Sky Dancer
Rookie
- Jan 21, 2009
- 19,307
- 1,320
- 0
- Banned
- #801
We don't need news anymore. Any fool with a webcam will do.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We don't need news anymore. Any fool with a webcam will do.
We don't need news anymore. Any fool with a webcam will do.
Have you seen our news lately? Not one of them carried the story about Alberto Lozano. Not one of them has told the true story of the civil war in Kenya....nope our news is filtered by our government. We are now living in what I was taught the Soviet Union was like.
Well, there's "educated" and then there is "educated". My grandfather was a self educated man and he was the smartest man I ever knew. Never went to college but he could converse intelligently on ANY topic.
But would you agree that people who watch ONLY MSNBC and ONLY read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Salon.com are going to be less well informed than those who read these and also watch Fox and/or also listen to some good conservative talk radio? And that would be true despite their formal education level or IQ?
And when Fox is the ONLY major news sources carrying some of this stuff, those who don't watch at all are going to be very uninformed on some of it.
Fox isn't #1 and miles ahead of everybody else because it's conservative. It is miles ahead because it is covering all the news and not just the leftwing politically correct stuff.
To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news. I get my news from the net. Newspapers, the BBC, whatever. I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links. I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
But would you agree that people who watch ONLY MSNBC and ONLY read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Salon.com are going to be less well informed than those who read these and also watch Fox and/or also listen to some good conservative talk radio? And that would be true despite their formal education level or IQ?
And when Fox is the ONLY major news sources carrying some of this stuff, those who don't watch at all are going to be very uninformed on some of it.
Fox isn't #1 and miles ahead of everybody else because it's conservative. It is miles ahead because it is covering all the news and not just the leftwing politically correct stuff.
To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news. I get my news from the net. Newspapers, the BBC, whatever. I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links. I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting. I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of. Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news. I get my news from the net. Newspapers, the BBC, whatever. I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links. I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting. I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of. Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
Fox is biased.
Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To be perfectly honest, I've given up on television news. I get my news from the net. Newspapers, the BBC, whatever. I also get a lot of information from various posts here when they put in the links. I sure wouldn't have known about the NBP intimidating voters if it weren't for the video links here.
I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting. I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of. Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
Fox is biased.
Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting. I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of. Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
Fox is biased.
Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wikipedia isn't a good source....check out this link.
Electoral fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look at the opening in the article....it says "For Sky_Dancer"
See anyone can put anything they want on a wiki page
I do follow all the alphabet networks, their subsidiaries, and CNN and Fox because they've got access to world news feeds and every once in awhile actually do some decent investigative reporting. I don't trust them to always identify what needs to be reported and, with the exception of Fox, I don't trust them to be nonjudgmental in what they think we the public should be informed of. Fox hands down does the best job overall of putting it all out there, pro and con, good and bad, without ideological filtering.
All of these of course are on line so I get as much here as actually watching the broadcast.
And I do supplement that with WSJ and Times on line and some sites that are doing superb research such as Breitbart, occasionally Drudge, WSJ online, and others as well as newspapers, some of which aren't any more reliable to tell it like it really is than are some of the networks.
Fox is biased.
Fox News Channel and journalism ethics and standards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So are the rest of them.
So are the rest of them.
Yes, but Fox is nowwhere nearly as biased as most of the mainstream news sources, and it certainly is more reliabile and trustworthy than is a Wiki article and far less biased than any political internet site.
This is perhaps the most comprehensive study that has been done on the mainstream media in the last decade:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
So are the rest of them.
Yes, but Fox is nowwhere nearly as biased as most of the mainstream news sources, and it certainly is more reliabile and trustworthy than is a Wiki article and far less biased than any political internet site.
This is perhaps the most comprehensive study that has been done on the mainstream media in the last decade:
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
You think Fox is reliable because it leans right and you lean right. It's just human nature I suppose.
Crap!
I deleted the e-mail from ColorOfChange.
They're whining that CNN is jumping on FOX's "race-baiting" badwagon by reporting the whole story
ColorOfChange.org exists to strengthen Black America's political voice. Our goal is to empower our membersBlack Americans and our alliesto make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.
We were heart-broken and outraged by the catastrophe that followed Hurricane Katrina. And we were devastated to realize that no African-American organization or coalition had the capacity to respond on the necessary scale.
Hurricane Katrina made it clear that our lack of a political voice has life-and-death consequences. With no one to speak for them, hundreds of thousands of peoplelargely Black, poor, and elderlywere left behind to die. But it wasn't just Black folks. Poor, sick, and elderly people of every color were abandoned too. We are not alone, and when we work to protect Black lives and interests, we do the same for all who have been left behind in political silence.
ColorOfChange.org is comprised of Black folks from every economic class, as well as those of every color who seek to help our voices be heard. Our members are united behind a simple, powerful pledge: we will do all we can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protectedregardless of race or class.
All-in-all they DO stand for some fair stuff.Crap!
I deleted the e-mail from ColorOfChange.
They're whining that CNN is jumping on FOX's "race-baiting" badwagon by reporting the whole story
Never heard of this group.
ColorOfChange.org
What Is ColorOfChange.org?
Underlining by me.ColorOfChange.org exists to strengthen Black America's political voice. Our goal is to empower our membersBlack Americans and our alliesto make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.
We were heart-broken and outraged by the catastrophe that followed Hurricane Katrina. And we were devastated to realize that no African-American organization or coalition had the capacity to respond on the necessary scale.
Hurricane Katrina made it clear that our lack of a political voice has life-and-death consequences. With no one to speak for them, hundreds of thousands of peoplelargely Black, poor, and elderlywere left behind to die. But it wasn't just Black folks. Poor, sick, and elderly people of every color were abandoned too. We are not alone, and when we work to protect Black lives and interests, we do the same for all who have been left behind in political silence.
ColorOfChange.org is comprised of Black folks from every economic class, as well as those of every color who seek to help our voices be heard. Our members are united behind a simple, powerful pledge: we will do all we can to make sure all Americans are represented, served, and protectedregardless of race or class.
There are things that I like when I read that.
I don't know any more than that about this organization, but the stated goals at least leave some hope.
Immie
+1
Allright guys this thread was a blast.
I've said what I had to say, given the links to evidence, and generally gone in circles for the last 15 posts.
Considering the black panthers are a very small violent and vocal minority, who are unrespresentative of the american populace as a whole, i'm going to relegate them to the hole I've thrown the KKK in and walk away.
But even stupider is the group of militia men that got caught plotting against the police and the government...right?Really? From my perspective it is far less "stupid" than Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and Lebton James. We all knew about that!