Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Fox News Evil or Stupid? [CLOSED for further review]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 1
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid? [CLOSED for further review]Page 1 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Fox News is either evil or stupid for not mentioning that Alwaleed bin Talal is News Corp.'s second largest shareholder.

For those that do not know who Alwaleed bin Talal is, he is the guy that is backing the community center that is being built in NYC that is cause all the stir.

Prince Al-Waleed owns an estimated $2.5-billion-worth of News Corp. Majority shareholder Rupert Murdoch recently took a stake in the prince’s Middle East-based media conglomerate, Rotana Group. Murdoch and Prince Al-Waleed are reportedly working on launching an Arabic news network that will compete with existing pan-Arabic networks Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.


He is also the guy that Fox is saying has questionable ties to Hamas / Iran, they pretty much portray him as a terrorist.


Jon Stewart did a great piece last night about it.

US Viewers - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

Can Viewers - http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Displayblog.aspx?bpid=16d46416-8330-4ae0-b5b9-39b86da82f80


So are they that stupid or are they that evil?
 az109
Joined: 7/3/2010
Msg: 2
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 2:54:59 PM
Evil is apt. It's all intentional propaganda intended to cause mayhem. If you're limiting the choices to good and evil, then it's evil, no question about it. Stupid would be if they occasionally got something wrong. Then that might not even be stupid, just careless. What they do day in and day out is evil. News is supposed to be about truth, as in, telling the truth. Fox News is about lies. It's a propaganda machine of the first order.

There is a kind of mindset that views humanism as folly, and so whatever designs it undertakes are self serving and immoral, or on a good day, merely self serving and amoral. The best way to watch FOX is to turn the channel. Don't subject your brain to that vile drivel, unless you need punishment for something you did. Come on now, what did you do?
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 3
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 3:33:47 PM

So are they that stupid or are they that evil?

Why not both?
 DarkCrimson
Joined: 7/6/2009
Msg: 4
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 4:00:28 PM
They are greedy, not evil, but prey on the gullible by trying to scare them. Propping up a person as an "expert opinion" that couldn't name what newspaper they read is a perfect example.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 4:05:44 PM
Evil perhaps. Stupid "No". Definitely greedy though.
 Irish Eyez
Joined: 12/30/2008
Msg: 6
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 4:55:26 PM
Oh...

You mean, 'Faux' News, right?
 Hawaiianluau
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 7
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 5:29:16 PM
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Compared to who? (which network?)


.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 8
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 9:55:46 PM
It is, ...true too. Not only that, FOX bought up shares in Saudi Arabian networks owned by the same guy, ....that's even funnier (beyond just "ha ha" funny).

The top management of Saudi-based media group Rotana met under the chairmanship of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud to discuss the latest developments at Rotana after its strategic alliance with global media giant News Corp.


The meeting, which was attended by Dr Waleed Arab Hashem, vice chairman and Fahad Alsukait, CEO, discussed ways to strengthen the strategic alliance with News Corp.

According to a company statement, Newscorp bought a 9.09 per cent stake in Rotana Group in February to further develop its postion in the media sector in the Middle East and expand it horizon.

Under the terms of the agreement, Rotana said the News Corporation would acquire newly-issued shares in Rotana for $70 million. News Corp has an option to boost its stake to 18.18 per cent in the 18 months following completion.

Pierre Daher, president of Rotana TV Channels, and the members and representitives from News Corporation including Marc Heller, Gary Davey besides Charlotte Burr, vice president of Star Group and Michael Nelson, CFO of Rotana also attended the meeting.


Too funny I tell ya'

Fox is now part of the "shadowy funding terrorist ties", ....at both ends.

Yup, ...stupid AND evil.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 10:19:07 PM

So what, as a minority investor he has no operational control over News Corp and if he feels at odds with the Fox division reporting of him he can sell his investment and put it into say, MSNBC ...



The second largest shareholder in News Corp. — the parent company of Fox News — has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to causes linked to the imam planning to build a Muslim community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan, says a report from Yahoo!News.

According to the report from Yahoo!’s John Cook, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns seven percent of News Corp., “has directly funded [Imam Feisal Abdul] Rauf’s projects to the tune of more than $300,000.”

Cook reports that Prince Al-Waleed’s personal charity, the Kingdom Foundation, donated $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a project sponsored by two of Rauf’s initiatives, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, which is building the Manhattan mosque.

That Fox News’ second-largest shareholder, after Rupert Murdoch, has financial links to the “Ground Zero mosque” will be seen as ironic by critics of the news network, who have watched with chagrin as the network’s talking heads attempt to link the mosque to radical Islamism.

Last week, Daily Show host Jon Stewart lambasted Fox panelist Eric Bolling’s attempt to link the Cordoba Initiative to Hamas and Iran. Stewart used News Corp.’s connections to Prince Al-Waleed, and the prince’s connections to the Carlyle Group and Osama bin Laden to make a tongue-in-cheek argument that Fox News may be a “terrorist command center.”

“Stewart didn’t need to take all those steps to make the connection,” Cook writes.

Cook also reports that Prince Al-Waleed has in the past funded a number of Islamic organizations that have been maligned by Fox News commentators:

Al-Waleed donated $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations — which has been repeatedly denounced on Fox News’s air by Geller and others as a terror group — in 2002. Indeed, Rauf’s “numerous ties to CAIR” alone have been cited by the mosque’s opponents as a justification for imputing terrorist sympathies to him, yet few people seem to be asking whether Murdoch’s extensive multi-billion business collaboration with the man who funds both Rauf and CAIR merits investigation or concern.

Other beneficiaries of Al-Waleed’s largess include the Islamic Development Bank, a project designed to “foster the economic development and social progress of [Muslims] in accordance with the principles of Shari’ah.” The IDB funds the construction of mosques around the world, and has been implicated by frequent Fox News guest Stephen Schwartz in an attempt to spread radical Wahhabism (a fundamentalist branch of Islam) throughout the United States.

Cook notes that it was none other than News Corp.’s New York Post that reported on Prince Al-Waleed’s donation to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. He reports that Fox News had no comment for his article, and emails to the prince’s Kingdom Foundation were not returned.

Prince Al-Waleed owns an estimated $2.5-billion-worth of News Corp. Majority shareholder Rupert Murdoch recently took a stake in the prince’s Middle East-based media conglomerate, Rotana Group. Murdoch and Prince Al-Waleed are reportedly working on launching an Arabic news network that will compete with existing pan-Arabic networks Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.

http://real-agenda.com/2010/08/23/saudi-prince-al-waleed-bin-talal-founding-construction-of-ground-zero-mosque/


He didn't drop all that money into FOX just to get free cable, btw.

Ever wonder why Saudi Arabia is not seen that unfavorably by FOX ?

That FOX didn't come out (after Americans were accused of destroying Korans in Iraq) and report that Saudis regularly destroy overly ornate Korans of Haj pilgrims ?

Ever wonder why FOX beats the war drum on Iran so loudly ?

Ever wonder why the Saudis probably already have the bomb, and secret launch sites, and no one even whispers a word ?

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts5224896.aspx


What should be done about Iran?
I think the United States has to take a very firm position against Iran...really just box them in and give them an ultimatum. Right now what's happening in Iran reminds us of the pre-revolution era of the Shah.

Will Ahmadinejad survive?[i/]
The way he's handling his opponents is really very savage. We don't know how this thing is going to end. But at this stage, you must engage with Ahmadinejad until we see what happens

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_05/b4165010350026_page_2.htm


A Saudi talking about being very savage ? Talk about irony....
 Delete_Me_Please
Joined: 11/10/2009
Msg: 10
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/24/2010 11:49:43 PM

Compared to who? (which network?)

If compared to my nephew's third grade news program in the areas of fair, balanced and accurate reporting, I'd give the nod to the third graders (and this even factors in their scandalous reporting that Mackenzie Bradford has cooties).
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/25/2010 10:28:30 PM
I find Fox News to be the equivalent of TV preachers.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 6:10:18 AM
Faux News is certifiably evil, but if they are dumb, they are dumb like a Fox. Aside from being the official propaganda branch of the Far Right, they also are masters at manufacturing controversy for profit. Their viewership spikes when they can make sh*t up to divide citizens and heat up rhetoric and hatred. Fox is highly responsible for manufacturing faux divisions and amplifying them to the point of violence from their viewers. Murdock and his team are the worst form of mercenaries with no allegiance to the truth or the citizens they purport to serve. http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1608
http://www.newshounds.us/
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 13
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 11:23:13 AM
Neither Evil nor Stupid.

But their are those who chose to watch other media news outlets that are more biased to the left or even more biased to the right. All news is biased. If you don't like it, change the channel. Most news has become nothing but entertainment these days anyway, you know its all about the 'best story" not about how we get from point a to point b. Alas at least I am sure they appreciate the free publicity that was just provided for them in this thread subject.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 2:04:22 PM
There are a few evil people in the world and a lot of stupid people in the world.
And... the few evil people can get the whole lot of the stupid people to do any damn thing they want.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 3:46:05 PM
Excellent Fox talking points PH. With people and corporations like Murdoch, Disney and Westinghouse owning the MSM, we see little of that mythology of the "left wing media". With the bar constantly moving to the far right, anything resembling actual journalism is deemed to be biased. I can understand how someone can state that "almost all "news" is really commentary or propaganda" if all one watches is Fox.

Look at how dutifully the MSM sat cowed after 9/11, repeating the politburo's party line, refusing to question the official party line, and then becoming embedded in war zones, further selling the BS of GW and the gangsters. What remained of any semblence of left leaning media was ignored or marginalized. "You're with us or with the terrorists.." Your Mathews character was one of the dutiful ones who towed the party line that took us to war and genocide.

We still have media watchdog groups like Media Matters, News Hounds, In the Media, Znet and a few others that help us monitor the media march to the far right and hopefully will eventually shame some in the media to actually do their jobs again and report the truth.

http://www.zcommunications.org/right-wing-thought-police-by-lawrence-davidson
snip..
1. In their daily lives the vast majority of Americans are apolitical. They really don’t care about left or right politics because it doesn’t seem to have much to do with their local lives. They are, however, the consumer audience for which the media outlets compete.

2. While inherently apolitical, this audience does not live in an apolitical media environment. In my opinion, there is no "objective media" much less a "liberal" one. The majority of the media outlets are one of two kinds. They are either a) overtly conservative because they are owned by right wing ideologues who are interested in inserting their ultra-conservative worldview into the heads of their audience (the Murdoch/Fox News bunch) or b) they are "politically neutral" media operations (often owned by bigger businesses like Westinghouse and Disney) whose foremost interest is making a profit (CNN and its ilk). You do also have a few left leaning media organizations out there, mostly in print (i.e. The Nation), but they are on the fringe and don’t reach a mass audience.

3. Since the end of World War II leftist ideas have been demonized almost out of existence in the U.S. And, since 9/11, the "commies" have been transformed into Muslims. These simplistic stereotypes set the parameters for correct and patriotic thinking in this country and they are delivered to you at different levels of intensity by both the conservative and "neutral" media systems. No matter how apolitical one might be in one’s daily local life, these notions are in media air, so to speak. You take them in almost by osmosis. They mess with your mind without you realizing it.
snip..
The Foreground:

1. This situation gives the political right a very big head start when it comes to shaping public opinion and then policing the "neutral" corporate media to make sure it does not step out of line. The right is very good at this because their leaders and spokespeople tend to be bullies and authoritarians. On the other hand, American political liberals are really centrists who are trying to hold together a conglomeration of different groups. That might get them votes when it counts but it doesn’t make for principled backbone. The liberal centrists tend to be accommodating rather than resistant to right-wing bullying.

2. The "neutral" media that is primarily concerned with the bottom line, their owners and bureaucratic operators, readily sacrifice the principles underpinning a free press if they are seen as hurting the company image. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to this rule (just remember the Washington Post and Watergate) but they are rare and momentary.

3. So, you put together a for- profit, largely unprincipled "neutral" media with an aggressive political right run by loud mouthed thugs, throw in a liberal political class that has very little backbone, and you get the present day situation.

What I have described here is a general situation that is working at two levels. At the corporate level the right-wing bullies seem to be in charge and regularly force the firing of those who purposefully or inadvertently challenge them. Inside the beltway the same sort of sordid business goes on through the pressures put upon politicians by wrathful special interests. At the popular level the initially apolitical masses get largely right-wing influenced storylines coming through the system described above. Over time, this of course influences their collective worldview.
end snip..

more at link...
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 16
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 4:57:20 PM

Look at the publications who endorsed Obama vs those who endorsed McCain. Anyone who thinks the media is far right is not working on a factual basis.

Do you think maybe it is possible that those that they endorsed Obama over McCain because they thought he was a better man for the job and not because of their political affiliation?
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 17
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 5:29:24 PM
Evil, stupid, on the take, and habitually lying - a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and bought and paid for by big business like the Koch Brothers, Newscorp, Saudi Oil, etc...

The modern incarnation of Der Stuermer by Julius Streicher with Roger Ailes in Julius' seat and liberals, Muslims and gays in the role of "untermenschen." (Remember it's not Godwinizing when it's actually a apropos or germane analogy due to methodology or content - and in the case of a politically sponsored media arm publishing propaganda to attack progressives, intellectuals and "undesirables" I challenge ANYONE to find a more historically apt comparison in our time or show me how Fox is not analogous to Der Stuermer in this case)

See this Youtube channel for many examples of even the main news programs misleading, misrepresenting and out and out bald-faced lying to their viewers and decide what kind of "fair and balanced" reportage is going on at Faux News.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=LiberalViewer#p/a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Stuermer
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 9:40:36 PM

I'll stick to the facts.



This country has moved steadily to the left for over 75 years.


This includes quite a few Republican administrations, many who had majority rule in the Congress in one (or both Houses).


In 1952, Republican candidate, and decorated World War II general, Dwight Eisenhower was elected President by a landslide, as people thought Truman was too soft on Communism and unable to successfully end the Korean War. With his victory, Eisenhower was able to successfully give the Republican Party control of both houses of Congress as well.

In 1954, the Democrats regained control of Congress, as a result of the high rate of unemployment that had now spread throughout the United States and high disapproval of Republican US Senator Joseph McCarthy. While the Conservative Coalition was still able to maintain the most seats in Congress, liberal Democratic Congressman Sam Rayburn regained his position as Speaker of the House and liberal Democratic US Senator Lyndon Johnson became the Senate Majority leader.

Two years later, however, President Eisenhower would again score another huge victory in the 1956 US Presidential Election, thanks in part to the support he received from a large number of Americans for condemning the Suez Canal seizure (which, in turn, prevented an escalation in tensions with the Soviet Union), and supporting both the Hungarian Revolution and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ruling. Despite this huge victory, Eisenhower could not give the Republican Party control of Congress again; however, the conservative coalition still maintained a Congressional majority.

In 1958, after the United States entered a recession, the Conservative Coalition lost control of Congress. This election would give the liberal Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate as well. In 1960, Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy won the US Presidential election by a narrow margin, and the balance of power shifted to the Democrats. Between the years 1961 and 1969, the Democrats (through US Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson) maintained their majority.

After the 1954 Congressional elections, the Democratic Party now dominated both houses of Congress until 1994, except when Republicans held a majority of seats in the Senate, after the party dominated the 1980 US Presidential and US Senate elections, due to the fact that the Democratic US President Jimmy Carter became more and more unpopular as he failed to rescue the Iranian US hostages being held during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and failed to curb high US unemployment and inflation rates that soared further after Iran's oil became isolated following the 1979 Iranian Revolution as well.

The Democrats continued to hold a fair majority after the 1970 Congressional elections as well, despite Republican gains. In 1972, Richard Nixon also set an electoral college record, by winning 49 states, after he gained popularity by: 1) establishing diplomacy with China; 2) organizing the SALT arms treaty with the USSR; and 3) successfully convincing the public that the Vietnam War was about over.[57] Despite this, the Democrats still maintained a majority of seats in Congress. Nixon's political career, however, was greatly damaged by the Watergate Scandal, and on August 9, 1974, he became the first US President to resign from public office. By the time the 1974 Congressional elections took place, Gerald Ford's popularity was severely damaged after he pardoned Nixon and could not successfully get the US economy out of an ongoing recession. Hence, the Democrats regained a two-thirds majority as well as a filibuster-proof Senate majority over Congress once again.

In 1978, the Republicans erased the Democrats filibuster-proof, as well a two-thirds, majority by scoring a huge victory in the 1978 Congressional election, as a result of heavy inflation that spread throughout the country at the time.The Democrats' majority in the Senate was now 59–41 and the majority over the House was 276–159.

In 1980, The Republicans won both majority of the US Senate and the 1980 US Presidential Election; Republican Ronald Reagan became US President and Howard Baker, a moderate-conservative Republican US Senator from Tennessee.

Reagan, however, had failed to get the country out of the continued recession. Despite the fact that the Republicans maintained a majority in the Senate in the 1982 midterm elections, the conservatives (whom Reagan backed) lost a substantial number of seats in Congress.By early 1983, however, the recession had ended and Reagan was re-elected President, in 1984, with a record-breaking 525 electoral votes. The Republicans' six-year control over the Senate ended in 1986, after numerous issues .

By 1988, however, Reagan was redeemed of these scandals and Republican Vice President George H.W. Bush won the 1988 US Presidential election by a landslide.

In the 1992 US Presidential election, Democratic candidate Bill Clinton would defeat President Bush (who's image was damaged by economic woes)and shift the balance of power in favor of the Democrats once again. The Republicans, however, finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994

By the 1996 US Presidential Election, Clinton's economic programs prevailed[citation needed] and the President was elected to a second term in a landslide victory. Despite Clinton's huge victory, however, the Democrats were still not able to regain control of either the US House of Representatives or Senate.

For most part between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses. In the wake of the unpopularity of President Clinton's impeachment trial, the 107th Congress (2001–2003) saw the Democrats and Republicans split control of the US Senate 50-50, ending effectively tied;

As a result of Bush's victory, Republican Vice-President****Cheney did have the tie-breaking vote in the Senate during the first four months of 2001 as well. In May 2001, a Republican US Senator from the state of Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ended his affiliation with the Republican Party, following a dispute with Bush's tax cut proposals, and became an Independent. After departing from the Republican Party, Jeffords also agreed to caucus with the Democrats and control of the Senate switched back to the Democrats once again.

The 108th Congress (2003–2005) saw the Senate return to a GOP majority of 51-49, as Republican President George W Bush had gained some popularity for his fight against Al Qaeda terrorists.

In 2006, opposition to Bush's continuation of the Iraq War had grown to new heights.[79] As a result, the 110th Congress saw the Democrats regain majority control of both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Congress


How could the country move to the left, given these facts ?



The Dems now have total control over the federal govt and can pass any bills they want on strictly party line votes.


As Republicans have had, and with the same results.

They controled the Congress from 1980-1986, and almost all of the period 1995 - 2007. That's 18 years out of the last 30, and 12 out of the last 15 years.

And the country's been on a left wing slant for 75 years ?


I guess Obamacare was a move toward the right.


In a sense, yes. It's less "progressive" than the Nixon-Kennedy peoposal that was torpedoed by Watergate.


Nixon’s Plan for Universal Health Care
By the time of President Richard Nixon’s election to office, the debate over health care had once again resurfaced. In the same vein as Teddy Roosevelt’s proposed “Square Deal”, which had first broached national health insurance as a political topic in 1912, Nixon proposed a plan that would provide health insurance for all Americans. Similar to the situation faced by President Johnson, partisan opposition to Nixon's policies was firmly entrenched. In this instance, few were prepared to label the renowned anti-communist president as an advocate for socialism. Instead his opponents, such as Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy of Massachusetts, attacked Nixon on the grounds that he was offering a deal that would see the insurance companies benefit.

Nixon, for his part, was stalwart in his belief that a national health insurance plan was vital to the country’s future. He stated in his 1974 State of the Union Address that “The time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American.” Nixon’s own past experience with poverty and family illness made this a personal issue for the President. Yet Nixon’s call for an employer mandate to provide health insurance as part of his planned universal health care coverage for all citizens was seen as inadequate by many democrats in congress. The plan was also opposed by powerful unions such as the AFL-CIO and the United Autoworkers, who lobbied hard to defeat the legislation.

Kennedy and Nixon Reach a Compromise
In a moment of bi-partisan cooperation, Nixon’s staunch foe, Ted Kennedy, agreed to a compromise deal and prepared to work to get the health care legislation passed through congress. However, the brewing Watergate scandal soon took over the headlines and distracted the President from pushing through with this initiative. With the President unable to continue to rally support, the efforts of the Unions, who hoped for a better deal under a new presidential administration, succeeded in derailing the Nixon-Kennedy health care bill.

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-nixonkennedy-healthcare-plan-a143121


Nobody ever called Nixon a commie progressive.


Cap and Tax must be another move to the right.


Well, it was defeated by DEMOCRATIC votes....


In other words, the green lobby has suffered a landmark defeat, and the recriminations in the liberal press are remarkable. Either Mr. Obama didn't sell it well enough, perfidious Big Business intervened (never mind that many CEOs were supporters), the obtuse middle class won't sacrifice for the global good, or evil Republicans . . . Everyone is to blame but the policy itself.

In fact, the bill went down for lack of Democratic votes, in particular those from Midwest coal and manufacturing states. Voters in those states have figured out that cap and tax is a redistributionist exercise from the carbon-dependent heartland to the richer coasts. A Democrat—Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia—is also leading the charge to repeal the EPA's climate "endangerment" regulation that imposes cap and trade though the backdoor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703977004575393313926643450.html



Raising taxes must be another move to the right.


Some more facts :

Top tax rates were anywhere in the area (from 1932-1982) fluctuated from 60 -90 % , only going down from there in the following twenty years from 50 % - 35 %.


There’s a lot of fuss being made about Democrats’ plan to “raise taxes” -- or more appropriately let the Bush-era tax cuts expire. And while I’m not happy about Washington taking a bigger piece of the pie, the fact of the matter is that President Obama and his party aren’t getting greedy as many investors and economists feared.
 
For instance, while the top tax on ordinary income (that is, wages and interest) will jump to 39.6% from 35%, the economy survived just fine under Bill Clinton when that rate was in force.
 
Of greater consequence for growth (both for the economy and for your retirement fund), the president decided to raise the capital gains tax at a modest level that even Ronald Reagan would be proud of. Though this burns some people up when they hear it, take a look at the numbers and judge for yourself:
 
In Ronald Reagan’s heyday, capital gains were never taxed at less than 20%, and dividends were never taxed at less than 28%. Under the Democrats’ current proposal, the president aims to raise the capital gains tax to a maximum of 20% on long-term gains (from 15% at present). And in an even more pleasant surprise, the top tax on dividends will also go to just 20% as well.
 
Here’s the scorecard again so there’s no confusion: Reagan was at 20% for capital gains and 28% for dividends. Obama is at 20% for capital gains and 20% for dividends.


http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/top-stocks/blog.aspx?post=1662557


No one called Reagan a socialist, either.
 

Not securing our borders must be another move to right.


Well, the Bush presidency didn't do a great job either....and they busted far less illegal workers back then.


It's a staggering turnaround for President George Bush, who only a little more than a year ago was fighting for extensive immigration reform, pushing for a new guest-worker program, and urging that unauthorized migrants already here be given some path (albeit long and difficult) to citizenship.
Bush famously used some Spanish phrases in his presidential campaigns, and in the 2000 race, he spoke compassionately of poor Mexicans and others trying to feed their families by coming to work here when there were no jobs at home. "That's called family values, and they do not stop at the Rio Grande," he said.
Even as governor of Texas in the 1990s, Bush had challenged the restrictionists in his party, like California Governor Pete Wilson, arguing that a crackdown on illegal immigrants was morally bankrupt and politically foolhardy. As president, his first foreign policy initiative was to try to negotiate a migration accord with Mexico in which both countries would seek a humane solution.
But since the legislation co-sponsored by John McCain died in the Senate last year, all that is left is enforcement.
By some measures, it is working. The slowing economy and harsher enforcement appear to have reduced illegal migration to the US. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wants to demonstrate to skeptical citizens that the border can be secured, and to show employers the high costs of hiring undocumented workers. He is making progress on both.
While this may appease those voters and radio show hosts who blame illegal immigration for all our ills, it's hurting the Republicans chances to hold the White House or retake Congress. The workplace raids may not be making waves in the English-language press, they're covered extensively by Spanish-language newspapers and television stations.
While many Hispanics are no happier about illegal immigration than other voters, they have been angered by the brutality of the crackdown and fear legal residents will be caught in the sweeps. Just last week, armed agents broke down the door of 68-year-old Texas woman who had been a US citizen for 40 years.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_a43FqbQA2dyN0ULHT5n9NN;jsessionid=CE04401685D007F1208686A8C2F5FA41


It was only at the end of his second term that he started to move, thanks to McCain.

He also signed "death panels" into law, in Texas, while governor.

Hospitals there can decide to terminate care...and you...for cost reasons.

No one called Bush a progressive, either.


Putting "living constitution" types on the supreme court is another move to the right.


Well, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote an excellent article on that very subject.


THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION
By Rehnquist, William H
Publication: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

The framers of the Constitution wisely spoke in general language and left to succeeding generations the task of applying that language to the unceasingly changing environment in which they would live. Those who framed, adopted, and ratified the Civil War amendments7 to the Constitution likewise used what have been aptly described as "majestic generalities" in composing the fourteenth amendment. Merely because a particular activity may not have existed when the Constitution was adopted, or because the framers could not have conceived of a particular method of transacting affairs, cannot mean that general language in the Constitution may not be applied to such a course of conduct. Where the framers of the Constitution have used general language, they have given latitude to those who would later interpret the instrument to make that language applicable to cases that the framers might not have foreseen.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3585908-1.html


Rehnquist wasn't considered a Liberal , by any means.


Is this what passes for moving the bar progressively to the right?


No, but it's a great example of how watching FOX news can impact on people's perceptions of American history.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 19
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 10:41:35 PM


I'll stick to the facts. This country has moved steadily to the left for over 75 years.


I suppose if your model state is an authoritarian nightmare of D1ckensian robber barons living off the blood and sweat of a class of untermensch while the top 2% hold all the wealth and are protected by laws that they enact as they walk through the revolving door from CEO to gov't bureaucracy, and slowly erode all of the rights and freedoms that progressive laws and humanitarian efforts have won over the last two centuries, then, yes.

From the point of view of sociopaths, perhaps, reality might have a liberal bias.

For everyone else, for the last 75 years, corporations have eroded the right of the individual and conservatism has backed them up. For the last 40 years, the right wing has been inundated by authoritarians and authoritarian followers. These are the true threats to the safety and sustainability of human life and society as well as progress.

Dr. Robert Altemeyer's paper, "The Authoritarians" discusses this and John W. Dean's book "Conservatives Without Conscience" is the memoir of the hijacking of the Conservative movement and Republican party in America. Moderate and sensible conservatives need to take back their party from the lunatic fringe. A good start would be repudiating Faux News and anyone who has anything to do with it.

The Corporatocracy
http://www.johnperkins.org/

The Authoritarians
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Special Tea Party Update from Dr. Altemeyer
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/drbob/Comment%20on%20the%20Tea%20Party.pdf

John W. Dean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dean



In 2001, Dean published The Rehnquist Choice, an exposé of the White House's selection process for a new Supreme Court justice in 1971, which led to the accession of William Rehnquist to the United States' highest court. Three years later, Dean authored a book heavily critical of the administration of George W. Bush, entitled Worse than Watergate, which called for the impeachment of Bush and Vice-President****Cheney for allegedly lying to the Congress.

His subsequent book, released in summer 2006, is titled Conservatives without Conscience, a play on Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative. In it, he asserts that post-Barry Goldwater conservatism has been co-opted by people with authoritarian personalities and policies (citing data from Robert Altemeyer). According to Dean, modern conservatism, specifically in the Christian Right, embraces obedience, inequality, intolerance, and strong intrusive government, in stark contrast to Goldwater's philosophies and policies. Using Altemeyer's scholarly work, he contends that there is a tendency toward ethically questionable political practices when authoritarians are placed in positions of power, and that the current political situation is dangerously unsound because of it. Dean cites the behavior of key members of the Republican leadership — including George W. Bush,****Cheney, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist — as clear evidence of a relationship between modern right-wing conservativism and this authoritarian approach to governance. He places particular emphasis on the abdication of checks and balances by the Republican Congress, and of the dishonesty of the conservative intellectual class in support of the GOP, as a result of the obedience and arrogance innate to the authoritarian mentality.

After it became known that George W. Bush authorized NSA wiretaps without warrants, Dean asserted that Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense".[8] On March 31, 2006, Dean testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee during hearings on censuring the president over the issue. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who sponsored the censure resolution, introduced Dean as a "patriot" who put "rule of law above the interests of the president." In his testimony, Dean asserted that Richard Nixon covered up Watergate because he believed it was in the interest of national security. This sparked a sharp debate with Republican South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, who repeatedly asserted that Nixon authorized the break-in at Democratic headquarters. Dean finally replied, "You're showing you don't know that subject very well." According to Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, "Spectators laughed, and soon the senator was sputtering mad."[9]

Dean's 2007 book Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches is, as he wrote in its introduction, the third volume of an unplanned trilogy. In this latest book, Dean, who has repeatedly described himself as a Goldwater conservative, built on Worse Than Watergate and Conservatives Without Conscience to argue that the Republican Party has gravely damaged all three of the branches of the federal government in the service of ideological rigidity and with no attention to the public interest or the general good. Dean concludes that conservatism must regenerate itself to remain true to its core ideals of limited government and the rule of law.

In 2008, Dean co-edited with Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., Pure Goldwater, a collection of writings by the 1964 Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. Senator from Arizona Barry Goldwater, in part as an act of fealty to the man who defined his political ideals.

In the 1979 TV mini-series, Blind Ambition, Dean was played by Martin Sheen. In the 1995 film, Nixon, Dean was played by David Hyde Pierce. In the 1999 film**** Dean was played by Jim Breuer.

Dean frequently serves as a guest on the MSNBC show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and the Randi Rhodes Show on the Nova M Radio network.

In January, 2009, a new controversy arose about Dean. Historian Stanley Kutler was accused of editing the Nixon tapes to make Dean appear in a more favorable light.[10]

On September 17, 2009, Dean appeared on Countdown, with new allegations about Watergate in hand. He stated that he had found information via the Nixon tapes, that showed what the burglars were after: information on a kickback scheme involving the Democratic National Convention in Miami, Florida. Dean also asserts that Nixon did not directly order the break in, but that it was ordered by Ehrlichman on behalf of Nixon.[11]

He appeared on Chicago Tonight on October 21, 2009 to comment on the book "The Harding Affair"
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/26/2010 11:19:25 PM
By Gene Lyons in Salon.com, yesterday.


They've finally made it official. Although you're not likely to see it reported on Fox News, media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., parent company of Fox, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, etc., recently donated a cool $1 million (that's $1,000,000) to the Republican Governors Association. While corporate donations to political parties are common, media conglomerates are normally careful to give to both parties for appearance' sake.

Not Murdoch, however. Any questions?

Conflicts of interest don't come much more obvious. Appearances be damned; Fox News is a partisan propaganda outlet. Actually, as Media Matters columnist Eric Boehlert has recently suggested, the GOP isn't so much running Fox News as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other talk-radio ranters are stampeding the party.
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 21
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/27/2010 5:09:15 AM
^^^^That was the point I was making. Just like the Situation Room or whatever the heck it is called on CNN, they are all sources of Entertainment. I generally only watch local news, and sometimes the BBC for actual news, the rest is for fun and entertainment. I watch Bloomberg last night while eating sushi and found that to be entertaining as well. It is all entertainment and designed to get you riled up about something, that way you will keep watching. Once again it is all biased.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 22
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/27/2010 11:58:06 AM

...It is all entertainment and designed to get you riled up about something, that way you will keep watching. Once again it is all biased.

There is a big difference between entertainment and presenting false stories with misleading information.


So watching Fox news (according to the information provided by Fox news) would mean those people are supporting a company with close ties to a terrorist organization.
 Fresh fish is best fresh.
Joined: 7/29/2010
Msg: 23
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/27/2010 12:38:45 PM
"So watching Fox news (according to the information provided by Fox news) would mean those people are supporting a company with close ties to a terrorist organization."

Kind of like when some one buys gasoline for their car?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/27/2010 3:52:09 PM
No other MSM media outlet in the US has been so blatantly and shamelessly Islamophobic and racist. Fox is reponsible for increasingly the incidents of hate crimes against non-white, non-christian citizens. Fox wins hands down for being evil and manipulative.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201008260020
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270001
http://mediamatters.org/research/201003180049
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 25
Is Fox News Evil or Stupid?
Posted: 8/27/2010 4:07:38 PM
A documentary has already been made to investigate Fox News pundit and rabble rousing racist Glenn Beck's attempt to co-opt and disgrace Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy tomorrow at the Lincoln Memorial...

http://bravenewfilms.org/

I strongly recommend checking it out.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Is Fox News Evil or Stupid? [CLOSED for further review]