Complete 4 part Playlist
So Rupert closes the paper and all are fired and you think this would be the end of it but no,
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is calling for a U.S. probe of wiretapping allegations against News Corp. and warning the consequences will be severe if the firm is found to have targeted Americans.http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/171157
My favorite line in your post is this:
This is why Democrats get reelected people, because morons that don't pay attention vote them back in.
The Senate is in Democrat hands, not Republican. If you actually paid attention to legitimate news sources, you'd have known this...
Media Matters is a left wing outfit that repeatedly, and reliably misquotes and characterizes quotes by analysts giving opinions as factual reporting in an effort to paint Fox as in the tank. Having watched a good deal of that, everything you just posted is bunk. Including the story on Mass Effect, an actual legitimate complaint. A retraction would have been nice, but it was a second hand story, not Fox making stuff up. They carry a lot of content second hand from other reporters. It's the reporters themselves that are supposed to have vetted the story before putting it across the wire. Some busy body fuckwad sticking their nose into everyone elses parenting went after the game for it's content, which is indeed inappropriate content for children, not that the game is marketed to them, and blew it way out of proportion to try and do it in. Dumb shit reporter X took down the story, put it out for consumption, and never bothered to ask around for someone that had actually played it. The correct target of your angst is CNS. An actual conservative outfit.
The rest of that is just bogus though. Climate research has indeed been called into question. It was bunk long before then, it's like proving evolution. We now know how the basic building blocks of life form, we timed it! Apparently, someone has actually been alive for the million plus years they say it takes for the process to happen naturally. This global warming nonsense has been historically inaccurate and geologically irrelevant from day one, it's normal behavior. The "scientists" pushing it get caught exaggerating their results to keep their funding, and the liberals just go meh. When it's your religion, you may find it hard to admit, but adding a qualifier that happens to be accurate isn't giving the news a right wing slant. The same goes for the "public option" for the health care nonsense. It is indeed government run, and public option is indeed a far more vague and non-descriptive term. A public option is any option open to the public, which would include every individual policy in the private sector.
The only damaging claim you make is the court case, where Fox dodged a whistle blower lawsuit by pointing out that they weren't whistle blowers, as there's nothing illegal to cover up in regards to the accuracy of a story. This one required some digging, instead of just being aware of my surroundings for the last decade or so. The actual story put out by Fox, the so called lies, was accurate. Their sole objection was to including any defense from the company they were doing a hatchet job on. Note that rBGH is still legal, and still hasn't led to any problems. Hilariously enough, the story, defenses included, still managed to kill an industry with no visible drawbacks. They're slowly being weeded out of public consumption as more and more chains and producers join the rBGH free label to avoid hurting their sales.
Indeed, media Matters, a Soros front, is being sued because it has decided to violate the 501C Charity charter and enter politics - specifically it has decided to try to destroy Fox. Why? Apparently because Fox calls it like it is, and that embarrasses the bozos over there.
Sorry, my challenge goes unanswered. No one has yet to shoe me a bias of Fox. Not Perfect (i.e. makes mistakes)? Never said they did not. That their commentators are mostly conservative? never said they were not. But the NEWS? Nope. And that is why so many people try and fail to win the prize, and instead just get mad that the challenge was made.
You forget about that shrinking minority of us who don't give a shit what any talking head on a 24-hour babble network has to say. I have equal contempt for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. News? Maybe once or twice a week.
Their core product is spastic verbal diarrhea complemented with flashy, overpriced graphics and pointlessly elaborate sets. Oooh, the earthquake made some scardey-folks think about terrorists. Wow, Irene is going to be the Katrina for the northeastern seaboard.
I'd rather see them all shut down, their writers put back to work writing with the help of real editors instead of b*og software, and the cable channels turned over to more shows about how Hitler planned to use magic to win the war and aliens helped build the pyramids at Giza.
Crap, cant seem to give karma kookiies
That's why I get all my news from the source. Local stories from the local news. The internet has shrunk the world, so that everything is local now.
And coreimpulse, you have just about all of your "facts" wrong. I especially loved the whole Obama will get re-elected bit. Made me LOL hard! No president has been re-elected with over %9 unemployment, and that isn't about to change with his proposed "jobs bills"
You do realize that Obama has increased the debt by over $4 trillion in just 2.5 years? That is the FASTEST increase in debt by any president, EVER.
Lets compare that....
Bush had the 911 incident, a recession, a recovery, 2 wars and at least one major natural disaster.
He had to raise the debt (with an apposing Congress) by 4.9 trillion in 8 years
Obama has had what? a continued recession, the end of 1 war, 1 environmental disaster, and one minor natural disaster.
He raised the debt (with a unified party Congress) by 4 trillion in 2 years.
I think ANY of the candidates could do better, because ALL of them have held a real job at some point in their lives. And Obama is just a talking head, an empty suit with no experience in the real world.
Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Mr. Obama's skin tone is proof of that. More to the momentary point, the 2012 presidential race is already a wild-haired mutant moment to anyone with a decent sense of history. It is entirely possible that bitter and reluctant voters on what passes for the US left will rally around a The-Alternative-Is-Worse flag, and it is clear that no one with enough establishment ties to mount a primary campaign is going to escape the skepticism of the non-Tea-Party, no-party-at-all folks. If the GOP primary fight is long and bitter enough, it could easily end up alienating enough base voters to give Ron Paul a strong write-in vote and leave Obama in for a second term.
Quoting SivCorp, reply 132You do realize that Obama has increased the debt by over $4 trillion in just 2.5 years? That is the FASTEST increase in debt by any president, EVER.
Now let me try to respond as a civics instructor (someone striving to suppress partisan impulses and look at 'just the facts'). It is a horrible mistake for anyone to attribute so much power/responsibility to any president. Under our Constitution, the power of the purse rests with Congress, the House in particular. Since the beginning of the last century, Congresses have ducked their responsibility and tried to shift blame/work to the executive, but the truth is that our federal budget is, to use a fancy academic term, an emergent property of a whole system. A bumper-sticker claim like you made here blithely ignores two very important budgetary facts.
First, the bulk of the budget is not discretionary spending, it is spending required by law and changing those laws (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid) is very, very difficult because the coalition of older voters receiving benefits and medical businesses earning profits is extremely powerful. Second, even discretionary items weighing down the budget are no single leader's work, much less the fault (or credit) of a single president. To the chagrin of many of his supporters, Obama has not fought hard to reduce our hideously expensive and blood-soaked involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither did he start those undeclared wars. The deficits you cite also include most of the massive bank bailout spending that was enacted before folks who won in the 2008 elections actually assumed their offices.
Meanwhile, Bush gets the credit for the actions of Congress under his watch, the last two years of which while everything went to hell, having been controlled by the Democrats.
Nothing has been veto proof, that's my standard. Bush was a jackass for the crap he didn't veto. Obama doesn't get a pass from me, even if the media gives him one for being black.
If Obama had come out swinging for a cut, as in actual cut, in discretionary spending across every sector of government, he'd be a fiscal hero. He'd have gotten it through congress on bipartisan support and would have the tea party at his back. Instead, he pushed for increases in every sector, and he got them. Discretionary spending is keeping pace with the other stuff just fine as a result. Bush got more than he asked for, Obama gets less than he asks for and still puts us in the hole like we haven't been since the country was founded.
Not from me. Congress gets the lion's share of the blame for our current foreign 'adventures.' They borrowed the money to fund that foolishness, and they hid behind 43's bully pulpit when citizens objected to the borrowing. If they'd stood up to him in the first place and refused to fund the invasion, he would have been hard pressed to use his veto power to get what Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted.
No, I do not forget you. You are just not of ones that care, and I have no qualms with that. I do not watch any of the news. I do read the websites (well CNN and Fox, not MSNBC).
Yes, sorry bout doubting foxnews' unbiased, 100% accurate reporting. Like here:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1141465232001/video-games-go-green/.
Fox news, protecting the public against violent content, objectionable material, and the liberal agenda in games. Yep, they called it just like it is. They uncovered the wacko liberal left propaganda in these city management games. Who would-ve had known. It probably took them months to research and investigate. They dont seem to have laid-off the dumbfuck reporters yet.
And no, it was not a legitimate compliant. Shouldnt they have factual-checked an unsubstaciated claim by some idiot not fit to be parent instead of plaster it all over like it was the facts?? To get you know, something called evidence? There was only a mild, PG13 level sideboob, and they would have known about it if they had only let Geoff Keighley , the only one that had actually PLAYED the game, explain. But when he was trying to explain, sounding all reasonable and fair, he was hammered by othe "expert' who was speaking loudly, sounding arrogant and talking down at him, and the blond milf moderator allowing that to occur. There was no story, only made up nonsense about nothing. But that's faux news' specialty.
This is the problem with fox. It's a bunch of one-source sided, intelligently-dry, incompetent people that do not know absolutely anything about a subject, and they run with it, being all self-righteous while doing it They dont double check against any other sources, facts, or additional viewpoints. Don't first year college students get asked to do just that? Seriously, that video in an insult to anyone with an iq over 10. Do they think their audience are utter idiots? Are they just trolling? Sincerely, after watching that video, i need an aspirin. They're not conservatives anymore, they're just nutcases, that are fun to watch. If this doesnt sway your opinions on faux news' unbiased reporting, you're beyond any help. Maybe you're one of those affected by the layoffs. Maybe you attended one too many tea party rallies. Oh, and I do believe obama will be president until 2016. He is much better than any of those dimwit republican hopefuls. If that's the best the redneck gop can come up with at least obama doesnt have to worry about them.
You don't even know which party is in control of the Senate, but you're going to talk about others not having their facts.
I was being nice when I let you have that one as a legitimate complaint, but I guess I'll go ahead and agree with your retraction. I actually watched that segment when it aired, the guy came across as a fumbling loser because he was absurdly nervous about being on TV. If he hadn't been having a panic attack on air, maybe he could have actually succeeded in defending his precious video game. If you're a mouse, don't go picking fights with the raptor.
Your redneck GOP is also in error. I happen to live in redneck central, they're all democrats. The local elections are all decided in the primary, no general election candidates from the other side to oppose the victor.
Go back to primary school, learn to read, and come back when you can at least comprehend the opposition. A battle of wits will forever be out of your reach, but at least you can amuse me then.
No one said they were 100% accurate. Nor did anyone say "unbiased". If you live, you cannot help but be biased. The key is to recognize it and compensate for it. A good news organization does that (not all on Fox are conservative and even the liberal anchors catch themselves at times).
The tag line is "Fair and Balanced", and no one has yet to show me where their News is not.
So sorry, I did not bite at your strawman. Stick to the issues for some rousing discussions. Leave the scarecrow at home.
there is a divided party in the senate? I thought they all worked for the same masters, the same ones that put that puppet Obama in office (better known as bush 2.0, blacker and a better speaker).
While true, attempting to convince a liberal that the Republican party is run by big government progressives, and that Bush is one of them...
Exercise in futility.
They may support bigger government than you'd like, but their stance on taxes is hardly progressive.
Bait and switch bullshit. With the possible exception of a few New Englanders, there are no serious 'centrist' or 'progressive' Republicans left in Congress. There are still plenty of nationalist authoritarians, including the entire GOP leadership in both houses.
Overreaching government isn't always about too much money taken in taxes or 'spent' via tax law shenanigans. Sometimes it's about too much tax money spent to spy on honest citizens or to pay for killing foreigners and destroying their property without our having the decency to declare war on their nation. Dubya was an outstanding leader for that sort of Republican, and that shit is in no way "progressive."
Which explains perfectly why Bush got a tax cut through that was so progressive, I no longer pay taxes. Talking points are nice and all, but the Bush tax cut for the rich took me so far off the roles, that I get my payroll tax back every April.
The simple fact is, the bottom bracket got their marginal tax rate knocked off by a third, from 15-10%, and a very nice boost in deductions and credits that can make them go positive. I've made money off tax time as a result. Well above the poverty line, you get everything back and then some.
The top bracket went from 39.6 to 35%, so anti-progressive!
Edit: GW, you have zero perspective. Seventy years ago, when FDR was shutting down businesses for paying their employees too well or not charging enough, he was taking flak from his own party for being too interventionist. Forty years ago, Goldwater was a moderate Republican and Reagan left the Democrats.
Today, FDR is a moderate and Goldwater and Reagan are crazy right wing extremists. Call bullshit till hell freezes over, you're full to the brim.
Come on. Almost everyone 'on the left' these days is pining for Goldwater Republicans, and no small share of us are shocked to find that Bush 43's administration leaves us almost pining for Reagan. Goldwater pulled some bullshit Cold War rhetoric in his campaign ads and none of us will forget that Reagan got Ed Meese in the AG's office and at least passively helped Ollie North betray his uniform and his country. But compared to the crowd pushing the so-called war on terror while simultaneously spiking deficit spending to provide tax cuts for the upper brackets, us folks with "zero perspective" would take Goldwater, or even Reagan, hands down. Reluctantly, but with a full understanding that there are degrees of despicability.
See? No perspective. You're not even attempting to be honest anymore, just ranting about the guy. I'd leave you to it, but when I want to kick his head in it's for things he actually did.
The only liberal bills passed by his congress that Bush didn't like were the attempts to expand SCHIP well beyond the boundaries of poverty. Bush helped write half the shit he signed.
Progressive
He expanded the Department of Education, a department actual conservatives have been gunning for since it's inception. Testing? Maybe. Federal level? Hell no. He got shit from the left anyway because it was an "unfunded mandate" which would be the only thing that was good about it. At least while he was screwing us over with more control he wasn't hosing us for more money to fund an already obscenely over funded education system.
He expanded Medicare, without even bothering with little details like means testing, to cover presciption drugs. For those of you still going through life without a clue, cat food is more expensive than people food, anyone eating it was just fucking nuts.
He engaged in nation building, a purely progressive philosophy espoused by a broad spectrum of your loony left presidents including LBJ, Kennedy, FDR, Wilson and Carter. When realists, also known as Conservatives, bomb the shit out of someone else for fucking with us, we leave when the job is done. We don't stay to play suzie homemaker with the next bunch of jumped up dictators funding terrorists, as they're bloody likely to be. We're individualists, it's their own damn problem if they let scum take their country back over.
He gave half the fuckin country a negative tax rate. I know, I know, bitch bitch bitch. Those evil rich people got 4.6% off theirs too! Get over it already. The self titled centrist went way across the aisle for the other brackets while he was offending your sensibilities.
He created a whole new department in government. Not just a new department either, the biggest expansion of government since the freakin 60's. Oh yeah, real conservative.
After all that liberalism, he gave us his last year in office, what a whammy that was. Meanwhile, you pine for Reagan. I pine for Reagan too.
Reagan cut the size and scope of government intervention every chance he got. Bush helped author the expansion of it on numerous occasions. The big daddy of them all being the creation of our new standard, Too Big To Fail. We're fucked, utterly fucked, by progressive idealism, and you give him shit for being ultra conservative. What did he do that was actually conservative? He blocked the expansion of SCHIP. That was about it.
I don't know why you all fling poo at each other.... No one is really being open minded here....
And now, on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack, how much better are we? There is still a hole in the ground in NY. And yet we built the Empire State building, and the Hover Dam in 2 years. TWO F'ING YEARS! What happened to the American can-do spirit and don't take no shit from anyone? All these progressive European moderates need to leave the country. We had a revolution to get away from your backwards thinking a while ago, leave now.
I would have built the tallest building in the world to replace the Trade center.... Like a giant middle finger to the world! You towel heads wanna come over here and start crap? Well fine, we will build it bigger, stronger and faster. And then we will level your wasteland. But I digress.... I'm obviously too much of a "right wing wacko"
God help this country, cause we sure are f'ing it up...
Don't forget that crazy liberal Eisenhower.
Eisenhower was a progressive, so were Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Herbert Hoover.
We have elected three Conservatives in the last century, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan. There was actually a fourth, Gerald Ford, but he didn't get elected.
So yes, the crazy liberal Eisenhower. He believed in saving others from themselves, whether they wanted the help or not. The lynchpin of progressivism. He expanded social security and elevated the New Deal programs to a Cabinet position, started federal funding of the Interstate Highways(something good, but unconstitutional no less) and most importantly, is the single most dangerous fuckup of a president we've ever had when it came to the CIA. Who's the moron that started all the coups we're feeling the after effects from these days? Eisenhower. Nothing builds good will in Iran like overthrowing their democratically elected government to create a dictatorship. We'll be feeling the burn from Eisenhower for a long time to come.
There are some. However, there are still plenty of moderate republicans, and there is a growing minority of fiscally conservative republicans (most voted in last year).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
