I stressed the part that makes this quote totally worthless and you dont think this can go both ways?

 

A great example of how left the media is started way back in Vietnam. They trumpeted the Tet Offensive as a massive victory for the North Vietnamese. The North ended up losing more men, not keeping the ground they gained in the early parts of the offensive, and being driven back with massive losses. Walter Cronkite. Modern example was when President Obama went to Arizona for a speech and there was a legal gun rally several blocks away. MSNBC ran the story that the gun rally was racist because people were speaking out against Obama's policies. They even showed, as an example, an AR-15 toting individual from the waist down emphasizing the firearm. What they purposely didn't show was the fact that the man in the picture was himself black. There's tons of examples of withholding facts. Look at NBC??? (not sure if it was them or CBS) going with the fake letter saying Bush got a pass in the National Guard. They didn't check their facts and got burned over it.

Honestly, it was brilliant to market a new news station to people who were frustrated with the left propaganda going on on the other channels. That's why they are no. 1 in just about every time slot. They dig up what they dig up, the left digs up what they dig up. I tend to listen to what Obama says himself, and also the people around him. It's frightening.

 

You stress the whole quote.....not sure what part you're talking about. It's an example of the outrageous behavior of a "news" organization that has taken over complete political control of one of our primary parties. It a scam. Fox News is a scam perpetrated on all Americans. The Republican Party needs to reject this organization. They have become the party. Talk about scary....

Edit: OK, I see what you mean about stressing the point. What you're missing here is that until a case has gone to court, regardless of the overwhelming evidence against something, the word alleged or allegedly must be used. It hadn't gone to court yet at the time of the writing. Doesn't mean it's not fact.

No, NBC does not control the Democratic party. You talk about bias, but then I'm talking about total control over the right-wing. Fox owns you. That's pretty sad from either parties viewpoint.

 

Not quite as "totally worthless" as you would think hallj86.

After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.

"Fair and balanced" "We report, you decide"

 

Was that a Fox affiliate or Fox on the nationwide scale? If the owner of the affiliate did that and fired someone than that is grievous.

On the other hand, you say Fox controls the Republican party. That's a stretch to put it mildly. I suppose the same could be said about George Sorros and others that influence the Democratic Party. I don't believe all Democrats walk in lock step to the mainstream press and don't believe all Republicans walk in lock step to Fox. They are just another view of the story from the other side. Does Fox control me? Not this republican. I do watch it but I don't always vote down party lines. I've voted for conservative democrats (yes, there are a few left that don't sell votes for favor). I've voted for independents (mostly as a protest vote) when the two main party candidates that are running had candidates that made me violently ill. I will probably be voting for the independent candidate here in Massachusetts for Governor because of the RINO candidate that the party just put up at the Republican State Convention (no I didn't go, but have in the past). Ronald Reagan once said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. They left me." I'm starting to feel that way about local republicans. They're just a few steps behind the crowd in Massachusetts that gave us gay marriage (including Rep. Bill Weld who put liberal judges on the Mass. Supreme Court) and are actually debating whether or not people can go into the bathroom of their choosing based on their preference. Gag...

One of the things I do find interesting is that people like Glenn Beck who show actual footage of what Obama and the people around him have said to build a case for his talking points don't refute what he is saying. They tend to just call him names and rail against him. If he is using people's own speeches to show what they are saying and doing, and what direction they want to take the country, how is that spin??? When Obama said, "I think there should be a limit as to how much someone can make", I believe he thinks that. Plain and simple. And, I don't agree with him. Or, the infamous Joe the Plumber comment where Obama talked about redistribution. I sincerely think he believes in this.

 

I've read some stuff recently about major republicans revolting against Ailes. I'll have to find it. Looked earlier, but couldn't find the source.

Hey, he's a family friend. Came to our wedding. Go easy on Bill.

He was talking about the fat cats on Wall Street when he said that. There was earlier conversation about some of them walking with 500 million....for what? What did they do to earn 500 million dollars in 12 months time, aside from drive their company bankrupt. I don't agree with him either, but I could care less what he thinks about it. He can have an opinion like anybody else. Nobody's going to outlaw making money....He comes from a relatively average background and probably does think 500 million a year is enough for one person. Especially when they steal it from pension funds and retirement accounts, then lie about it to Congress.

 

Bill Weld was not what I would call conservative. What happened with his Mass. Supreme Court Pick was what caused the travesty of gay marriage to be foisted on this state. He seemed like a nice enough guy to sit down to dinner with, but his social policies and court picks didn't help us here and will have lasting effects across the country. I bumped into him at an event in Boston and like I said he seemed like a nice guy.

The problem I have with the comments made by Obama that have been referenced is that he is President. His words have the power of government behind them. He also has surrounded himself with advisors and cabinet picks that have a view of this country that, I believe, is dangerous. I hope he succeeds with what is good for the country but that he also fails in what is bad for the country. It takes a long time to reverse things once they become law. Honestly, I hope I'm totally wrong about the guy, but his words, the words of his cabinet, and the things they are trying to pass, point to a European type social policy mindset. We used to be the envy of the world because of our freedoms and sheer financial foundation. I don't want to become like Europe. The foundation of the freedoms that carried us for over 20 years with little government interference are what made us a hugely powerful and successful country built on the backs of private business. It wasn't government. It was private industry. Once again; my .02 worth.

 

He's a super nice guy. Gay marriage....it's going to happen pretty much everywhere anyway. Might as well get the agony over with now and be done with it. Maybe not in Utah or Idaho, but pretty much will be everywhere in the next decade.

Not gunna happen. This country is far too conservative to let that happen. Dems will lose a bunch of seat this coming election and power will become balanced again. Radical changes or concepts to our way of life will not occur. Heath care was just a matter of time too. Nixon proposed heath care. It's been in the wings for 60 years.....There will be no socialism here.

Not to keep harping on George Bush, but I feel the need to add this......Bush proposed a VAT in Texas when he was Governor. It's been discussed for years all over the country. I not one for more taxes myself. Pay enough damn taxes. Regardless, VAT is not some Obama socialist agenda concept. Just wanted to get that out there for people to see. I think a VAT is coming our way, one way or another. There's lots written about the pros and cons. Believe, other taxes would be reduced if VAT initiated. It's sort of on the road to a flat-tax structure....Need to read more about it though.

http://www.ctj.org/html/bush.htm

 

The way VAT has been talked about so far is it would be in addition to the taxes we already have. It's kind of an invisible tax that the consumer doesn't see. It's added on to production, shipping, and whatever steps along the way they want to add. The consumer doesn't "see" it per se but ends up paying for it in the long run. I wouldn't be opposed to a simple flat tax if that is all we were paying. But taxes tend to go up more than down.

 

Yep...Was reading some more about it last night. It's definitely a regressive tax, which goes against what Obama campaigned on. The administration has said it is not entertaining a new VAT. We shall see.