FOX News is Great!!!

reply to post by Major Discrepancy


Hitler and Mussolini were not left wing dictators, that would be an oxymoron.

At that time in history the left right didn't mean what it seems to now.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

The left were the anti-establishment social revolutionaries. The right was the establishment, authority.
The more left you go the less authority, anarchism being the extreme. The more right you go the more authority, fascism being the extreme. There were no one more authoritative than Hitler and Mussolini.

Mussolini created fascism, Hitler based his party on Mussolini's fascism. Nowhere do either of them advocate worker ownership of the means of production, thus can not be socialist by any stretch of the imagination.

But regardless what if they were? Does that make socialism bad? No, it just makes Hitler and Mussolini bad, as they did not follow the ideals of socialism, they did the opposite.

If they were left wing then why was there a socialist revolution against Franco in Spain, and why did Hitler and Mussolini support Franco, and not the socialists?

The Spanish Civil War began in July 1936 and officially ended with Franco's victory in April 1939, leaving 190,000[21] to 500,000[22] dead. Despite the Non-Intervention Agreement of August 1936, the war was marked by foreign intervention on behalf of both sides, leading to international repercussions. The nationalist side was supported by Fascist Italy, which sent the Corpo Truppe Volontarie, and later by Nazi Germany, which assisted with the Condor Legion.

secure.wikimedia.org...

Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional.[50][51][52][53][54] Stanley Payne notes: "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist".[53][55] The consistent points in Franco's long rule, along with the Moroccan Moorish Guard, included above all authoritarianism, nationalism, ethnic cleansing of Jews,[56][57] the defense of Catholicism and the family, anti-Freemasonry, and anti-Communism.

secure.wikimedia.org...

Hitler sent socialists to the camps for petes sake.

Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents -- primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders.

www.ushmm.org...

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Your an idiot.
Thanks for the crappy thread.
Sorry Mods, I usually don't say things like this....
However.....you get what I'm saying.

reply to post by ConspiricusTheoricus


You're welcome.
Thanks for reading!

reply to post by ANOK

The left were the anti-establishment social revolutionaries. The right was the establishment, authority. The more left you go the less authority, anarchism being the extreme. The more right you go the more authority, fascism being the extreme. There were no one more authoritative than Hitler and Mussolini.

Political Compass

I had to skip a few pages so I apologize if anyone else already posted this.

"Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Just sayin'...

Also, someone mentioned Fox News getting better ratings than all the other cable news channels. Please keep in mind that Fox News is part of the basic cable package and the other ones require an upgrade so many more people have access to Fox. Also, MSNBC does not market itself as a "Fair and Balanced" News station - it is political punditry pure and simple and they don't claim to be anything other than that so you are comparing apples to oranges.

When you're watching Fox News, please make note of the number of times they start a statement with "Some say..." What they tend to do over there is to have each of the various shows all report on the same thing and then they reference one another as the source. That's not journalism... that's propoganda.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Bwaa! Haaa! Haaa! Haaa! Bwaaa!

Faux News is the worst misinformation machine on planet earth! Let me guess you are a die hard Romney fan right?

You ever hear about the largest protests in history? Not on Faux!
You ever hear about Hersh Children? Not on Faux!

There are thousands more just like these!

Congress on the move to legalize torture? Nope not on Faux!
No trial for Norway mass killer Breivi? Nope not on Faux!
US ships 21-tonne tear gas cargo to Tahrir, Egypt says no. Nope not on Faux!
Germany arrests former US presidential candidate. Nope not on Faux!
Strike, UK civil servants cripple country. Nope not on Faux!
300,000+ protestors take to the streets in Israel. Nope not on Faux!
Iran threatens 150,000 missile response to Israeli Jerichos. Nope not on Faux!
Russian Foreign Minister Issues Grave Warning to Israel and the West over Iran. Nope not on Faux!
Russian arms in US backyard: Back in Cuba. Nope not on Faux!

This is the best of all.
Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Fairleigh Dickinson University Study
www.huffingtonpost.com...

I would think that as an adult you might want to hear all the news. Seek your news from all available sources. Unless you are an idiot you can spot the BS which I see on Faux all the time.

The Faux network is well known as the most biased, and manipulative new outlet to have ever existed outside of the third reich.

Let me challenge the mindset Faux has handed you for just one second. You believe that all out support for the large corporations and sacrifice on our part is all that will restore jobs and stimulate the economy right?

Well, when we allowed unfair competition to ki ll the mom and pop operation we sanctioned the end of the American dream. We sacrificed American jobs for outsourced labor, we sacrificed American quality for Cheap Chinese imports etc…

We have allowed it to become impossible to tell the difference between elected officials and concentrated capital in this country.

You can take it to the bank that monopolistic systems and unfair competition have cost many more American jobs than they have ever provided. In this Wal-Mart nation any moneys we throw at our broken economy just ends up in Chinese coffers!

You want to restore America? Start by addressing the cheat thiefs not rewarding them! I have a friend in China that I visit from time to time. The Chinese earn an equivalent wage they just work an 80-90 hour weeks to do so. The Chinese enjoy high quality products, Chinese laws require all products be covered by warranty even. We Americans enjoy the lowest quality cheapest products on planet Earth because our fellow Americans choose to pawn the products off on us and call it a discount. Profits are high selling cra p vs American quality.

You seek to allow these cheat thieves even more control! You seek to further this Fascist state we are waking to!

WAKE UP!!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
Hitler and Mussolini were not left wing dictators, that would be an oxymoron.

Wrong answer recruit, it is hard to find a dictator who isn't a Leftist. The closest thing to a right wing dictator was Francisco Franco. The very nature of a dictatorship demands a Leftist/Socialist paradigm. A dictatorship must have a subservient majority to survive; subservience facilitated by the dissemination of wealth by the government, or by it's proxies. Take a look at Barack Hussein Obama, his now failing grip on political power was predicated on the socialist scam of the American taxpayer.

Among the earliest victims of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany were political opponents -- primarily Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and trade union leaders.

www.ushmm.org...

The only socialist Hitler might have imprisoned were socialist not of his Nationalist ilk.

I believe that I have adequately answered the first question. As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence.

Above all, the trade unions are necessary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers of estates.

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler Volume Two: The National Socialist Movement Chapter XII: The Trade Union Question

The Major always takes the word of the architect of events over some pseudo-intellectual hack after the fact. Hitler seemed to view things differently that the recruit's assessment. But then again, the Major would not expect the recruits here to have actually read Mein Kampf, and thus understand the true nature of Adolph Hitler's philosophy.

didnt fox(FAUX) get caught recently showing a booing crowd from a previous year when announcing that ron paul had won (i think) the republican straw poll and got caught by witnesses who were at the event?

they are all crap but defending an organisation openly trying to influence a presidential election as a legitimate news source????

i honestly hope this thread was started by a troll because to believe otherwise would seriously question human inteligence.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by L00kingGlass

 

Anti-semitism is plentiful in the OWS movement and right here on ATS as well.

If ATS is anything it's anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. But people such as yourself always call it anti-Semitic

You will NOT find racist threads or posts on ATS. You will find threads/posts that strongly disagree with the state of Israel. That is not racist. ATS also doesn't support most of the world gov'ts either, by my guess, & who could blame them? People like you see others not agreeing with the state of Israel and immediately call them racists, errr excuse me, anti-semitic.

reply to post by Blaine91555

I could say wake the hell up, but you won't. You want your candy and you want it now. You won't stop until we are all begging for bread crumbs and people are so stupid they don't even know they are the cause. Prostitutes willing to sell their votes even if it destroys us.

I can only assume that you're not directing that at myself specifically, as I've been extremely vocal here about partisanship. Nor am I a Liberal.

Originally posted by MegasAlexandros

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by MegasAlexandros

 

Cool. Did you know that Obama's birth certificate was faked using Adobe Illustrator?

Yep and hes the president, whoah.

Come on, really? You're really scraping the bottom of the bin with this one. Even if by some chance he wasn't born in the U.S., he's lived here his life, and in my book, that makes you American enough. Cause guess what, I'd like to be President someday, but I cant. Even though I've live here my whole life, and my father was a Marine, I was born in Burma. No matter what I do (besides fake my certificates) I can't be President, even if I receive the Medal of Honor. Even if I had super powers and singlehandedly saved the Earth from an asteroid, I still couldn't be President.

I don't like Obama, but saying he's not American and inferior gets into murky water.

This is BS. If your parents are serving the USA on a foreign base, you are considered a US born citizen. McCain was born in Panama (best I recall) where his father was serving. Not an issue. You should stick with MSNBC, the Obammie mouthpiece.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
It might not be fair and balanced, it is conservative no doubt about it. But it is a news source and like any news source it has it's flaws.

Now for those who hate it so much, why not give it a chance? If not for the obvious reason that you don't agree. Then thats no reason not to give it a chance. If you are really serious about doing all your research then FOX is a network you should at least watch from time to time. I turned to it because I got sick of doom and gloom stories that went on and on and were depressing like told for hours on end on CNN.

Look. It's simple, if you are sick and tired of hearing the same thing over and over again flip the switch. I do it often.

Also Glenn Beck is the only thing wrong with FOX News cause he's not there anymore.

Flame away, liberal tree hugging hippies!

Nice way to finish your post, by trying to insult people who are not conservative. I am really shocked the Mods have allowed it stand. The way I see it, this is political trolling at it's best.

As far as your topic.... FOX News is just as bad as everyone else. Every news network should have a fault, but that fault should NOT be failing to report. That is exactly what every MSM News Agency on TV does today. They do not report the facts, instead they tell you what to think.

Sorry to tell you but that is not "reporting" that is called "repeating" and there is a huge difference.

Originally posted by mobiusmale
If the only world you lived in was ATS-Land, you would get the impression that Fox News was such a joke that nobody takes it seriously, or uses it as a source of information.

In reality, however, it consistently gets ratings that are better than CNN and MSNBC combined. They must be doing something right - and they certainly appeal to a very broad audience.

Personally, I enjoy watching the channel when I get a chance...and find that while the channel itself is not necessarily as "fair and balanced" as their promos would have us believe, their many right-wing leaning commentators do help provide a better overall balance within the MSM, assuming you do a bit of surfing among the news channels.

If you use anchors that look like upgraded pornstars (both male and female) ur bound to draw a big audience and high ratings.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

No, no, and no again!

Here is the is the appellate court ruling.

If you can't understand that, here is a pretty damn good explanation.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by theplu


Smart people watch them all and get all sides. Those who don't are the opposite of smart I think. They are just controlled Partisans.

Oh dear, someone get the OP a dose of reality and a shot of vodka, stat!
I'd rather watch Sesame Street backwards and drunk than watch FAUX news any day of the week.
Sorry guys, that channel sets off my BS meter worse than reality tv shows.

I love your avatar because it IS correct! Unlike you and others I find nothing sinister with socialism though. Yes it is the Global Workforce United but it is much more than that. It is about stopping or at least controlling the government's "gay relationship" with big business and big banks.

More importantly it is about raising awarness of the corruption and thievery going on at the tax-payer's expense. I was never really aware of having to bail out companies that from their own wreckful behavior would need MY MONEY to survive and get a second chance. In some cases bailouts were not justified at all and lots of the money went to board of director executives.

As for fox news, it is not the best channel you can find but it certainly is not the worse either. Fox News has two things going for them afaik: pretty women in miniskirts and lots of sports coverage! I would not take their editorial pieces too seriously though as they are too pro-business and too status-quo.

Just my opinion and feel free to disagree.

Originally posted by Major Discrepancy
Wrong answer recruit, it is hard to find a dictator who isn't a Leftist. The closest thing to a right wing dictator was Francisco Franco. The very nature of a dictatorship demands a Leftist/Socialist paradigm. A dictatorship must have a subservient majority to survive; subservience facilitated by the dissemination of wealth by the government, or by it's proxies. Take a look at Barack Hussein Obama, his now failing grip on political power was predicated on the socialist scam of the American taxpayer.

Sorry but we have Major discrepancy here, you are just spouting propaganda. Once again socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. If that doesn't happen it is not socialism, no matter what you are told.

The only socialist Hitler might have imprisoned were socialist not of his Nationalist ilk.

Rubbish. Nationalism is fascism not socialism. Of his ilk? What ilk, fascism? Socialists are not fascists.

The Major always takes the word of the architect of events over some pseudo-intellectual hack after the fact. Hitler seemed to view things differently that the recruit's assessment. But then again, the Major would not expect the recruits here to have actually read Mein Kampf, and thus understand the true nature of Adolph Hitler's philosophy.

The Major eh? Well ANOK says you're wrong. Your sense of history comes from the propaganda of the present state, after the fact, not the reality of what happened in our history.

Please show me where in Mein Kampf does it say the workers should own the means of production? When did that ever happen? It's not in there, I know because I have read Mein Kampf.

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property… we must encourage private initiative" – Adolf Hitler"

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme,[3] meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[4]

secure.wikimedia.org...

Private property in this context is capitalism.

cap·i·tal·ism
   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] [[dictionary.com]] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

dictionary.reference.com...

Socialism is apposed to 'private property', it is the main point of socialism, and anarchism. Go read Proudhon's 'What is property'.

anarchism.pageabode.com...

Supporting unions does not make you a socialist. Unions would not be necessary in a socialist economy.

You also didn't answer as to why Hitler was helping to fight against the socialists in Spain supporting Franco, who was a right wing nationalist, just like Mussolini was? Why would he support the right wing nationalists if he wasn't one himself? Does that logic evade you?

How does the history of what Hitler actually did have anything to do with the workers ownership of the means of production? National socialism is not left wing socialism, period.

Only in America would anyone make that claim lol. Turn off your TV and read a book Major, you have it all backwards like most MSM educated Americans, now carry on.

expertvoter.org...

when I read the title for this op.. I had to laugh.. it reminded me of Tony the Tiger pitching his sales pitch for frosted flakes..

Unfortunately Fox news is about as flakey as the cereal.. so.. hmmm.. maybe not so great for people who are into truth.

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
reply to post by ANOK

 

The left were the anti-establishment social revolutionaries. The right was the establishment, authority. The more left you go the less authority, anarchism being the extreme. The more right you go the more authority, fascism being the extreme. There were no one more authoritative than Hitler and Mussolini.

Political Compass

edit on 30-11-2011 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)

That is the modern version that is not applicable to the 1930's. It was changed to cover the twisted version of politics that started in the 1950's. Left and right was more black and white, the left was the anti-staters, the right was the establishment. When you look at the politics of those times you can't see it through our modern twisted misunderstanding of it.

For example until the 1950's when right wing Americans stole the term, Libertarianism was of the left, not the right.
It was a term first used by the French Anarchist, Joseph Déjacque. It's why the term 'libertarian socialist' is used as an alternative to Anarchism.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations...
...The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque.

anarchism.pageabode.com...

The left doesn't exist in government, they are all right wing, some more liberal than others. Any institution of authority is to the right, not the left.