Why Fox is the Superior News Outlet.

[WillowTree]

Fox and the right smear a good woman for political points they believe they "earned". Could the right be any more awful? It's why everything they touch turns to shit. Because they are a bunch of decaying turds.

fucking stupid hypocrite, it's not like the left doesn't concentrate on destroying the right, fox news and Sarah Palin so cry us a Hudson river whydonchya?

 

[WillowTree]

Palin


Bachman


Angle.


and your dumBass fired Shirley

 

[naomibee]

they are fair and balanced and to the point.why are libs so jeaous?.

 

[NYcarbineer]

they are fair and balanced and to the point.why are libs so jeaous?.

Why are you stupid? Liberals aren't jealous. Why would you blurt out something retarded like that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

they are fair and balanced and to the point.why are libs so jeaous?.

Why are you stupid? Liberals aren't jealous. Why would you blurt out something retarded like that?

Why is civility such a difficult skill for those on your side of the argument to master?
Surely you can disagree in a less disrespectful manner.....

Or is the anger that you evince based on being eminently, absolutely, provably wrong?

Equality is the aim of the 'social justice' theme of the modern liberal.
Envy and jealousy are the basic emotions that motivate you liberals, or why would you care about the success of others?

1.Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.” Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22
Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

2. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.

a. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

3. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

4. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

5. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

a. Everyone, it seems, wants to believe that he is just as good as the next guy, and in a democracy, the government adds its authority by the ‘leveling’ process. “ But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent. The contradiction between social reality and the combined wishes of his heart and the law, therefore incites and nourishes a devouring passion in everyone: the passion for equality. It will never cease until social reality is made to conform with his and the law’s wishes.” Pierre Manent, “An Intellectual History of Liberalism,” p. 107-8.

b. The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. “And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War

I wonder if you even see that Vonnegut is holding the liberal envy up to ridicule?

 

[captaingeech]

Political Chic: I noticed some flaws in your logic. You said:


"President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy."

First off, how can raising taxes not increase tax revenue? Secondly, you're making a huge leap assuming “The motive can only be envy.” This is purely your opinion, and a drastic leap to conclusions. If you want to be taken seriously, stick to things you can support. Otherwise, you're merely voicing your biases.

Conservatives seem often to decry raising taxes on the rich, and repeatedly cut taxes for the wealthiest citing the trickle down theory of economics. This, however, has not panned out as the trend over the last few decades has shown increased corporate profits and increased wealth for the top 1% yet none of this has trickled down. In fact, wages have hardly moved for the average person, and the middle class is shrinking. This is not my opinion, but plain fact:

the u.s. middle class is being wiped out here's the stats to prove it: Tech Ticker, Yahoo! Finance

 

[NYcarbineer]

they are fair and balanced and to the point.why are libs so jeaous?.

Why are you stupid? Liberals aren't jealous. Why would you blurt out something retarded like that?

Why is civility such a difficult skill for those on your side of the argument to master?
Surely you can disagree in a less disrespectful manner.....

Or is the anger that you evince based on being eminently, absolutely, provably wrong?

Equality is the aim of the 'social justice' theme of the modern liberal.
Envy and jealousy are the basic emotions that motivate you liberals, or why would you care about the success of others?

1.Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.” Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22
Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

2. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.

a. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

3. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

4. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

5. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

a. Everyone, it seems, wants to believe that he is just as good as the next guy, and in a democracy, the government adds its authority by the ‘leveling’ process. “ But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent. The contradiction between social reality and the combined wishes of his heart and the law, therefore incites and nourishes a devouring passion in everyone: the passion for equality. It will never cease until social reality is made to conform with his and the law’s wishes.” Pierre Manent, “An Intellectual History of Liberalism,” p. 107-8.

b. The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. “And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War

I wonder if you even see that Vonnegut is holding the liberal envy up to ridicule?

Liberalism prevails, generation after generation. The conservatives of every generation ultimately lose almost every battle they fight in that generation. A century ago, conservatives in America were fighting to keep you from voting.

Unless you believe that the human race isn't making progress, then you have to acknowledge that the progress that the human race is making is the result of battle after battle, generation after generation,

of liberals fighting and winning.

 

[NYcarbineer]

they are fair and balanced and to the point.why are libs so jeaous?.

Why are you stupid? Liberals aren't jealous. Why would you blurt out something retarded like that?

Why is civility such a difficult skill for those on your side of the argument to master?
Surely you can disagree in a less disrespectful manner.....

I was uncivilly accused of being jealous of Foxnews, which is sheer idiocy. I merely inquired as to the motive for such idiocy.

 

[Dr.House]

People self identify as conservative 2-1 over liberal...

Liberalism fails...

 

[jeffrockit]

I was actually working as a voter registration worker in Cleveland when the ACORN registration scandal broke. I worked for a different organization but we had much the same issue.

When people say that ACORN committed voter fraud they actually mean voter registration. ACORN didn't have anything to do with actual votes during an election; all they do is register people to vote. If you register twice, it only counts once. It's not like you get an extra vote or anything.

Here's what happened where I worked: people get paid for getting people to register to vote, and the more people they get the more money they get. It only counts if they haven't registered already. They take the registrants and go through them. The computer picks it up if they're already in the system and invalidates the repeat registration and the worker doesn't get paid for that one. They just had a problem with people trying to get paid for not doing their job correctly. It was more like the workers trying to cheat money out of ACORN.

People have a problem with ACORN because they work to register underrepresented people to vote. Because Republicans know that means mostly black people, and blacks usually vote democrat, Republicans attack ACORN to try to keep blacks from getting registered to vote.

Points of information;
First of all it was voter registration fraud that Acorn is being indicted for. Please read up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/us/05acorn.html

Despite the indictments, Acorn was still receiving federal funding:
More federal funding for ACORN despite indictments | Washington Examiner

Seems like these "attacks" are legitimate. Is it your contention that if you break the law and are looked into for this crime, it is just an "attack" and not a legitimate reason to go after these businesses.
The fact is that Acorn receives federal funds (our tax dollars) and by doing so should be under more scrutiny. As well, any company that receives federal funds should be held accountable.
I realize this is off topic but your responses re acorn brought this about.

Your first point actually squares with my previous post, so I don't know why you bother; there's no disagreement there.

Second, the rest of your post is a bit confusing. I don't know where you got the ideas for the rest of your post, but I never suggested ACORN shouldn't be investigated for registration fraud if that is called for. You should try reading the post before you reply.

Here's my as of yet still unmet challenge: Actually provide evidence that ACORN actually did anything wrong in the now debunked Pimp videos. No one seems to be able to recognize a simple fact that this video was edited specifically to smear ACORN by making up lies about them. This has been established, and I presented documentation to back up my claim. If you disagree with me, please do the same.

Confusing? I was responding to your contention that "People have a problem with ACORN because they work to register underrepresented people to vote. Because Republicans know that means mostly black people, and blacks usually vote democrat, Republicans attack ACORN to try to keep blacks from getting registered to vote".
I am stating that the R's are going after Acorn for the voter registration fraud they are currently under indictment for and not because Acorn registers mostly democrat voting people.
People have a problem with Acorn because of the reasons I posted, nothing more. Why is it so hard to understand that most don't like corruption, more so if I am paying for it, and from the looks of the indictment, that is exactly the problem with Acorn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

People self identify as conservative 2-1 over liberal...

Liberalism fails...

Self identification is not an accurate measure. If this country were genuinely 2 to 1 conservative over liberal you wouldn't see an Obama in the whitehouse.

 

[ConHog]

People self identify as conservative 2-1 over liberal...

Liberalism fails...

Self identification is not an accurate measure. If this country were genuinely 2 to 1 conservative over liberal you wouldn't see an Obama in the whitehouse.

You are correct that it in pretty inaccurate because 9 out of 10 Americans are fucking morons.

 

[captaingeech]

Points of information;
First of all it was voter registration fraud that Acorn is being indicted for. Please read up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/us/05acorn.html

Despite the indictments, Acorn was still receiving federal funding:
More federal funding for ACORN despite indictments | Washington Examiner

Seems like these "attacks" are legitimate. Is it your contention that if you break the law and are looked into for this crime, it is just an "attack" and not a legitimate reason to go after these businesses.
The fact is that Acorn receives federal funds (our tax dollars) and by doing so should be under more scrutiny. As well, any company that receives federal funds should be held accountable.
I realize this is off topic but your responses re acorn brought this about.

Your first point actually squares with my previous post, so I don't know why you bother; there's no disagreement there.

Second, the rest of your post is a bit confusing. I don't know where you got the ideas for the rest of your post, but I never suggested ACORN shouldn't be investigated for registration fraud if that is called for. You should try reading the post before you reply.

Here's my as of yet still unmet challenge: Actually provide evidence that ACORN actually did anything wrong in the now debunked Pimp videos. No one seems to be able to recognize a simple fact that this video was edited specifically to smear ACORN by making up lies about them. This has been established, and I presented documentation to back up my claim. If you disagree with me, please do the same.

Confusing? I was responding to your contention that "People have a problem with ACORN because they work to register underrepresented people to vote. Because Republicans know that means mostly black people, and blacks usually vote democrat, Republicans attack ACORN to try to keep blacks from getting registered to vote".
I am stating that the R's are going after Acorn for the voter registration fraud they are currently under indictment for and not because Acorn registers mostly democrat voting people.
People have a problem with Acorn because of the reasons I posted, nothing more. Why is it so hard to understand that most don't like corruption, more so if I am paying for it, and from the looks of the indictment, that is exactly the problem with Acorn.

If you register someone to vote, and then they fill out the paperwork and register again, it doesn't do anything. We had the same problem where I used to work: people would go out and not bother to ask people if they were already registered before signing them up. People just wanted to help you out because they know you get paid more if you fill more out. The problem isn't corruption, it's just bad management. The only people it hurts is ACORN itself. In the news the issue is misrepresented as "voter fraud" making people think ACORN is trying to rig an election or something. The reason this issue gets blown out of proportion, and the reason FOX airs false videos about ACORN is for political purposes.


Once again, the dissenting opinion fails to back up their side with evidence. I have posted link after link, and the best you can do is to give a completely unsuported rant.

For the 3rd time...

Here's my as of yet still unmet challenge: Actually provide evidence that ACORN actually did anything wrong in the now debunked Pimp videos.

 

[Charles_Main]

What was it that Obama said ...... OH yes!

"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself with."

Did you think he actually meant it?

 

[JiggsCasey]

The liberal MSM clearly shilled for Obama during his campaign and, continues to do so. In fact Hannity exposed documents last night that clearly showed that they tried to cover up the Reverend Wright story while FOX was exposing it. The MSM chose to focus on Palin's wardrobe, while FOX exposed the truth about Obama's associations with complete dirtbags. In fact, it was FOX who broke the Van Jones story while the MSM ignored it right up until Obama threw his anti-american ass under the bus. At that point they were forced to report it. No more covering up was possible.

What a fucking joke. I mean, the entire OP, and numerous "whut! whuts!" that followed from her concubines here. ... But this post above, in particular.

More paranoid ramblings by con men who need to rationalize to themselves that the media is against them. Like a coach who blames the refs. Must be a big conspiracy. Yeah, cons only adhere to conspiracy talk when it comes to the "liberal media." ... Conversely, however, any nefarious initiative under connish leadership or direction is, of course, to be completely believed as legit, and never questioned. ... Coincidence theory. ... Any conspiracy talk from the center/left featuring vast arrays of evidence into willful unethical behavior is to be laughed off and mocked. ... ACCEPT if we're talking about the grand media agenda. Then, conspiracy and all it's connotations seem to apply. Right, righties. ...

Let me tell you something, as a member of the media... We, collectively, don't have the ideology to fill a thimble. ... The media is corporate, not liberal. ... Let me hit you with that again, so it sinks in: CORPORATE, not liberal.

If the TV media was at all "liberal," then by definition it would HAVE to be anti-war, now wouldn't it? if the media wanted to halt the painfully compromised Cheney/Halliburton war before it ever started, it certainly COULD have ... i mean, that is pretty much beyond debate at this point, given what they knew, and when they knew it... there was vast dissent about WMD "evidence," and the media knew it, but never said word one until the bombs had already dropped and we OWNED the problem.

at the very, very least, if it wanted to change course in Iraq in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, the mass TV media in this country could have just shown the carnage on digitized film on the nightly 6 pm news, rather than vague allusions to it in print every other week or so. ... Yet ours (NYT, CNN, ABC, CBS, AP, Knight-Ridder, NBC, ABC, Fox, LAT, WP) refused to ever do so. Never... Meanwhile, an alert newshound saw the carnage and heard of the fraud via BBC, AFP, A-J, Asia Times, etc. ... And it was shown on a daily basis, make no mistake about it. ... Not here, though. Sorry. That's "tasteless" to our FCC. ... Heck, even CNN International showed the horrors of war... That tells you the same news outlet knew exactly what it was doing by censoring the blood at home, while at the same time catering to "liberal Europe" abroad with their OWN PRODUCT.

Please don't play a semantics game with corporate's obvious ability to appear "liberal". ... Of course there are exceptions to any rule (MSNBC), ... but by-and-large, the deregulatory, corporate-friendly model is synonymous with GOP initiative. So cut the crap. You're not dealing with an idiot here who can't think critically. I'm in the industry.

If a marketer doesn't wanna associate itself with an anti-war message, it's going to pull its advertising. ... Period, end of story.... News agencies understand this, and most don't EVER take the risk of severing their meal ticket. This is all plain as day to you, I'm quite confident. .... Still, it continues today, whereby the mass TV media barely mentions the fact that Iraq has been effectively divided into thirds, and Afghanistan is an unwinnable quagmire.

Tell me: When the "liberal" media was marching out one paid Pentagon general after another to give play-by-play and color analysis of the grainy, gray war video game at the start of this fraud, where was the esteemed peace advocate's equal air time? Why the retired generals on the CNN-Fox-NBC panels 24/7, and no anti-war voice on any of the networks? That IS the role of the press, tell both sides of any story, you know? ... But you didn't hear those anti-establishment voices on the panel next to the retired generals, paid to pump the "glory" of invasion. ... know why? They weren't ever on. ... Well, ok... 3 out of 393 sources, by FAIR's count...

During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources — fewer than 1 percent — were affiliated with anti-war activism.

Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS.

These are not media that are serving a democratic society, where a diversity of views is vital to shaping informed opinions. This is a well-oiled propaganda machine that is repackaging government spin and passing it off as journalism.​

Even after it all got exposed as WMD fraud, you still barely ever saw any big media outcry regarding the "privatize-everything" farce over there. An opinion analysis or two, but no esteemed anti-war commentator. And no honest assessment of the oil contracts behind it all. Both in Iraq AND Afghanistan. No, you had to get that years later in books by journalists like T. Christian Miller and

I don't quite understand what you're "LOLing" about when I say the media in this country has failed the people. Are you laughing because you disagree that it has failed, or that the Euro press has, by comparison, done a far more honest job?

And we don't have to stop at just our imperialism (for oil) abroad when admitting to ourselves the media's obvious CORPORATE agenda. We can instead simply acknowledge that, still today, the U.S. mass media flat refuses to admit terminal global oil depletion rates to the public. ... Because THAT FACT should be the cornerstone of their every nightly news cast. That is, if they were honestly informing the people and serving as the 4th Estate. Unfortunately, they're not. ... And that is because they march to a CORPORATE ideology, not a liberal one. Including and especially, Fox.

The only thing Fox has ever achieved is cashing in on the demographic that likes it's Red, White and Blue bullshit right up front so it can get a good whiff of it.

 

[Sarah G]

What was it that Obama said ...... OH yes!

"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself with."

Did you think he actually meant it?

Hard to tell if he even said it, all I see are shady wingnut websites popping up when I google it. The first one is a Glenn Beck Youtube.

Seems like just another Glenn Beck talking point, I'm afraid..