopi Goldberg, for your viewing pleasure.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ladies-view-rake-glenn-beck-over-coa
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 13, 2011, 06:52:39 AM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on March 13, 2011, 08:03:18 AM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html



No, he doesn't. He's liberal and he is worried about the Tea Party. He's allowed to have whatever opinions he likes off air.

Even if he brought that to the screens, it's still only MSNBC level bias. Once he actually starts lying then you've got yourself a liberal FOX analogue.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 13, 2011, 09:39:12 AM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html

So one person's opinions represents an entire organization's policy?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 13, 2011, 10:56:04 AM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html

So one person's opinions represents an entire organization's policy?


It does when said person is dictating policy at said organization.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 13, 2011, 11:34:09 AM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html

So one person's opinions represents an entire organization's policy?
It does when said person is dictating policy at said organization.
....

Please explain to me how he is now the CEO and Board of Directors all in one person?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on March 13, 2011, 11:40:18 AM
By that logic, the entire congress was lying about Monica Lewinsky.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 13, 2011, 11:57:48 AM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html

So one person's opinions represents an entire organization's policy?
It does when said person is dictating policy at said organization.
....

Please explain to me how he is now the CEO and Board of Directors all in one person?

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

Why was it the organization was sooo quick to back away from him?(money)  Did they not agree with what was said?(possibly) And if so then why did they not fire him for saying such rude, and slanderous things?(.....) 

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 13, 2011, 12:03:48 PM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html

So one person's opinions represents an entire organization's policy?
It does when said person is dictating policy at said organization.
....

Please explain to me how he is now the CEO and Board of Directors all in one person?

Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

Why was it the organization was sooo quick to back away from him?(money)  Did they not agree with what was said?(possibly) And if so then why did they not fire him for saying such rude, and slanderous things?(.....) 

1. Because he stands for what they're against: Biased?
2. Dunno. 
3. This needs to be broken down into two parts:
a. I'm pretty sure he is no longer employed there.
b. If you're asking why they didn't fire him immediately after he said it then I ask you how they would know?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on March 13, 2011, 12:05:31 PM
Fox News could learn from this. Your reporters aren't supposed to be biased.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 13, 2011, 01:35:47 PM
He is not a reporter.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on March 13, 2011, 01:48:31 PM
He is not a reporter.

Okay, but he represents a news organization. And I was referring to Fox News. Going after someone who doesn't report is a little too far, but that's NPR's choice. On the other end of the spectrum, Fox News doesn't even go after journalists who are biased. See what I mean?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 13, 2011, 01:59:41 PM
Seems they dont want anymore federal funding......sounds good to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0311/NPR_exec_tea_party_is_scary_racist.html

So one person's opinions represents an entire organization's policy?


It does when said person is dictating policy at said organization.

Wat?  You know he was in charge of fund raising for NPR and not dictating policy, right? I guess Fox News left that part out.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 13, 2011, 02:22:43 PM
Fox News is not a news organization, it is a propaganda mill, pure and simple.

And the same is true about MSNBC.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 13, 2011, 07:35:32 PM
Wat?  You know he was in charge of fund raising for NPR and not dictating policy, right? I guess Fox News left that part out.

Ahhh plausible deniability.  The liberals are soooo smart.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 13, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Wat?  You know he was in charge of fund raising for NPR and not dictating policy, right? I guess Fox News left that part out.

Ahhh plausible deniability.  The liberals are soooo smart.
So he wasnt in charge of fund raising?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 14, 2011, 10:06:04 AM
Wat?  You know he was in charge of fund raising for NPR and not dictating policy, right? I guess Fox News left that part out.

Ahhh plausible deniability.  The liberals are soooo smart.

Plausible deniability for what?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on March 14, 2011, 11:14:46 AM
WTF is going on in this thread?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 14, 2011, 12:19:24 PM
Wat?  You know he was in charge of fund raising for NPR and not dictating policy, right? I guess Fox News left that part out.

Ahhh plausible deniability.  The liberals are soooo smart.

Plausible deniability for what?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/
That person from the Blaze is soooo fired.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 15, 2011, 06:29:48 AM
The truth has no agenda.


Like we are all surprised OKeefe used questionable editing practices.  Doesn't make much of a difference on some of the stuff thats said.  Hence the resignation. 

BTW can I start using the Blaze as a reliable news source now?  It would make things alot easier.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 15, 2011, 08:50:40 AM
The truth has no agenda.


Like we are all surprised OKeefe used questionable editing practices.  Doesn't make much of a difference on some of the stuff thats said.  Hence the resignation. 

BTW can I start using the Blaze as a reliable news source now?  It would make things alot easier.
Depends on if the person who reported this still has a job in a month. If not then it should be clear why.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 15, 2011, 09:40:09 AM
The truth has no agenda.


Like we are all surprised OKeefe used questionable editing practices.  Doesn't make much of a difference on some of the stuff thats said.  Hence the resignation. 

BTW can I start using the Blaze as a reliable news source now?  It would make things alot easier.

No, I just wanted to use a source you'd believe without question.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 16, 2011, 04:04:28 AM
The truth has no agenda.


Like we are all surprised OKeefe used questionable editing practices.  Doesn't make much of a difference on some of the stuff thats said.  Hence the resignation. 

BTW can I start using the Blaze as a reliable news source now?  It would make things alot easier.

No, I just wanted to use a source you'd believe without question.


Ahhh Do as I say....not as I do.  Got it.  ;)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on March 16, 2011, 08:35:59 AM
Ooooo, Yo Mama Fight!
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 16, 2011, 09:46:30 AM
The truth has no agenda.


Like we are all surprised OKeefe used questionable editing practices.  Doesn't make much of a difference on some of the stuff thats said.  Hence the resignation.  

BTW can I start using the Blaze as a reliable news source now?  It would make things alot easier.

No, I just wanted to use a source you'd believe without question.


Ahhh Do as I say....not as I do.  Got it.  ;)

When debating a biblical literalist, it is most effective to cite the bible. This doesn't mean for a moment that I give the bible any credit.
...It is not hypocritical to appeal to another sources in order to directly show problems from within your opponents framework.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 16, 2011, 10:17:38 AM
The truth has no agenda.


Like we are all surprised OKeefe used questionable editing practices.  Doesn't make much of a difference on some of the stuff thats said.  Hence the resignation. 

BTW can I start using the Blaze as a reliable news source now?  It would make things alot easier.

No, I just wanted to use a source you'd believe without question.


Ahhh Do as I say....not as I do.  Got it.  ;)

If I'd posted a link to Slate, or Huffington Post you probably would have been skeptical.  I'd already read several different sources and simply chose the one I knew you would be most likely to believe, my reply was tailored for you. I'd never use The Blaze as a source in and of itself, but I might use it as a jumping off point, sorta like Wikipedia. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 16, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
Guys, give up. This is like trying to convince Tom that the Earth is round. It literally doesn't matter what you say; he's too deep in to back out now. He'd be humiliated.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 18, 2011, 05:17:39 PM
Guys, give up. This is like trying to convince Tom that the Earth is round. It literally doesn't matter what you say; he's just a troll.

fix'd.  I agree.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 18, 2011, 06:46:41 PM
Guys, give up. This is like trying to convince Tom that the Earth is round. It literally doesn't matter what you say; he's just a troll.

fix'd.  I agree.

Okay, that too.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Christianrocker90 on March 20, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
The only reason you guys think Fox News is more biased than the others is because it's slant doesn't align with your political beliefs. Is that so hard to admit?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on March 20, 2011, 08:33:07 PM
The only reason you guys think Fox News is more biased than the others is because it's slant doesn't align with your political beliefs. Is that so hard to admit?
Neither does MSNBC, but I still content that Fox is far more biased.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 20, 2011, 11:11:12 PM
The only reason you guys think Fox News is more biased than the others is because it's slant doesn't align with your political beliefs. Is that so hard to admit?

Classic fallacy.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 20, 2011, 11:13:45 PM
The only reason you guys think Fox News is more biased than the others is because it's slant doesn't align with your political beliefs. Is that so hard to admit?
Incorrect. I respect conservative viewpoints much more than what I see on Fox.

I think Fox News is horribly biased because of the staggering proportions of lies, misrepresentations, omitted data, and flawed logic I see aired. For an extensive list, check out the list of cited instances clearly portraying bias on Fox new on liberalviewer (http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer#p/c/A3BD2524FE99BD4D)'s youtube. Don't get caught up on the name, as the content of those videos is logical scrutiny, usually by adding information you can check. --Not a criticism of rightwing issues. Make sure you're on the correct playlist though.

I think Fox news is biased because of their admission to firing employees during the investigation of bovine growth hormone for trying to report on the problems with the hormone.

I think Fox news is biased for issuing memos to their employees that directly tells them what republican issues to ignore and what democratic things to harp on or even invent.

I think Fox news is biased for allowing (and most likely encouraging) many of their alleged 'reporters', to knowingly lie on the air, and then defending that right to directly fabricate news in court.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 20, 2011, 11:14:38 PM
The only reason you guys think Fox News is more biased than the others is because it's slant doesn't align with your political beliefs. Is that so hard to admit?

Classic fallacy.

Classic psychological projection. If that's how he filters news channels, that's what he'll expect others to do.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 21, 2011, 04:07:52 AM
I think Fox news is biased because of their admission to firing employees during the investigation of bovine growth hormone for trying to report on the problems with the hormone.

I think Fox news is biased for issuing memos to their employees that directly tells them what republican issues to ignore and what democratic things to harp on or even invent.

I think Fox news is biased for allowing (and most likely encouraging) many of their alleged 'reporters', to knowingly lie on the air, and then defending that right to directly fabricate news in court.

Im sure you have evidence for your outlandish claims. 

Question....what news source should we all be watching?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on March 21, 2011, 04:09:09 AM
Question....what news source should we all be watching?

I don't think anyone implied that any news source is perfect, as you seem to think.  Some are just better (as in less biased) than others.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 21, 2011, 04:15:36 AM
I don't think I implied that any new source was perfect.  I just asked him where he thought we should be getting our news from. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Horatio on March 21, 2011, 04:18:10 AM
I don't think I implied that any new source was perfect.  I just asked him where he thought we should be getting our news from. 

BBC, ITV, CBC.

RT only for amusement.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 21, 2011, 04:19:47 AM
When i move to the UK I'll check those out.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on March 21, 2011, 05:16:25 AM
When i move to the UK I'll check those out.

BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/)

ITV (http://www.itv.com/news/)

CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/)

No excuses.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 21, 2011, 06:51:58 AM
So international news is now covered.  What about in the US, and my local stuff?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Trekky0623 on March 21, 2011, 07:09:59 AM
So international news is now covered.  What about in the US, and my local stuff?

Use a local news channel. They're usually good, even the ones labelled with the "Fox" name.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on March 21, 2011, 08:08:36 AM
I don't think I implied that any new source was perfect.  I just asked him where he thought we should be getting our news from. 

BBC, ITV, CBC.

RT only for amusement.

Al Jazeera is usually pretty good, too.

Though I suspect maybe not quite Wardogg's taste.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Crustinator on March 21, 2011, 08:23:46 AM
So international news is now covered.  What about in the US, and my local stuff?

You don't need to know about that. If you like I can write you a script that will feed you a daily dose of paranoia and ensure your gun cabinet is well stocked. It will mostly involve aerial footage of black people running.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 21, 2011, 09:15:09 AM
Im sure you have evidence for your outlandish claims.

Of course, though I didn't organize most of it. I just reviewed and researched it once it had been compiled.

I recommend Netflixing the DVD "Outfoxed". It delves much deeper into the subjects than my brief synopsis, and actually includes many more examples of Fox's crimes against journalism. But yeah, they interviewed several of the employees fired for pushing the bovine hormone story in detail and let's us look at photocopies of the written documentation AND the departmental memos outlining intentional bias. It even shows a few clips of Fox reporters directly lying... something youtube has done for us many hundreds of times.


I don't think I implied that any new source was perfect.  I just asked him where he thought we should be getting our news from.  

Anywhere else? If you know something is disinformative propaganda, move on to the next station. I can't claim I have done the same amount of research on other channels, but trying out an uncertain variation of the average is better than sticking to a certainty that is far below average.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 21, 2011, 12:09:36 PM
The only reason you guys think Fox News is more biased than the others is because it's slant doesn't align with your political beliefs. Is that so hard to admit?

It has nothing to do with that. They make outright lies.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 21, 2011, 12:19:43 PM
I think Fox news is biased because of their admission to firing employees during the investigation of bovine growth hormone for trying to report on the problems with the hormone.

I think Fox news is biased for issuing memos to their employees that directly tells them what republican issues to ignore and what democratic things to harp on or even invent.

I think Fox news is biased for allowing (and most likely encouraging) many of their alleged 'reporters', to knowingly lie on the air, and then defending that right to directly fabricate news in court.

Im sure you have evidence for your outlandish claims. 

http://www.observer.com/2010/media/leaked-fox-news-memo-dont-call-it-public-option
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/leaked-memos-cast-doubt-on-fox-news-claim-of-neutrality-2162660.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-be_n_34128.html
http://gawker.com/#!5710357/fox-news-memo-public-option-sounds-too-friendly-stop-using-it
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Crustinator on March 21, 2011, 01:16:57 PM
Fox News is the only news agency that has gone to court to defend its right to make shit up. True story.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on March 21, 2011, 02:47:07 PM
If we're really concerned about Monsanto, let's discuss why Michael Taylor, a long time legal defender of Monsanto, was appointed as a food Commissioner at the FDA and why there's not holy hell being raised by the entire media.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 21, 2011, 03:36:14 PM
If we're really concerned about Monsanto, let's discuss why Michael Taylor, a long time legal defender of Monsanto, was appointed as a food Commissioner at the FDA and why there's not holy hell being raised by the entire media.

+1

Holy shit, were we talking about Monsanto and I missed it.  I hate those guys.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 21, 2011, 03:38:27 PM
If we're really concerned about Monsanto, let's discuss why Michael Taylor, a long time legal defender of Monsanto, was appointed as a food Commissioner at the FDA and why there's not holy hell being raised by the entire media.

+1

I hate those guys.

Why? What did they do? It's only very recently that I've actually began paying attention to the news.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 21, 2011, 03:48:48 PM
Why? What did they do? It's only very recently that I've actually began paying attention to the news.

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

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on March 21, 2011, 03:53:59 PM
I like how Fox news managed to find a nuclear power plant in a disco.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103140036

(http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/composition/5051962/view/1/producttypecolor/1/type/png/width/378/height/378/white-i-am-eggman-walrus-long-sleeve-shirts_design.png)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on March 21, 2011, 03:59:23 PM
But all credit to Fox for reporting on the Egyptian annexation of Iraq, nobody else covered it...

(http://blog.jacknealy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/fox-news-egypt-in-iraq.jpg)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on March 21, 2011, 04:08:41 PM
If we're really concerned about Monsanto, let's discuss why Michael Taylor, a long time legal defender of Monsanto, was appointed as a food Commissioner at the FDA and why there's not holy hell being raised by the entire media.

+1

I hate those guys.

Why? What did they do? It's only very recently that I've actually began paying attention to the news.

 ???  Don't you read your own links?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 21, 2011, 04:12:39 PM
If we're really concerned about Monsanto, let's discuss why Michael Taylor, a long time legal defender of Monsanto, was appointed as a food Commissioner at the FDA and why there's not holy hell being raised by the entire media.

+1

I hate those guys.

Why? What did they do? It's only very recently that I've actually began paying attention to the news.

 ???  Don't you read your own links?

I generally don't read the whole thing, just make sure it has the stuff I'm looking for, which was evidence of the Fox memos. I'll peruse them now.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 21, 2011, 04:18:42 PM
Oh god, they're terrible. They remind me of Ciba-Geigy, but worse.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 21, 2011, 04:35:09 PM
But all credit to Fox for reporting on the Egyptian annexation of Iraq, nobody else covered it...

(http://blog.jacknealy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/fox-news-egypt-in-iraq.jpg)
I'll take Geography for 200 Alex.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on March 21, 2011, 05:09:23 PM
Lol. Journalists.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1899671_1899666_1899744,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1899671_1899666_1899744,00.html)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 21, 2011, 05:17:17 PM
Lol. Journalists.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1899671_1899666_1899744,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1899671_1899666_1899744,00.html)
:)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 22, 2011, 06:13:51 AM
But all credit to Fox for reporting on the Egyptian annexation of Iraq, nobody else covered it...

(http://blog.jacknealy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/fox-news-egypt-in-iraq.jpg)

when I posted that no one reacted :(
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Hessy on March 22, 2011, 10:09:53 AM
I lul'd and facepalmed, don't worry.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Crustinator on March 22, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Holy shit, were we talking about Monsanto and I missed it.  I hate those guys.

Did they do something to your family?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 23, 2011, 04:38:29 AM
But all credit to Fox for reporting on the Egyptian annexation of Iraq, nobody else covered it.

* fake pic *

when I posted that no one reacted :(

Its fake
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on March 23, 2011, 04:48:17 AM
But all credit to Fox for reporting on the Egyptian annexation of Iraq, nobody else covered it.

* fake pic *

when I posted that no one reacted :(

Its fake
Like a man with orthopedic shoes, I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 23, 2011, 04:49:01 AM
Holy shit, were we talking about Monsanto and I missed it.  I hate those guys.

Did they do something to your family?


http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/monsanto-the-bad-seed/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844#
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 23, 2011, 09:40:20 AM
I agree that Monsanto is evil, but I wonder if we agree why. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 23, 2011, 12:38:13 PM
I hate them because of the dumping. That's why I compared them to Ciba-Geigy. That was a chemical plant near where I live that was discovered to be dumping chemicals that cause cancer in small children.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 23, 2011, 12:39:35 PM
But all credit to Fox for reporting on the Egyptian annexation of Iraq, nobody else covered it.

* fake pic *

when I posted that no one reacted :(

Its fake

Evidence, please. I googled it and didn't find a single claim that it was fake.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on March 23, 2011, 01:39:56 PM
I agree that Monsanto is evil, but I wonder if we agree why. 

For starters, don't allow their pollen to drift into your corn field if you don't want to be sued.  You should've put up a pollen defense shield.

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Crustinator on March 23, 2011, 01:56:25 PM
Holy shit, were we talking about Monsanto and I missed it.  I hate those guys.

Did they do something to your family?


http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/monsanto-the-bad-seed/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844#


Yeah but I asked for your opinion, not some sausagelinks.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Eddy Baby on March 23, 2011, 02:24:54 PM
cancer in small children.


UNTIL NOW THE SMALL CHILDREN WERE IMMUNE
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 23, 2011, 04:36:44 PM
I agree that Monsanto is evil, but I wonder if we agree why. 

For starters, don't allow their pollen to drift into your corn field if you don't want to be sued.  You should've put up a pollen defense shield.



 ;D
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 29, 2011, 04:15:01 AM
Holy shit, were we talking about Monsanto and I missed it.  I hate those guys.

Did they do something to your family?

No.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 29, 2011, 04:24:15 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/29/fox-news-executive-admits-his-attempt-to-link-obama-to-socialism-was-a-lie/?utm_source=Raw+Story+Daily+Update&utm_campaign=f397b6b900-3_29_113_29_2011&utm_medium=email
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 29, 2011, 05:53:57 PM
Why do Americans hate socialism so much?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 29, 2011, 06:04:53 PM
Why do Americans hate socialism so much?

Cold War Propaganda.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wakka Wakka on March 29, 2011, 06:19:49 PM
Why do Americans hate socialism so much?
Refer to the title of this thread.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 29, 2011, 07:02:14 PM
Why do Americans hate socialism so much?

Why can't the world prove socialism works?  It hasn't yet.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 29, 2011, 07:18:45 PM
Why can't the world prove socialism works?  It hasn't yet.

Australia and most of Europe beg to differ.

I can see someone arguing that point in a Communism debate, even though Communism itself hasn't been implemented properly.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 29, 2011, 07:25:22 PM
The problem with communism is worker incentive. My idea for it is to mechanize everything that can be mechanized, so that those who don't wish to work hard don't drag down society, and have jobs that can't be mechanized (such as politics, teaching, and entertainment) provide a higher weekly allowance from the government.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 29, 2011, 07:27:41 PM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 29, 2011, 07:40:26 PM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

This.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 29, 2011, 07:54:16 PM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

Typical liberal oversimplification of the issue.  There are many intelligent people who are against socialism for what they see as perfectly valid reasons.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 29, 2011, 07:58:22 PM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

Typical liberal oversimplification of the issue.  There are many intelligent people who are against socialism for what they see as perfectly valid reasons.

I never said otherwise, but could you elaborate?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 29, 2011, 08:04:49 PM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

Typical liberal oversimplification of the issue.  There are many intelligent people who are against socialism for what they see as perfectly valid reasons.

I never said otherwise,

Hence, oversimplification.  You made a blanket statement and implied (even if you didn't state it) that all Americans who disagree with socialism do so out of ignorance.

Quote
but could you elaborate?

Well, it's all about entitlement.  People who do the necessary work to succeed don't feel that they should be responsible for people not willing to do the necessary work to succeed.  But in many cases that's exactly what socialism forces on society.

I know people who are third generation welfare recipients, and spit out babies for the money and benefits the government is willing to shell out, just for being poor and having a lot of kids.

Honestly, I don't think it's right that my taxes should be supporting these people.  And I classify myself as a liberal.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: optimisticcynic on March 29, 2011, 09:02:43 PM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

Typical liberal oversimplification of the issue.  There are many intelligent people who are against socialism for what they see as perfectly valid reasons.

I never said otherwise,

Hence, oversimplification.  You made a blanket statement and implied (even if you didn't state it) that all Americans who disagree with socialism do so out of ignorance.

Quote
but could you elaborate?

Well, it's all about entitlement.  People who do the necessary work to succeed don't feel that they should be responsible for people not willing to do the necessary work to succeed.  But in many cases that's exactly what socialism forces on society.

I know people who are third generation welfare recipients, and spit out babies for the money and benefits the government is willing to shell out, just for being poor and having a lot of kids.

Honestly, I don't think it's right that my taxes should be supporting these people.  And I classify myself as a liberal.
but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 29, 2011, 09:15:06 PM
Hence, oversimplification.  You made a blanket statement and implied (even if you didn't state it) that all Americans who disagree with socialism do so out of ignorance.

I didn't imply that, you inferred it. I simply said 'a lot of Americans', and I think we can agree on that.

Well, it's all about entitlement.  People who do the necessary work to succeed don't feel that they should be responsible for people not willing to do the necessary work to succeed.  But in many cases that's exactly what socialism forces on society.

I know people who are third generation welfare recipients, and spit out babies for the money and benefits the government is willing to shell out, just for being poor and having a lot of kids.

Honestly, I don't think it's right that my taxes should be supporting these people.  And I classify myself as a liberal.

This is always the crutch of the issue. Not only is welfare a small part of socialism, but this example is also silly.

I think in reality, the people who abuse the system are always in a minority. The system simply needs to be policed better. It's like saying you oppose driving because some people drive drunk.

but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?
.

And yeah, it also works both ways.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 29, 2011, 10:51:44 PM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

Typical liberal oversimplification of the issue.  There are many intelligent people who are against socialism for what they see as perfectly valid reasons.

I never said otherwise,

Hence, oversimplification.  You made a blanket statement and implied (even if you didn't state it) that all Americans who disagree with socialism do so out of ignorance.

Quote
but could you elaborate?

Well, it's all about entitlement.  People who do the necessary work to succeed don't feel that they should be responsible for people not willing to do the necessary work to succeed.  But in many cases that's exactly what socialism forces on society.

I know people who are third generation welfare recipients, and spit out babies for the money and benefits the government is willing to shell out, just for being poor and having a lot of kids.

Honestly, I don't think it's right that my taxes should be supporting these people.  And I classify myself as a liberal.
but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?

Yes.  Do you think differently?  ???
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2011, 12:20:38 AM
Yes.  Do you think differently?  ???

Where is the fairness in that?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 01:01:27 AM
Communism is something completely different, and has it's own issues. A free market with a healthy dose of Socialism is a good thing, and it annoys me that so many Americans fear it out of not understanding it, or simply being told that it's bad.

Typical liberal oversimplification of the issue.  There are many intelligent people who are against socialism for what they see as perfectly valid reasons.

I never said otherwise,

Hence, oversimplification.  You made a blanket statement and implied (even if you didn't state it) that all Americans who disagree with socialism do so out of ignorance.

Quote
but could you elaborate?

Well, it's all about entitlement.  People who do the necessary work to succeed don't feel that they should be responsible for people not willing to do the necessary work to succeed.  But in many cases that's exactly what socialism forces on society.

I know people who are third generation welfare recipients, and spit out babies for the money and benefits the government is willing to shell out, just for being poor and having a lot of kids.

Honestly, I don't think it's right that my taxes should be supporting these people.  And I classify myself as a liberal.

It's more fair than those people not being able to go to the hospital. Or billion dollar businesses not paying taxes.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Christianrocker90 on March 30, 2011, 01:23:01 AM
Why do Americans hate socialism so much?

Why can't the world prove socialism works?  It hasn't yet.

Not to mention it gives people things they aren't entitled to.

but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?

Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 01:29:16 AM
Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.

And because life's a bitch we have to make it harder on the unfortunate so that the fortunate ones have it easier living over their backs ::)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Christianrocker90 on March 30, 2011, 01:37:32 AM
Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.

And because life's a bitch we have to make it harder on the unfortunate so that the fortunate ones have it easier living over their backs ::)

I never said make it easier or harder on anyone, quit twisting my words or hearing what you want to hear.

What I think can be done is raising minimum wage. F*ck handouts to lazy people though.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 01:39:32 AM
Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.

And because life's a bitch we have to make it harder on the unfortunate so that the fortunate ones have it easier living over their backs ::)

I never said make it easier or harder on anyone, quit twisting my words or hearing what you want to hear.

What I think can be done is raising minimum wage. F*ck handouts to lazy people though.

Who do you consider lazy people?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Christianrocker90 on March 30, 2011, 01:42:49 AM
Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.

And because life's a bitch we have to make it harder on the unfortunate so that the fortunate ones have it easier living over their backs ::)

I never said make it easier or harder on anyone, quit twisting my words or hearing what you want to hear.

What I think can be done is raising minimum wage. F*ck handouts to lazy people though.

Who do you consider lazy people?

Those who sit on the couch all day, no job, don't try to get a job. And their only income is welfare.

BTW, to clarify I mean people who do nothing and expect the government to support them, not single parents who don't have the time for a job.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 01:50:09 AM
Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.

And because life's a bitch we have to make it harder on the unfortunate so that the fortunate ones have it easier living over their backs ::)

I never said make it easier or harder on anyone, quit twisting my words or hearing what you want to hear.

What I think can be done is raising minimum wage. F*ck handouts to lazy people though.

Who do you consider lazy people?

Those who sit on the couch all day, no job, don't try to get a job. And their only income is welfare.

BTW, to clarify I mean people who do nothing and expect the government to support them, not single parents who don't have the time for a job.

And how do you propose to find out who the ones are that are sitting all day on a couch without a job and the ones that actually want to get a job but can't find one?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2011, 01:50:39 AM
If we scrapped every system that could be abused, then no system would be left. Stop using such an awful, awful reason to hate socialism as a whole.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Christianrocker90 on March 30, 2011, 02:12:24 AM
Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.

And because life's a bitch we have to make it harder on the unfortunate so that the fortunate ones have it easier living over their backs ::)

I never said make it easier or harder on anyone, quit twisting my words or hearing what you want to hear.

What I think can be done is raising minimum wage. F*ck handouts to lazy people though.

Who do you consider lazy people?

Those who sit on the couch all day, no job, don't try to get a job. And their only income is welfare.

BTW, to clarify I mean people who do nothing and expect the government to support them, not single parents who don't have the time for a job.

And how do you propose to find out who the ones are that are sitting all day on a couch without a job and the ones that actually want to get a job but can't find one?

Random unannounced visits.

If we scrapped every system that could be abused, then no system would be left. Stop using such an awful, awful reason to hate socialism as a whole.

How is that an awful reason? It's just as legit as your reason to hate capitalism. Hypocrite.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2011, 02:24:17 AM
I don't hate capitalism.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Eddy Baby on March 30, 2011, 02:36:14 AM
CR90, I forget, what do you do again?

If I was in power I'd make a work quota necessary for collecting unemployment benefits (Not disability benefits of course). By this I mean, the unemployed person would have to do unskilled work that isn't done before because it's not worth paying someone to do it, eg. That ugly wall in the city centre needs painting, but it's not worth paying someone to do it because it's not a big enough deal.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 04:44:58 AM
Stop using such an awful, awful reason to hate socialism as a whole.


I lol'd.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 30, 2011, 09:48:26 AM
Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.

And because life's a bitch we have to make it harder on the unfortunate so that the fortunate ones have it easier living over their backs ::)

I never said make it easier or harder on anyone, quit twisting my words or hearing what you want to hear.

What I think can be done is raising minimum wage. F*ck handouts to lazy people though.

Who do you consider lazy people?

Those who sit on the couch all day, no job, don't try to get a job. And their only income is welfare.

BTW, to clarify I mean people who do nothing and expect the government to support them, not single parents who don't have the time for a job.

Don't you sit on the couch all day, no job, not trying to get a job, and your only income is what your mom and dad give you? Or have you gotten over whatever your mental issues were and become a contributing member of society?  If you haven't, then what's going to happen to you when your parents can no longer support you? Will you rely on welfare?

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 09:49:59 AM
People leeching of their parents are usually the strongest opposers of welfare for some reason.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 30, 2011, 09:58:49 AM
Well, also in the US we're bombarded with messages that the American Dream is alive and well and anyone can achieve it.  The truth doesn't usually hit most folks until they're old and trying to retire.  My mom and stepfather, for instance, have both worked hard all their lives, never accepted welfare, paid their bills.. but never had enough leftover to save for retirement. Now they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford health insurance when they need it the most, but can least afford it. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 10:13:47 AM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: optimisticcynic on March 30, 2011, 10:25:24 AM


but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?

Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.
okay so socialism/welfare and scuh is bad because people that don't work as hard as other people get paid the same, so the problem is people are getting things they didn't work to deserve. yet inheritance has the same issue (people getting stuff they did not work for) yet you don't have a problem with it....
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on March 30, 2011, 10:31:23 AM


but on the same note is it really fair that some people are wealthy by being born in the correct family and some work there asses off to make enough to live?

Fair is subjective. Please tell me why someone is evil for being born in to a life where they'll never have a money problem. Life isn't fair, no matter what you do it's gonna make it unfair to someone. Does this mean I don't think it's tragic? No, but life's a bitch.
okay so socialism/welfare and scuh is bad because people that don't work as hard as other people get paid the same, so the problem is people are getting things they didn't work to deserve. yet inheritance has the same issue (people getting stuff they did not work for) yet you don't have a problem with it....

The difference is the source of the stuff.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Lorddave on March 30, 2011, 11:49:43 AM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Debt is essential to many businesses.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 12:34:29 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Debt is essential to many businesses.

Lies.  Or myths, whichever you prefer.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 30, 2011, 12:51:21 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.

I agree that debt is a major problem, but I also think greed might be just as bad.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 01:26:55 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.

I agree that debt is a major problem, but I also think greed might be just as bad.

Greed screwed up your mom and stepfathers retirement? 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2011, 01:34:14 PM
I lol'd.

Whether you agree with me or not, writing a whole ideology off as bad because a minority can abuse a part of it is completely retarded.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: General Douchebag on March 30, 2011, 01:38:31 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.

I agree that debt is a major problem, but I also think greed might be just as bad.

Greed screwed up your mom and stepfathers retirement? 

Well, yeah.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 01:40:59 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Debt is essential to many businesses.

Lies.  Or myths, whichever you prefer.

So you only want the people that are already rich to be able to set up businesses?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 01:52:45 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Debt is essential to many businesses.

Lies.  Or myths, whichever you prefer.

So you only want the people that are already rich to be able to set up businesses?
Thats really what you think isnt it?  Only the rich can get ahead.  Oh woe is you.  You will never amount to anything because you didn't start out rich.  Jesus you people are sad.  How about asking those rich folks for some cash to fund your brilliant idea for a small business.

One word, investors.

http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html


And this is just one way to get start up cash.   There are many others.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+get+money+to+start+a+small+bussiness
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 01:53:11 PM
Debt is the reason America is so successful. What if the founders of Blizzard Entertainment weren't able to borrow money from their parents? They would have been screwed.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 01:59:54 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Debt is essential to many businesses.

Lies.  Or myths, whichever you prefer.

So you only want the people that are already rich to be able to set up businesses?
Thats really what you think isnt it?  Only the rich can get ahead.  Oh woe is you.  You will never amount to anything because you didn't start out rich.  Jesus you people are sad.  How about asking those rich folks for some cash to fund your brilliant idea for a small business.

One word, investors.

http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html


And this is just one way to get start up cash.   There are many others.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+get+money+to+start+a+small+bussiness

And surprise surprise, 9 out of 10 of those how to get money results is loan. Your point was what again?

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2011, 02:00:18 PM
Debt is the reason America is so successful. What if the founders of Blizzard Entertainment weren't able to borrow money from their parents? They would have been screwed.

We'd have ~10 million people outside with some semblance of a social life  ::)
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 02:03:45 PM

And surprise surprise, 9 out of 10 of those how to get money results is loan. Your point was what again?

Enjoy your debt.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 30, 2011, 02:12:45 PM

And surprise surprise, 9 out of 10 of those how to get money results is loan. Your point was what again?

Enjoy your debt.

I'm not a business person. And didn't we do the debt thread already, where you happened to be the only one actually having a debt?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 02:15:20 PM
ITT: Wardogg is the only hard worker.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 02:28:56 PM

And surprise surprise, 9 out of 10 of those how to get money results is loan. Your point was what again?

Enjoy your debt.

I'm not a business person. And didn't we do the debt thread already, where you happened to be the only one actually having a debt?


I am also saving for retirement....should we have that thread as well?

I also am a single income family of soon to be 6.  Anyone else?  

ITT: Wardogg is the only hard worker.

No, but im the only one not whining about my position in life.

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 02:33:32 PM

And surprise surprise, 9 out of 10 of those how to get money results is loan. Your point was what again?

Enjoy your debt.

I'm not a business person. And didn't we do the debt thread already, where you happened to be the only one actually having a debt?


I am also saving for retirement....should we have that thread as well?

I also am a single income family of soon to be 6.  Anyone else?  


Enjoy your debt then.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 02:35:04 PM
Enjoy your debt then.

But my only debt is actually increasing in value, and it currently has alot of equity. 

15 year fixed rate mortgages are acceptable debt.

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 02:36:48 PM
Enjoy your debt then.

But my only debt is actually increasing in value, and it currently has alot of equity. 

15 year fixed rate mortgages are acceptable debt.



I thought you said acceptable debt was a myth.  ???
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 02:39:57 PM
Enjoy your debt then.

But my only debt is actually increasing in value, and it currently has alot of equity. 

15 year fixed rate mortgages are acceptable debt.



I thought you said acceptable debt was a myth.  ???

I did?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 02:41:42 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Debt is essential to many businesses.

Lies.  Or myths, whichever you prefer.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 02:42:59 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.
Debt is essential to many businesses.

Lies.  Or myths, whichever you prefer.

That was about a business, not a mortgage for the house you live in.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 02:43:35 PM
The American economy revolves around big businesses.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 02:46:23 PM
The statement stands.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 02:47:06 PM
How would those businesses have started if it weren't for debt?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 02:49:59 PM
Thats really what you think isnt it?  Only the rich can get ahead.  Oh woe is you.  You will never amount to anything because you didn't start out rich.  Jesus you people are sad.  How about asking those rich folks for some cash to fund your brilliant idea for a small business.

One word, investors.

http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html


And this is just one way to get start up cash.   There are many others.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+get+money+to+start+a+small+bussiness
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 02:57:32 PM
Did you read any of the articles in the results?

Quote
According to a 1998 study of small- and medium-sized enterprises by Thompson Lightstone and Company, fifty percent of small- and medium-sized business owners report that they currently borrow from a financial institution, such as a bank. Twelve percent of SMEs finance their companies through private loans from friends or relatives and three percent by loans from non-related individuals. Forty-one percent use personal credit cards to finance their businesses.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on March 30, 2011, 03:05:42 PM
If one has a good idea and sound planning but which also needs a fair amount of moolah, contacting a venture capitalist would be my choice over borrowing.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 30, 2011, 03:42:26 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.

I agree that debt is a major problem, but I also think greed might be just as bad.

Greed screwed up your mom and stepfathers retirement? 

They're not in debt, their house is paid for, their vehicles are paid for. 
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 04:27:41 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.

I agree that debt is a major problem, but I also think greed might be just as bad.

Greed screwed up your mom and stepfathers retirement? 

They're not in debt, their house is paid for, their vehicles are paid for. 

What about during their "working" years?

If one has a good idea and sound planning but which also needs a fair amount of moolah, contacting a venture capitalist would be my choice over borrowing.

Exactly.  But Im just a right wing nut job.  What the fuck do I know?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Ocius on March 30, 2011, 04:35:16 PM
Wardogg, you don't have a credit card?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 30, 2011, 05:10:11 PM
Debt is the leech that is slowly killing the American dream.

I agree that debt is a major problem, but I also think greed might be just as bad.

Greed screwed up your mom and stepfathers retirement? 

They're not in debt, their house is paid for, their vehicles are paid for. 

What about during their "working" years?


My mother made sure they were never in more debt than was absolutely necessary.  Just like you are doing. She had a 20yr mortgage, which she paid off about 10yrs ago. In fact, she always paid off her debts years before she had to. She's always taken jobs that had good health insurance plans for the entire family, while my stepfather worked as a logger and a truck driver.  They just didn't either one ever have high paying jobs. You probably think that is because they didn't try, or care, or were somehow irresponsible, but they worked hard, and raised 6 kids without ever taking welfare or needing to.  Now my stepfather is too decrepit to work, but my mom is still hanging in there. Since she works in a cancer treatment clinic, it's not tough physically and she'll probably work as long as she can drive. Their main concern is being able to afford health care after she finally retires. 

How is this not fucking greed? http://www.slate.com/id/2289616/
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2011, 07:55:59 PM
Wardogg, you don't have a credit card?

I do not. 


My mother made sure they were never in more debt than was absolutely necessary.  Just like you are doing. She had a 20yr mortgage, which she paid off about 10yrs ago. In fact, she always paid off her debts years before she had to. She's always taken jobs that had good health insurance plans for the entire family, while my stepfather worked as a logger and a truck driver.  They just didn't either one ever have high paying jobs. You probably think that is because they didn't try, or care, or were somehow irresponsible, but they worked hard, and raised 6 kids without ever taking welfare or needing to.  Now my stepfather is too decrepit to work, but my mom is still hanging in there. Since she works in a cancer treatment clinic, it's not tough physically and she'll probably work as long as she can drive. Their main concern is being able to afford health care after she finally retires. 

How is this not fucking greed? http://www.slate.com/id/2289616/

I think no such thing of your parents.  It sounds like they had a very fulfilling life providing for a large family.  I think the way we are all taught about money is wrong. I lived the under the same money myths and lies up until 2 years ago.  Im hoping now, that I am changing my family tree financially forever.

I can only say one thing about the drug company article....supply and demand. 

Whats the solution?  Government involvement on drug prices?  My parents are going through something similar so I know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Mrs. Peach on March 30, 2011, 09:08:21 PM

Exactly.  But Im just a right wing nut job.  What the fuck do I know?


I think you know quite a bit.      And I'm partial to Herky Bird people.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
I think no such thing of your parents.  It sounds like they had a very fulfilling life providing for a large family.  I think the way we are all taught about money is wrong. I lived the under the same money myths and lies up until 2 years ago.  Im hoping now, that I am changing my family tree financially forever.

What were the money myths and lies you believed?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 31, 2011, 12:42:54 AM

And surprise surprise, 9 out of 10 of those how to get money results is loan. Your point was what again?

Enjoy your debt.

I'm not a business person. And didn't we do the debt thread already, where you happened to be the only one actually having a debt?


I am also saving for retirement....should we have that thread as well?

I also am a single income family of soon to be 6.  Anyone else?  

ITT: Wardogg is the only hard worker.

No, but im the only one not whining about my position in life.



Who here is whining about their position in life?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Christianrocker90 on March 31, 2011, 03:58:46 AM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2011, 05:04:55 AM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.

How are you disabled?

Seriously, I haven't been around long enough/can't be bothered lurking.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on March 31, 2011, 06:14:52 AM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.
#

Where the McJesus sandwich did that come from?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Beorn on March 31, 2011, 07:41:25 AM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.

What, mentally?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 31, 2011, 07:46:44 AM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.
#

Where the McJesus sandwich did that come from?

+1

Lolwut?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2011, 10:42:14 AM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.

I was not trying to label you as a hypocrite because you are disabled.  I was trying to make you think about the things you believe.  It's very easy for you to pass judgment on others, but it sucks when others pass judgment on you, doesn't it?   
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Christianrocker90 on March 31, 2011, 04:23:52 PM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.

I was not trying to label you as a hypocrite because you are disabled.  I was trying to make you think about the things you believe.  It's very easy for you to pass judgment on others, but it sucks when others pass judgment on you, doesn't it?   

I'm supposed to ignore plain facts because I come across as judgmental? ???
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Space Cowgirl on March 31, 2011, 04:56:59 PM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.

I was not trying to label you as a hypocrite because you are disabled.  I was trying to make you think about the things you believe.  It's very easy for you to pass judgment on others, but it sucks when others pass judgment on you, doesn't it?   

I'm supposed to ignore plain facts because I come across as judgmental? ???

What plain facts?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 31, 2011, 07:39:17 PM
Yes.  Do you think differently?  ???

Where is the fairness in that?

Sorry, I'm going to need somebody to explain exactly why they think it's unfair that someone born into money should have to work hard.  Frankly it seems somewhat nonsensical to me.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 31, 2011, 07:43:56 PM
It's more fair than those people not being able to go to the hospital.

I agree with socialized healthcare.  Honestly I was disappointed that "Obamacare" ended up being the sham it did.

Quote
Or billion dollar businesses not paying taxes.

Relevance?  ???
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Tausami on March 31, 2011, 07:51:50 PM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.

I was not trying to label you as a hypocrite because you are disabled.  I was trying to make you think about the things you believe.  It's very easy for you to pass judgment on others, but it sucks when others pass judgment on you, doesn't it?   

I'm supposed to ignore plain facts because I come across as judgmental? ???

Just because it seems plain to you doesn't make it plain, nor does it make it a fact.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2011, 07:55:22 PM
Sorry, I'm going to need somebody to explain exactly why they think it's unfair that someone born into money should have to work hard.  Frankly it seems somewhat nonsensical to me.

Why should some people prosper simply out of being lucky?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 31, 2011, 07:57:08 PM
Sorry, I'm going to need somebody to explain exactly why they think it's unfair that someone born into money should have to work hard.  Frankly it seems somewhat nonsensical to me.

Why should some people prosper simply out of being lucky?

Why shouldn't they?  Again, you're positing a conclusion with absolutely nothing to support it.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2011, 08:09:54 PM
Why shouldn't they?  Again, you're positing a conclusion with absolutely nothing to support it.

They haven't earned it.

I don't quite understand how you perceive it as fair, but again, the issue is completely subjective.

Anyway, I'm apathetic regarding this point, as it wasn't me who brought it up.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 31, 2011, 08:19:08 PM
Why shouldn't they?  Again, you're positing a conclusion with absolutely nothing to support it.

They haven't earned it.

So?

Quote
I don't quite understand how you perceive it as fair, but again, the issue is completely subjective.

Indeed it is.  Every issue involving politics is completely subjective.

It's fair because somewhere along the line they had an ancestor who worked hard enough that his family line wouldn't have to work.  Indeed, that's part of the American Dream.  If I was, say, Bill Gates rich, I wouldn't expect my children to necessarily have to work (though I'd probably encourage it anyway, for the character it builds); and if I had enough money that my descendants could be supported indefinitely, I would expect it to happen.

Is it unfair when somebody doesn't have to work because they won the lottery? Or hit a jackpot at the casino?

There is no hard and fast rule that you need to work to have money, nor should there be.  Luck is a part of life.  

Quote
Anyway, I'm apathetic regarding this point, as it wasn't me who brought it up.

Well, you started arguing it.  But that's okay; the point was entirely irrelevant to my initial statement that started the discussion, anyway, so frankly I'm a bit apathetic about it too.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2011, 09:20:52 PM
I think in the context of people essentially doing nothing, whether it be on welfare or on riches, is bad.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 31, 2011, 09:55:28 PM
I think in the context of people essentially doing nothing, whether it be on welfare or on riches, is bad.

The difference is that you and I are not supporting the ones who essentially do nothing because they were born into money.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2011, 10:29:43 PM
Alright then, back to welfare.

How do you think it should be handled?

Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 31, 2011, 11:01:34 PM
Unless physically or mentally unable, people on welfare should be forced to work for their money.  At the very least there should be a limit to how long such people are allowed to remain on welfare without being expected to work for it.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2011, 11:55:20 PM
Yeah, so there never was any real disagreement.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Chris Spaghetti on April 01, 2011, 01:08:21 AM
Look, these people are trying to label me a hypocrite because I'm disabled.

I was not trying to label you as a hypocrite because you are disabled.  I was trying to make you think about the things you believe.  It's very easy for you to pass judgment on others, but it sucks when others pass judgment on you, doesn't it?   

I'm supposed to ignore plain facts because I come across as judgmental? ???

What plain facts? Who are you judging?


Does anybody else feel like we're just reading one half of CR90's internal monologue?
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2011, 03:32:26 AM
I agree with Singularity; I used to always have these thoughts about my friends: 'Spoilt fuckers getting stuff off their parents that I can't have, it's not right!' But then I realised that if I became rich I wouldn't exactly hold back money from my kids just to try and build their character.
Title: Re: Fox News
Post by: Wakka Wakka on April 01, 2011, 01:03:05 PM
Unless physically or mentally unable, people on welfare should be forced to work for their money.  At the very least there should be a limit to how long such people are allowed to remain on welfare without being expected to work for it.
I was under the impression that unless you had a disability or such that you could only receive welfare for a certain amount of time.