Fox news is crazy

No Limit said:
You come in here trying to sound like you are bipartisan. Do you think anybody buys that shit from you? You will come back, no matter how many examples are shown to the contrary, with that same stupid slogan "all news is biased" and then you will try to add on to that that they are biased to the left making it sound like Fox News is the sound of reason. This is utter bullshit I not only disproved in this topic but I disproved a while back when we had this exact same conversation. Yet I will bet money that somewhere in the future if this message board is still around and this same topic is being discussed you will come in here with the exact same bullshit and we will be doing this all over again.
Click to expand...

If not him then another apologist clone for sure....
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
If not him then another apologist clone for sure....
Click to expand...

Because you know...I am an apologist.

No Limit...I didn't come here to disprove FOX's lies. I didn't come in here to prove that CNN is worse. I came in here because there were too many people complaining about how FOX news is biased and bias changes people minds and that is unnacceptable. The people who were complaining about bias need to realize all media is biased and it is done that way in an effort to sway people. However the bias FOX news throws really only caters to people who already believe what they do. It is the more subtle bias that sways people because they don't realize it is bias and it comes off as more factual, not crazy person talk like FOX.
 
Glirk Dient said:
Because you know...I am an apologist.

No Limit...I didn't come here to disprove FOX's lies. I didn't come in here to prove that CNN is worse. I came in here because there were too many people complaining about how FOX news is biased and bias changes people minds and that is unnacceptable. The people who were complaining about bias need to realize all media is biased and it is done that way in an effort to sway people. However the bias FOX news throws really only caters to people who already believe what they do. It is the more subtle bias that sways people because they don't realize it is bias and it comes off as more factual, not crazy person talk like FOX.
Click to expand...

And I called you on your bullshit. You didn't come here to say CNN was just as bad as Fox only the other way, hmm, that's funny:

FOX makes me want to puke because its so biased towards conservative. CNN makes me want to puke because its so liberal.
Click to expand...

From your post on page 2 of this discussion.

Your entire point was, and we've had this discussion before, to apologize for what Fox news is doing by saying all others do it too just for the other side. They don't.

All other media outlets do have bias but most of it leans toward the right as I have shown you with my examples. Do you still dispute this argument? If you do respond to the following:

How do you explain the fact all the major news networks, every single one of them, are ignoring the story about illegal caging lists the Bush campaing used during the 2004 elections. It proves election fraud on the part of Bush's administration yet it has been totally ignored. How do you explain the same thing when the downing street memos were released? I can cite many more examples but I'll let you take a week to respond to those.
Click to expand...

If not, you were wrong, which is ok. But I never again want to see you try to equate CNN to what fox is doing only for the other side. CNN is biased, and they are biased to the right only not nearly on the scale that Fox News is.
 
Please quote me where I say what FOX or any news bias is a good thing.
 
Fox News was built from the ground up to be, at its core, a conservative news station. Not an accurate one. Not a fair one. But one that says and shows things that appeal to a conservative base in retaliation to perceived liberal bias. It's very childish or very clever (considering the numbers they pull). Either way, objective reporting never enters into it because its intent is to provide conservative coloring as a standard.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, the media is always going to have they're liberal or conservative slants because it is a constitutional amendment for citizens to have freedom of the press as a protected law and right.

This currently allows any news station to present whatever distorted information they wish to broadcast. Remember, honesty is not a law. It's just good manners.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Well, for one thing, the media is always going to have they're liberal or conservative slants because it is a constitutional amendment for citizens to have freedom of the press as a protected law and right.

This currently allows any news station to present whatever distorted information they wish to broadcast. Remember, honesty is not a law. It's just good manners.
Click to expand...

I am completely aware of this. In fact, I don't recall ever approaching this from a legal standpoint. Regardless of legality, it is still dishonest and manipulative. Those are bad qualities, especially for a network that is relied on for world information.

Unbiased news is an ideal. Just like a world without rape or starvation. It is something we should perpetually strive for, even if its complete attainment is impossible. This apathetic attitude of counter-balances doesn't even entertain such an ideal. What you are essentially saying is "News will always be biased, so a little more doesn't hurt".

It may not be punishable by law enforcement. But some part of you should be screaming in our head over how backwards this is.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Well, for one thing, the media is always going to have they're liberal or conservative slants because it is a constitutional amendment for citizens to have freedom of the press as a protected law and right.

This currently allows any news station to present whatever distorted information they wish to broadcast. Remember, honesty is not a law. It's just good manners.
Click to expand...

Looks like you didn't really read anything posted here or you simply ignored it, again. Show examples of major broadcasting media outlets in this country with a liberal slant. I won't dispute there might be a couple examples few and far in between, but if you look at the entire picture that slant always leans to the right.
 
Also, I think No Limit is pretty much right from my own experience.

The alleged liberal news networks are, at best, dead-center moderate with most having an edge to the right. This goes for US politics in general too. Ever since Reagan got elected, the scope of US politics has had a shift in that direction.

You'll hear quite a bit of trumpeting for conservative values, but very rarely have I seen somebody take a strong liberal stance on abortion, gay marriage, and a number of other things.
 
It was bad during the 90s, sure. But once 9/11 hit that's when it got really bad. Which is kind of sad when you realize how such a simple attack could really shake the foundation of this country.

The fact media companies are all getting lumped into one big corporation isn't really helping eighter.
 
Well even CNN have been accused of sidelining Ron Paul by viewers recently but nowhere near as bad as Fox did. So there appears to be some powerful people with a collective interest to attempt to ignore him, even though he's top of the polls on CNN's recent debate and the most sane and intelligent sounding man in the room.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkWSo5CRu2k[/YOUTUBE]
 
I think the Republicans are deluded if they think that either Giuliani, Romney or Thompson remotely stand a chance of beating the Democrats this time around, whereas Ron Paul has a fighting chance given his back to basics approach, and frankly his message is better than anything the democrats have to offer.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
I think the Republicans are deluded if they think that either Giuliani, Romney or Thompson remotely stand a chance of beating the Democrats this time around, whereas Ron Paul has a fighting chance given his back to basics approach, and frankly his message is better than anything the democrats have to offer.
Click to expand...

I tend to respect Ron Paul but I don't know that I would want him in the white house. He certainly stands by his principles more than any other democrat we have running, with the possible exception of Kucinich, but I just could not see a liberterian in the white house.

So I do hope he wins the republican nomination but if that happens I will still be voting democratic in the general election.
 
No limit

Paul speaks a hell of a lot of truth especially when it comes to the spiralling foreign debt and the insanity of the federal reserve. The only thing propping up the dollar internationally in value is it's hegemony with oil, something that isn't guaranteed to last. None of the democrats seem remotely interested in tackling the rot in a constructive manner. They are by and large cruising on the notion that they are going to get elected simply because W has been so bad, not on decent policies.
 
Couldn't of said it any better, republican or democrat aside, he recognises what is rotting America at the core. The reason why inflation is devaluing the dollar so rapidly is the fiat interest generated by the federal reserve, the FED isn't constitutional and is essentially an illegal operation controlled by private interests.

These people are robbing US citizens of the value of their currencey in broad daylight while they essentially take untaxable interest generated by the FED for themselves, and so many people seem to not even understand their own constitution or have their own head so far up their own ass or employers ass that they can't see it.
 
Kadayi Polokov said:
No limit

Paul speaks a hell of a lot of truth especially when it comes to the spiralling foreign debt and the insanity of the federal reserve. The only thing propping up the dollar internationally in value is it's hegemony with oil, something that isn't guaranteed to last. None of the democrats seem remotely interested in tackling the rot in a constructive manner. They are by and large cruising on the notion that they are going to get elected simply because W has been so bad, not on decent policies.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, its not that I disagree with that.

But he has a lot of other positions that frankly I would be afraid to implement. He believes, like most other libertarians, that every public service our government offers should be left up to the private sector. This includes the post office, police, fire fighters, and the like. In addition he wants to eliminate all taxes and corporate regulation.

So in essence what he wants to do is bring us back to the 1800s, its a very dangerous policy.

I would rather have him than what we have now and I would would prefer him over any other republican running for the office, but if I have a choice between him and a democrats I know which way I am voting.
 
I don't think he wants to take you back to the 1800's, he simply puts forward that he wants to uphold the constitutional values. He never stated that the private sector would be in total control of local area developments, he was refering to more localised government where the people in that area decide what's best for their area, and decide themselves if they need private sector investment in transport or other services.

He is basically saying he wants the different state directions to not be too heavily affected by the policy of Washington.
 
clarky003 said:
I don't think he wants to take you back to the 1800's, he simply puts forward that he wants to uphold the constitutional values. He never stated that the private sector would be in total control of local area developments, he was refering to more localised government where the people in that area decide what's best for their area, and decide themselves if they need private sector investment in transport or other services.

He is basically saying he wants the different state directions to not be too heavily affected by the policy of Washington.
Click to expand...

Actually he did say that, as recently as Monday on the daily show.

If you need more information on this go a head and read the LP platform or better yet find a liberterian you can talk to about this. They will tell you exactly what I told you, they are by no means ashamed of their positions and are very open about it. This is the reason I respect them for it but in the end I think those positions are extremely radical.
 
No Limit said:
Actually he did say that, as recently as Monday on the daily show.

If you need more information on this go a head and read the LP platform or better yet find a liberterian you can talk to about this. They will tell you exactly what I told you, they are by no means ashamed of their positions and are very open about it. This is the reason I respect them for it but in the end I think those positions are extremely radical.
Click to expand...

I agree more with clarky003 view tbh (and I saw the daily show interview) it seems to me he is more interested in handing over more control to states on public issues rather than having everything legislated by Washington. As regards privatizing, from what he said about the postal service he is more for private companies being allowed to compete in that market rather than the national services being sold off or dismantled. I don't believe he is advocating private monopolies either.

What you have to consider is that given his age Paul would probably serve only one term, in which case he would concentrate his attention on the issues he considers most important, firstly getting out of Iraq and adjusting US foreign policy, secondly on tackling the IRS and the illegality of the federal reserve, which are the foundation stones of the rot. I'm not seeing him taking the bull by the horns on either of these issues as remotely a bad thing either for the US or the rest of the world. where as I'm not seeing the perpetuation of the existing condition by either the Democrats or the Neocons doing anyone any favours.
 
But you are pretty much saying the same thing I am saying in regards to what he believes in. He wants to remove the tax system and pretty much eliminate the federal government which is a very dangerous position as I argued above. You don't see him taking these policies which he believes in so deeply seriously? Ron Paul is a very principled man, if that's what he believes that's what he will try to do with that kind of power. Why would you think otherwise?
 
No Limit said:
But you are pretty much saying the same thing I am saying in regards to what he believes in. He wants to remove the tax system and pretty much eliminate the federal government which is a very dangerous position as I argued above. You don't see him taking these policies which he believes in so deeply seriously? Ron Paul is a very principled man, if that's what he believes that's what he will try to do with that kind of power. Why would you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

Yeah but your version is the scary 'OMG he's going to bring about the end of the world as we know it!!!' whereas my take is, 'this guy wants to shake things up' in all seriousness none of the other candidates democrat or Neo-con seem remotely interested in doing anything to stop the rot. American foreign policy over the last 50 years has been driven by the necessity to safeguard Oil supplies and ensure the Oil/dollar hegemony is maintained. Why? Because the privately controlled federal reserve has devalued the dollar through proliferation so much so that they no longer even formally list how many dollars are in circulation. All this war warmongering is simply delaying the inevitable. Better for a president to come in and tackle that problem now than in another 30 years when the Oil really runs out and the country is completely bankrupt.
 
It's funny, I was just reading an article about scenario of when we do actually run out of oil. I hope he brings this discussion to the table. Americans don't want to face it right now, and that's extremely dangerous.

But by the same token do you not believe we need a lot of research to find a fuel that can replace oil? How are we going to do that without government funding?
 
No Limit said:
It's funny, I was just reading an article about scenario of when we do actually run out of oil. I hope he brings this discussion to the table. Americans don't want to face it right now, and that's extremely dangerous.

But by the same token do you not believe we need a lot of research to find a fuel that can replace oil? How are we going to do that without government funding?
Click to expand...

The plain truth of the matter is that there is no sustainable alternative fuel to replace Oil and maintain the present levels of energy consumption that the 1st world presently enjoys, the research has already been done. Try and hunt down a copy of the following documentary:-

The end of Suburbia

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

It will explain things far better than I can. however if you can't be assed, I'll try as follows:-

The future... electric cars..great idea but where are you going to get the extra electricity from to power them?

What about Cars running on rapeseed oil...we'd need a planet the size of Jupiter to harvest to meet our present fuel needs down that route.

there are alternative energy sources, but none that can match our present energy/dollar usage based upon our unsustainable way of life.

Granted we will always be able to generate electricity (solar power/wind/wave/geo-thermal) even after fossil fuel depletion, but 200 years from now I'd envisage a national network of electric trains linking rural communities based around horse and cart tbh.
 
Sure, oil will be our source of energy for a long time, but there are a lot of things you can do to lower the amount of oil we actually need and there are reasonable replacements out there now. Toyota is going to release another version of its prius that will run 125 MPG.

There was another car that was recently released that could run on compressed air. Where do we get the power to compress this air you ask? Nuclear power would be ideal.

I just think government needs to have a hand in all of this if we are going to advance these techologies any time soon. Helium 9 is another possible alternative which is why nasa will be going to the moon in 2018 I believe. This would not be possible is Ron Paul was in office.
 
Oil won't be our source of energy much longer as demand is currently outpacing production and there's good reason to believe that oil production peaked in '05. We've got 2 years to come up with an alternative to oil, if we're lucky.
 
No Limit said:
I just think government needs to have a hand in all of this if we are going to advance these techologies any time soon. Helium 9 is another possible alternative which is why nasa will be going to the moon in 2018 I believe. This would not be possible is Ron Paul was in office.
Click to expand...

The entire landscape of the world as you know it from the most basic infrastructure to the most complex exists off the backbone of a complex and capable globalized transportation network that runs principally on an ever diminishing fuel supply of Oil. Almost every thing you engage with in the shops was in all probability grown, sourced or manufactured overseas, or far away. Locally sourceed? Here's an interesting tale:-

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/the_hundred_mil.php

that's just the tale of a suit..consider how much harder it would be to make a mobile phone..a piece of tech that requires minerals found only in certain locations in the world.

Forget this 'wonder fuel' that is going to miraculously replace oil so we can all drive flying cars...it's seriously not out there, and voting against ron paul and isn't going to change that fact. Hunt down (*cough..torrentspy..cough*) and Watch the documentary (the end of suburbia) and you'll begin to appreciate the scale of the problem the US and humanity as a whole faces.

There was another car that was recently released that could run on compressed air. Where do we get the power to compress this air you ask? Nuclear power would be ideal.
Click to expand...

Nuclear energy isn't even remotely capable of meeting the worlds current electrical power demands, let alone supplying the power necessary to replace the Oil/energy dollar of public and private transport demands of the here and now let alone those in 30 years.
 
I will watch that documentary when I get a chance if I can find it. But again, you don't think the government has a role in making sure we aren't dependent on oil? Should the government continue to fund research to limit our dependence on oil and set up regulations to help in that? You say we are doomed on our current path, well sure we are. But who is going to change that, big business? Since when does big business worry about us?

I didn't see you explain much on what Ron Paul will actually do to stop this oil economy and I'm certainly curious about it. So please, go on, educate me.
 
No Limit said:
I didn't see you explain much on what Ron Paul will actually do to stop this oil economy and I'm certainly curious about it. So please, go on, educate me.
Click to expand...

Whilst there is still oil in the ground there will always be an oil economy, but from what he has said it's clear that Paul isn't interested in using government forces/tax payers money and American lives to secure the rights to that oil for private multinational interests such as Haliburton. That puts him a step beyond anyone else out there in terms of the candidacy stakes. Before the oil does run out the opportunity exists to remodel and refocus the traditional urban situation for the majority of Americans into more sustainable living (house/workplaces and shops within close proximity to each other..dare I say walking distance? ...I dare), but that isn't going to happen whilst the myth of cheap gas is supported indirectly by spiralling foreign debt and ominous spectre of a perpetual war/power grab for rapidly diminishing resource.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Naudian
Fox News blatant deception (no way!) Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul
Replies
8
Views
1K
StarBob
StarBob
CptStern
Fox"news": "Mr Rogers is evil who ruined a generation of kids"
Replies
38
Views
2K
gFrohman
gFrohman
jverne
one of the many reasons why FOX/News is shit
Replies
33
Views
2K
Sheepo
Sheepo
W4d5Y
Paul censored in polls
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
kathaksung
K
Warped
Iranian Elections Erupt in Utter Chaos
2 3
Replies
86
Views
6K
Warped
Warped
Back
Top