Churchill & FOX

Discussion in 'Media' started by Flanders, Oct 14, 2012.

  1. Flanders


    Sep 23, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    I immediately thought of FOX’s fair & balanced B.S. after reading this:

    Nick Robinson: Winston Churchill's bitter battle with the BBC
    By Nick Robinson
    7:00AM BST 14 Oct 2012

    Nick Robinson: Winston Churchill's bitter battle with the BBC - Telegraph

    The question of constitutional eligibility is an important issue that cannot be compared to the monumental events leading up to WWII, but the principle involved is exactly the same. Hussein’s eligibility is not a crackpot conspiracy theory any more than Churchill’s views were, yet FOX treated eligibility as such by commission and by omission. Whenever FOX talking heads did mention the issue they used the derogatory phrase “Birther” to denigrate every eligibility-doubter who simply wanted the Supreme Court to settle the issue one way or the other.

    Incidentally,—— thanks to the Supreme Court —— Hussein’s eligibility has been removed from the media menu in his bid for reelection. It’s one of those instances of judicial activism where the Court decides the matter by doing nothing.

    Hopefully, a lot Americans are beginning to notice that freedom of speech is under attack:

    Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
    By Jonathan Turley, Published: October 12
    The Washington Post

    Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech - The Washington Post

    The irony is: The public is attacking the media while the government attacks freedom of speech. The fact that the government is not attacking freedom of the press should tell everybody the government is quite pleased with the media, and WHY NOT? None of today’s massive problems, countless betrayals, loss of individual liberties could have occurred without media help.

    The Affordable Care Act is a classic example of media decision makers and big government liberals working towards the same end; that end is the largest, most tyrannical, federal program ever devised in the sewers of the nation’s capital.

    Finally, the public gets to ask the questions at Tuesday’s presidential debate. I’d sure like to see somebody ask if death panels only became necessary in order to give four million more people tax dollar incomes? It seems to me that four million more “healthcare professionals” in the system should improve the overall quality of care; thereby, making death panels unnecessary. That is the not the case. Bottom line: Patient care will deteriorate in direct proportion to the incomes paid to 4,000,000 more people being seated at the public trough.

    Four million is a minimum number. In ten years it will probably be an additional eight million. Anybody who will turn 65 in 2022 should be scared stiff right now. Logically, and economically, death panels must lower the age for denying treatment. It’s either lower the age or fire a few million in order to reduce costs. Guess which way the government will go?

Share This Page