Former FoxNews Reporter Tells You What You Already Know

Rant, are you saying that if one sees liberal bias in news sources other than Fox, then the person must be the list you made, or are you being funny?

Isthis a way for you to admit that they are all biased, but you are simply supporting your political affiliation?

I posted this several months ago: www.abovetopsecret.com...'

A higher-up at Fox let "slip" Fox is conservative - .

The only honest journalists in America work for Comedy Central. Ironically.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Rant, are you saying that if one sees liberal bias in news sources other than Fox, then the person must be the list you made, or are you being funny?

I did frame that remark as a joke but in a real sense I'm serious about liberalism (and it's never ending progression) being the status quo in the western world. That's not exactly a conspiracy. Nor is it a stretch of the imagination to say that America's founding is responsible for all that liberalism, in large part due to our revolutionary concepts of populist government, libertarian freedoms and secularist emancipation from tyrannical authority with a healthy nod of respect to the protestant reformation of Christianity, already the most liberal religion on the planet. And we just keep going and going to the point where to even talk about "conservatism" one is talking about nothing more than a 1.5% reduction in liberalism (sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally).

I'm not talking about partisanship or parties either. If CNN openly endorsed Kerry or refused a major Republican platform plank like look, Kerry looks silly hunting, well that would be wrong. What else do Republicans have?

On point, I'm saying that when news organizations are fair and stick to facts they look overtly liberal! Not just because the free press in and of itself is an inherently liberal enterprise, but because there are very few times in recorded history when the facts don't support liberalism. Facts in and of themselves are liberal things. Problem, resolution, progress. Liberalism marches on. I do follow "conservative" outlets enough to know what they think is biased though. According to my time on WND or FR an anchor not physically tackling John Kerry and shoving his face in some made up form to sign (that as it turns out based on the facts, doesn't matter) is a "liberal bias." Or reporting on the Kentucky GOP all being indicted last week. That was "liberal bias." Or reporting facts like most Americans demand safe, legal abortion, Bush to not touch social security, and government out of Michael Schiavo's marriage? That's "liberal bias" too.

Only it's not. Frankly, facts and lack of bias just piss off conservatives. Why? Because they're always wrong. Without a massaged nuanced point to make, they got nothing.

"Conservatism" is pretty much just made up anyway. It's a speed bump. At best it's a reactionary melange of nay-saying about not falling off the edge of the earth or flying too close to the sun. Again, in the broadest sense of the philosophy. Not partisanship. But back to partisanship and populist enterprises. Let's say Bush wants to undo the democratic initiative called social security. But the people don't want it, and most experts say don't do it. It's not the media's job to "sell it" any more than Hillarycare in the reverse. It's great to have Ann Coulter and company on talking about obstructionist Democrats trying to stop Bush from undoing highly popular revolutionary democratic initiatives of the 20th century (which all media does), but it's not the anchor's job to agree with her (which only Fox does).

Isthis a way for you to admit that they are all biased, but you are simply supporting your political affiliation?

This is my way of saying that any truly unbiased and factual exploration almost always tends to result in liberal conclusions. And that's a conspiracy like math is a conspiracy. I'm biased towards one plus one equalling two. I don't think 17 is an equally fair and balanced alternative.

[edit on 22-10-2005 by RANT]

Rant -- You're off. Atheist commie liberals are no better than satanic fascist conservatives. They both lie. If all the TV news is slanted left what do you care if somebody comes along and slants it right?

And it wouldn't matter whether Bush or Kerry got in -- they are both Illuminati. And the entire media is Illuminati.

So you need to wake up and stop putting your faith in so-called "liberals." Liberals are probably the most ill-informed of anyone because they are the establishment, and the establishment is Illuminati controled top to bottom. Junk science, junk education, junk media, junk, junk, junk.

If you want truth you need to climb out of the junkyard and start looking someplace else. If you think CNN, the Democrats, Greenpeace or NASA are going to save the planet and you, all I can say is happy dreaming.

Originally posted by resistance
Rant -- You're off.

As long as you disagree with me I'm in good company.

Atheist commie liberals are no better than satanic fascist conservatives. They both lie.

That's probably true as tautologies go. But I disagree with your fringe opinion that mainstream America is an atheist commie enterprise. Secular and predominantly socialist? You bet cha.

If all the TV news is slanted left what do you care if somebody comes along and slants it right?

I said legitimate news is predominantly slanted toward facts, which always sound liberal to fans of fiction. I care if somebody comes along with a slant for fiction and calls it fact. Why? Screw crazy people. They're in my way.

And it wouldn't matter whether Bush or Kerry got in -- they are both Illuminati. And the entire media is Illuminati.

And I'm Illuminati. As is every university on the planet. And every scientist, expert and professor you can shake a stick at. And everyone that writes, publishes or reads books, makes or watches movies, runs for public office or votes. Right! You got it. We're the Illuminati! Welcome to America.

So you need to wake up and stop putting your faith in so-called "liberals."

What does that even mean? They aren't real liberals? :shk:

Liberals are probably the most ill-informed of anyone because they are the establishment, and the establishment is Illuminati controlled top to bottom.

And you're more informed because...?

You don't run or know anything? You're on the fringe and anti-everything? You put all your faith in Jewish fairy tales and the efforts of Emperor Constantine? Wow, you must be like the mostest informed ever.

Junk science, junk education, junk media, junk, junk, junk.

Sorry Fred Sanford. Man isn't made of mud and the earth isn't 6,000 years.

If you want truth you need to climb out of the junkyard and start looking someplace else.

Like my gut? Put down the textbooks and feeeel the truth.

If you think CNN, the Democrats, Greenpeace or NASA are going to save the planet and you, all I can say is happy dreaming.

My money's on the feminazis actually. WonderWoman has an invisible plane and a rope. In case you missed the nuance, I find you to be a crazy person. Though thoroughly enjoyable as crazy people go.

I think you've ODed on Time Magazine and Dan Rather and you need some fresh air. You want to read a really awesome book? Try the Bible. (which BTW was compiled from the correct Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in 1611 and translated by 54 of the most brilliant linguists the world has ever seen, with martyred William Tyndale's translation put in almost intact.) This Book was written by God over a period of 1,500 years through "holy men of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" and spake. God preserved his own words, this special Book, and we can have it in our own hands to read, a message from the Almighty Creator of the Universe. You read it, and it will split your mind right away from the lies it might be thinking. No slant, just pure Truth.

So if you're looking for something that's accurate, pure truth, with no slant, try the Bible. What an awesome Book.

Rant, I have to tell you, you are so in tune with what you call Liberalism that you don't realize it when the media is slanted and biased toward it.

I've had to wade through their crap for years, in order to see if there is any information to be gleaned from their attempts at reprogramming the nation.

You say homosexuals (I'll not redefine a word, such as gay, because a perverted portion of the society prefers a new word for an old problem) will one day marry in Alabama. Funny, I have been saying the same thing for years. The difference is, I have known what the agenda is for more years than that, so it is not really hard to see what they are doing.

What you think is a natural and enlightning direction for society is nothing more than an intentional redirecting of our nation in order to destroy it. The agenda has used the media, not only the news but also inane things like sitcoms, to reprogram the society when it is most vulnerable to brainwashing; when it is totally relaxed, guard is down and mental discipline is virtually non-existent - that is to say, when the idiot box is on.

Your dilemma is that you are so enamored by the message of "them" that you think the message is true and correct and is the natural way to the path of a higher plane that you don't see what the majority of America sees; that they have been biased as Hell long before Fox came along. Fox is biased in the other direction, but that is so that they can control the waking public's thoughts and lull them back to sleep. As long as they hear something that sounds somewhat like the truth, they will go back to sleep. Whatever it takes, as long as the public is asleep and unaware.

Don't worry, you will get what you think you want. I don't think you are going to like what you get, though. When that occurs, don't look for me to say that I told you so as I won't be around to do that.

Originally posted by resistance
So if you're looking for something that's accurate, pure truth, with no slant, try the Bible. What an awesome Book.

I'll agree with you that the King James edition of the bible is a great read. It has some truly outstanding language and is quite brilliantly written. It is also for the large part historically accurate, not least as the oral tradition kept intact history of the middle east in good shape over many generations. Moreover, this bible edition is one of - if not the - greatest works of literature in the english language.

However, pure truth? Sorry I have to disagree with you there. While I will not enter a discussion as to the merits of christianity as that is a point for another forum, what I will say is that ALL sources are biased, polticised and open to interpretation, even the bible.

Indeed, Christianity had a huge schism in the sixteenth century when Martin Luther interpreted key phrases in the bible differently to the established order. Wars have been fought on this schism and the Reformation and Counter-Reformation changed the face of christianity across Europe and the rest of the world. Not only did protestants interpret the bible differently to catholics, but the different protestant sects, whether they be Calvinist, Lutherian or whatever had their own different opinions as to the correct way that the bible should be read.

Perhaps one could argue that the essence of Bible is 'truth' and that it is man who is imperfect in how it interprets this truth. But then again how can humans ever truly see God's words in print. The bible has been not just been transmitted through oral tradition, then Greek, Latin, English etc but interpreted through mere human language even though (as Derrida would argue) language is itself a poor interpretation of our thoughts and opinions.

Moreover, the King James edition was a highly politicised tome - effectively a officially endorsed venacular bible that ran counter to the Catholic line that all bibles should be in Latin. It was endorsed as a bible for the people - unlike the Latin bible of the Catholic church which could only be read by priests and scholars, not by the common man. It effectively spiritually enfranchaised the common man (one of the main points of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants).

Even so, that the King James edition was a translation in itself (and written in highly poetic prose) should raise the hairs on your neck as to its purity. It wasn't even the only venacular bible of the age - for instance the Geneva Bible (older than the King James by about 50 years) was taken to America by puritans fleeing religious persecution. Which Bible is the pure truth? The King James? The Geneva? The Hebrew text? Even if the King James edition was extremely accurate in its translations (which they were), they are still not 100% correct - no translation is.

I am certainly not questioning your religious beliefs, nor to question that bible may or may not contain truth. However, the bible is the product of human endeavour. One can certainly say that it is a magnificant work but it is not pure. No literature is - there is always bias, interpretation and corruption in everything we do - no matter if we try hard to eliminate it. This does not demean it as a vital work, nor does this undermine Christianity. But to suggest that it is 'pure truth' is itself untrue: no such thing exists.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Rant, I have to tell you, you are so in tune with what you call Liberalism that you don't realize it when the media is slanted and biased toward it.

I'm much more Jeffersonian than that in all matters.

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

All news sucks. Fox just blows.

I gladly take CNN, liberals or the Democratic Party to task whenever they are wrong. But being right isn't a wrong, it's just that those that are wrong call being right "bias." Facts aren't fair. Not fair at all. They don't give fiction a fighting chance.

And since we got off on a biblical discussion with the suggestion I read mine. Allow me to respond. I do read the Bible. Liberally. With that same illuminated Jeffersonian eye for measured reason.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Food for thought if you still can.

Originally posted by RANT
While I can't say I've gone out and purchased the book of the award winning sports reporter you linked, I do think I've seen him on Fox saying just these sorts of things.

Sports reporter? How we soon forget, perhaps you mean the Senior News Correspondent for 48 Hours. You know, the one who won six Emmy's. I realize you memory may be a bit hazy, it's symptomatic when what you cherish jumps ship... Come to think of it, I do believe Bernard did cover sports back then... If I remember correctly, it was Executive Branch Rodeo... But I never understood why liberals would dress livestock in a blue dress?

Here's the situation you may not be grasping Mirth. Liberalism is right. About everything. It's the dominant force in upright walking man for a reason. Everything else is monkey business. Glad we cleared that up.

The misconception is all yours, and it's central to Bernard's theme in bias... Liberals wrap themselves in a liberal cocoon, insulated from alternate points of view, and the reality that the rest of us live in. You actually believe you're right about everything, when in fact, as recent elections have proven, you're more detached than ever.

Besides, where do you think we got our name? Perhaps it's because we are... Right... We're also grounded enough to realize it's only most of the time.

Primate Monkeys, not just for walking upright, and on the sunny side of the street...

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
You actually believe you're right about everything, when in fact, as recent elections have proven, you're more detached than ever.

All recent elections prove is liberals that think they're conservatives know how to make themselves miserable.

Detached? The "conservative" gnashing of teeth and wailing at the White House walls is music to my ears.

How did this happen? ...indeed.

You can't even sell a conservative idea without wrapping a big liberal bow on it and making populist movements seem somehow unpopulist, or libertarian freedoms seem like tyranny.

Compassionate conservatism.

Republicans voted with their sphincters in the last election and got the asshole they deserved. End of story.

And what happens as a result? I suppose we'll see, but liberalism marches on regardless while Frank Lutz calls yet another focus group to figure out how to salvage one more skirmish in the war on progress the right keeps losing.

Heads I win, tails you lose. Five years of absolute power for the "right" was the best thing to happen to the left in years. 75 to be precise.

Originally posted by RANT
Heads I win, tails you lose. Five years of absolute power for the "right" was the best thing to happen to the left in years. 75 to be precise.

I do not believe that there is such a thing as 'progress', nor in a golden age of greatness where we have now fallen. The faith in historic destiny is one of the left's greatest failings - we are not, for instance, moving from Feudalism, to Industrialisation, to Communism (as Marx believed), nor have we progressed seemlessly from the Enlightenment to the modern day through a gradual process of liberalism. Instead of such determinism, I believe in a more chaos theory-led change and adaptation - sometimes this is for good and sometimes for the ill. Maybe this is simplistic, but for all talk of liberal and right-wing elites battling over the hearts and minds of the population, the natural status quo errs towards gradual continental drift. This is very difficult (if not impossible) to control.

I'm not saying that the left hasn't bestowed a number of concepts that have improved society for the better - on the contrary, the welfare state; full enfranchaisement of the vote; freedom of speech; greater opportunities for women & minority groups; increased sexual freedoms etc. have led to a more tolerant and culturally balanced society than in our history. However, we shouldn't think we swayed that this is the natural order of things. The 'rights' of liberalism are nothing more than an illusion - instead they are priviledges bestowed on us by stable government and society. It is alarmingly easy how quickly they can erode, due to war, extremism, natural disasters etc. Nazi Germany and in more recent times the post 9/11 USA/Britain are good examples of how 'rights' can be taken away in the modern world.

Of course, one could argue that liberalism is at its core a lie, espoused by the elites as a means of social control - much in the same way that religion & television are little more than drugs to sedate the population. Marxists would certainly argue that liberalism prevents true revolution as it is merely re-enforces the bourgeois hegemony rather than smashing it down completely - what is the different between liberals & conservatives if they both adhere closely to a democratic-capitalist system that has perpetuated massive economic difference between rich & poor (both domestically and internationally). I'm not entirely convinced by these arguments as it tends to take such a narrow view on the world as absolutes of right & wrong and an all-or-nothing approach to politics. Liberalism for me is a compromise fo the best-worst scenario at present.

In any case, conservatism is a perfectly acceptable political term (ie. Burke's view of the conservative as a force advocating the status quo) that have been corrupted and abused by a radical group of right-wingers. Bush et al are not conservatives or even neo-conservatives but a political ideology different to anything I've seen before. To be honest, I'd side with pretty much anyone other than them - Bush senior, Reagan or even Thatcher. And considering how I feel about Mrs T that's saying something.

Pretty much all news sources are biased. Fox news has to be biased to counter the bias of a different news station, which has to be biased because it's countering the biased opinion of ANOTHER news organization, and so on and so on.

Bottom line, they're in it for the ratings. News stations have to "Pick a side" if you will. Nobody wants to watch the news if it's "Hey, these guys messed up here, but on the other hand they did something really great over here, so it kind of...evens out..." that's real life. That's boring. That doesn't get ratings.

I see what you are going for RANT, like in my Dems Stomp Reps, Dems use facts, Reps can't since the Facts don't support them, therefor they declare facts/reality Liberal.

"CNN is Liberal because they don't report that All Gays are evil and need to be killed! How much more liberal can you get then reporting that Gays aren't evil demons sent by satan?"


"How dare MSNBC report the facts! Liberals! The Bush economy is doing great as long as you don't look at the numbers/facts!"

I see what the Bush Bots don't, the facts support Liberals, so they declare the facts Liberal so no other Bush Bot will listen.

No Full Metal, we sometimes consider the other news organizations liberal because they only report bad things about Bush. Personally, I don't think they have much of an agenda, I just think they're after ratings (Like I said). On the same day a soldier gets killed, a new women's center in Iraq is being opened up. Guess which one gets reported?

Originally posted by Herman
On the same day a soldier gets killed, a new women's center in Iraq is being opened up. Guess which one gets reported?

The one that people care about.

The "good news" theme was pounded hard for a while. Bush went after the media. And the media went looking. Hard.

It was ridiculous.

Know why those points kept getting beat down? They were lies.

Bush would say 95% of Iraq's hospitals are now reopen!

When the fact was 95% never closed. That's the same thing as saying we bombed 5% out of existence. Or whatever. It's a shell game.

The next thing they tried was saying all the media is where the bad news is. In other words, they're lazy. They need to get out in the country where the good news is. They tried. Occasionally they'd find some farmer that didn't know anything and thought Saddam was still in charge. Hey, great news!

Bush is on TV practically every day. If he had any good news about Iraq (or all the wonderful things happening in the hurricane for that matter) he has every opportunity in the world to tell us.

The fact is Hey, war is great! is editorialising and bias.

And 5 soldiers died today is not. That's called fact.

And though they do report every little thing Bush or a general says, it's really not "news" when the Public Affairs department of the Pentagon says they're doing a great job. You realize that right? But when a general says we're screwing up? That is news. You understand that too right? Both get reported though. It's just that the people find one more interesting. The "news" part.

It's the which of these things is not like the other one part of media. And there's no other way to do it. When openly gay congressman Barney Frank is discovered in the arms of another man, that's not news. When the leader of the Christian Coalition however is found on his knees servicing a truck driver at a Maryland rest stop, that's news. That's really not hypocritical at all either. It's common sense.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by RANT]

News is, by its very nature, sensationalistic, bias and serving a political agenda. If the news went along the lines of 'very little happened today - it was all pretty normal really - gosh was a stable and secure country we live in, it would be utterly dull (even it is true)'.

News is about the abnormal, not the normal. We don't want to know that nearly everyone lived a life where very little happens, we want to know what aberrations happened - the murders, the wars, the deaths of famous people etc. If news were truly truly impartial, it would devote almost none of its time to such abnormalities. Little girl gets killed? Sorry, such occurances are actually quite rare but the news portrays this as a common event hence we have a false perception of the world around us.

News follows the lead of its readers/viewers. We want to know what is 'new' and different and out of place. Anything else would be boring.

As regards the good news/bad news scenarios, well all news is filtered. They don't tell us everything - they can't - they can only tell us what they think is the most important 'news' at the time (and significantly, what they *don't* tell us). When you consider that everyone has bias then it only makes sense that the news items will contain this bias.

Obviously, some news agencies are more pronouced in their bias than others and some governments are cleverer in how they handle news, through spin-doctors. In England, there is legislation regarding news so that it has to be impartial (whatever that means). Even so, news is also a form of entertainment with clear objectives above & beyond mere politics. All we can do as observers of the news is to question and challenge everything that is put down in front of us. Why are they saying this? What are they not saying? What does this mean?

Ultimately, don't trust 'em. Check as many original sources as you can and be ruthless in your research. Someone is always going to lie to you. You just have to wade through the rubbish before you find any gold.

I find it really quite SAD that people like Rant can come on here and post this drivel with a healthy conscience. Anybody who can post that they're purely liberal and every other idea is bs is either uninformed or brainwashed to follow the party line.

Intelligent human beings (despite Rant's assertion that all intelligent human beings are liberal) can see the pros and cons on both sides of the issues and make up their own minds. From a personal standpoint, I can see pros and cons in liberalism and conservatism, although a majority of my viewpoints are on the conservative side of things.

I was completely uninterested in politics until my late teens early twenties while in college. During the summers I worked construction (roofing), which got me out into some of the less fortunate areas of my city. I worked 12-14 hr days, 6 days a week to put myself through college. While doing this, I witnessed the fruits of liberalism sitting on their front porches watching me work and getting drunk. These people were bought and paid for, by the government, paid monthly to sit at home and do nothing constructive for society. To make matters worse, I personally witnessed on about a dozen occasions these people ask my boss for a job...on the condition that the pay was under the table so as not to lose the government money. Imagine what our country could be if these people were put to work! I guess in your mind this is a good thing?

I'm not going to go into a "rant" and declare that conservatism is perfect either, because it's not. The point is that neither side is necessarily "right" and for you to say otherwise is ignorant.

On the subject of media bias, Fox is a conservative news station, right on. It's not, however, extreme right wing, which places it right where 50% or so of the country wants it. CNN, MSNBC, & CBS are all liberal news stations, not extreme left, but right where 50% of the population wants it. If you sit down and watch an hour of Fox news and an hour of CNN, you will notice the different slant on their political stories. I don't understand why everybody is so "up in arms" over this. TV is a business, it's there to make money. There are basically two political viewpoints in this country, liberal & conservative, the others are too minor for mainstream TV to even worry about because there's little potential for profit. So, programs/stations develop for both major demographics, it's completely logical.

The TV news ratings completely support my argument.
Recent TV News Ratings

The Scoreboard: Wednesday, Oct. 19
Total viewers:

Total day: FNC: 1,058,000 / CNN: 561,000 / MSNBC: 285,000 / HLN: 225,000 / CNBC: 160,000

Primetime: FNC: 2,056,000 / CNN: 957,000 / MSNBC: 480,000 / HLN: 476,000 / CNBC: 157,000

25-54 demographic:

Total day: FNC: 310,000 / CNN: 165,000 / MSNBC: 100,000 / HLN: 97,000 / CNBC: 47,000

Primetime: FNC: 469,000 / CNN: 318,000 / MSNBC: 161,000 / HLN: 205,000 / CNBC: 90,000

Originally posted by rhelt100
During the summers I worked construction (roofing), which got me out into some of the less fortunate areas of my city. I worked 12-14 hr days, 6 days a week to put myself through college. While doing this, I witnessed the fruits of liberalism sitting on their front porches watching me work and getting drunk. These people were bought and paid for, by the government, paid monthly to sit at home and do nothing constructive for society. To make matters worse, I personally witnessed on about a dozen occasions these people ask my boss for a job...on the condition that the pay was under the table so as not to lose the government money. Imagine what our country could be if these people were put to work! I guess in your mind this is a good thing?

America is a nation often deluded by its welfare policy (or lack thereof). The US has a massive gap between rich and poor – more than any other country in the world, with minimal employment protection for workers, a practically non-existant free medical care system, huge restrictions on unemployment benefit and so on. America is liberal in some areas, such as the freedom of speech and in personal liberties but extremely right-wing in its provision of the welfare state. It is an extremely unequal and brutal country that is getting more unequal every day, not least as taxes are not progressive (and Dubya’s tax cuts for the wealthy only compound this) and too much money is spent on the military at the expense of domestic issues.

The American Dream is a myth. The notion that anyone can better themselves or their children, or their grandchildren if they work hard enough is the capitalist equivalent of Christianity. It is absolutely disgusting that the puritan work-ethic mentality thrives today in the US and is one of the main reasons why there are parts of the US with comparable living standards of Third World countries. There is some migration between classes but it is not as much as some would have you believe. Most of those born into poverty spend their lives in poverty (as do their children), while those born into wealth pass on that wealth to their children. Laissez-faire economics ultimately is a failure.

The fact that you had to work 12-14 hour days, 6 days a week to get you through university should tell you something – higher education should be meritocracy where anyone can go if they have the ability regardless of wealth. You should concentrate on your studies not on a full-time job at college. Moreover, even if you take out a student loan, you will be massively in debt before you’ve even started work. And then you have to stay in a job, where you can be sacked on one or two weeks notice, for whatever reason your boss likes. Without a job you have no medical insurance and probably limited (if any) unemployment benefit. There is a massive power inequality and the employers hold all the cards. But it is okay because the American Dream says that your exploitation today will benefit your children tomorrow. And anyway you can buy all these great consumer goods – because that’s what freedom is – the opportunity to buy tvs and ipods and huge SUVs. And you fill up your SUV with your gallons of petrol at low, low prices in an car that has low low MPG. The environment? Pah! My car is my freedom.

I’m not saying that America is the only country like this. To a greater or lesser extent every Western nation has these same issues. And every country has its fair share of people who try to get as much as they can from the state. The problem is, the poorer elements are usually those who have little power. The wealthy are often equally if far more corrupt and yet they usually get away with it. Blaming the poor is an old game and has been around for centuries. As soon as the state centralised charity-giving and decreed that there were deserving and undeserving poor, countless regimes have used it as a stick to batter the poor with.

It is all about social control. One controls those elements deemed to be a threat by labelling them parasitic. Anyway, if they are genuinely drunks do you really want them working on a construction site – or even in an office job? They are too unreliable to work productively.

In any case, what is the alternative? In many cases, one cannot get fruitful employment if there isn’t any. Even in times of ‘full’ employment there is seasonal unemployment and jobs that people cannot do because they are not skilled or experienced enough. There has to be a safety net.

Originally posted by rhelt100
On the subject of media bias, Fox is a conservative news station, right on. It's not, however, extreme right wing, which places it right where 50% or so of the country wants it. CNN, MSNBC, & CBS are all liberal news stations, not extreme left, but right where 50% of the population wants it. If you sit down and watch an hour of Fox news and an hour of CNN, you will notice the different slant on their political stories. I don't understand why everybody is so "up in arms" over this. TV is a business, it's there to make money. There are basically two political viewpoints in this country, liberal & conservative, the others are too minor for mainstream TV to even worry about because there's little potential for profit. So, programs/stations develop for both major demographics, it's completely logical.

Yes, people read newspapers and watch tv news to confirm their own political beliefs and I agree that there is always bias, but this doesn’t mean that it should be the case. News is so open for misuse & propaganda, that it needs to be independent and impartial. One should try to eliminate bias as much as possible in journalism – especially in something as contentious as news. News shouldn’t be about profit - news should be about impartially providing information. As soon as you are trying to boost ratings by populist agendas then there is a problem.

[edit on 24-10-2005 by kedfr]

Originally posted by RANT Liberalism is right. About everything. It's the dominant force in upright walking man for a reason. Everything else is monkey business.

Without equivocation, this is the central theme, the core indignation, IMO, that all thinking Conservatives stumble over in rationalizing their team’s position - by their devotion to black v. white segmentation and positions, progress is always on the "liberal" side of the ledger. Parse all you want, but "conservatism" never developed anything outside of being a hothouse incubator for liberal revolt against oppression/stagnation.

Originally posted by Thomas CrowneYou say homosexuals (I'll not redefine a word, such as gay, because a perverted portion of the society prefers a new word for an old problem)

Emphasis mine. People who acknowledge homosexuals as viable, contributing and stalwart members of society and children of God are neither "perverted" nor defining of any segment of mankind as a 'problem" simply for being.

Like the lactose intolerant, people can only digest NEWS in the way they're predisposed to. The vast majority are in the former - they have a problem with "celebrity" & "journalist" describing the same person as well as the myriad of Pharma commercials sponsoring them. LIBERAL is a word corrupted to society, yet is a word that defines the best of it and acts as the safeguard, in the context of news reporting, that ultimately protects our system of government.
In the latter, we do have "stragglers" with any advancing society who are so ingrained in the caste system that there will always be the 'untouchables' and dissent against the highest caste running the country, even though they do so ( oppose the dissenters) contrary to their every interest/livelihoods, is viewed as treasonous and/or immoral. To them, Fox will always be viewed as a ‘corrective measure’ that counters the perceived wide swing LEFT in news.


[edit on 24-10-2005 by Bout Time]