Why does everyone dis Fox news?

Because the free market does not work and relying on people, beings who by their nature are selfish and could care less about the damage they do, to do the right thing, is a terrible idea. Lack of regulations is a horrible idea. I don't want to live in a place where I can't breathe without a resperator because of pollution because "The free market commands it!". I don't want to risk eating hotdogs that have been prepared from dead rats because it's cheaper that way and no regulations allows it.

And the democrats don't do much because all politicians are corrupt. I'd say democrats are atleast less blunt about it.

As for CNN, as I stated before

If you want news that isn't loaded with bias you watch CNN

If you want news that reinforces conservative beliefs and offers no challenge to them you watch Fox

If you want news that reinforces liberal beliefs and offers no challenge to them you watch MSNBC.

Again, CNN has some bias but you really just cannot argue that it is ANYWHERE near the level of fox or MSNBC. Neither fox or MSNBC hide the fact they are incredibly bias. Well...fox does like to lie about it. But it's the sort of lying no one cares about because it's clear as day.

Pixel-Pirate

You are right about an uninhibited free market but withbipartisan support of regulations regarding the environment, without kickbacks, I believe you could keep the planet from suffering our progress while being able to purchase green products.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel are far from honest.

You can state your view of the political leanings on FOX, CNN, and MSNBC all you want, but I will simply say we are in disagreement over CNN. I view them as propagating leftist beliefs through intentional misinformation and melodramatically sensationalized reporting style when it comes to conservative values; because of that they are divergent from my beliefs (do not read into that statement that I agree with FOX on their "news" presentation).

[QUOTE="spawnassasin"]

cause of BS like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saz7QZg38fA

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="SeanDog123"]

Now we all know that Fox news tends to fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but why is this such a bad thing? Most of the media has a strong liberal bias, so why is it such a problem that Fox news takes a different angle?

hkmp5a2

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Because the free market does not work and relying on people, beings who by their nature are selfish and could care less about the damage they do, to do the right thing, is a terrible idea. Lack of regulations is a horrible idea. I don't want to live in a place where I can't breathe without a resperator because of pollution because "The free market commands it!". I don't want to risk eating hotdogs that have been prepared from dead rats because it's cheaper that way and no regulations allows it.

And the democrats don't do much because all politicians are corrupt. I'd say democrats are atleast less blunt about it.

As for CNN, as I stated before

If you want news that isn't loaded with bias you watch CNN

If you want news that reinforces conservative beliefs and offers no challenge to them you watch Fox

If you want news that reinforces liberal beliefs and offers no challenge to them you watch MSNBC.

Again, CNN has some bias but you really just cannot argue that it is ANYWHERE near the level of fox or MSNBC. Neither fox or MSNBC hide the fact they are incredibly bias. Well...fox does like to lie about it. But it's the sort of lying no one cares about because it's clear as day.

1KyardStare

You are right about an uninhibited free market but withbipartisan support of regulations regarding the environment, without kickbacks, I believe you could keep the planet from suffering our progress while being able to purchase green products.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel are far from honest.

You can state your view of the political leanings on FOX, CNN, and MSNBC all you want, but I will simply say we are in disagreement over CNN. I view them as propagating leftist beliefs through intentional misinformation and melodramatically sensationalized reporting style when it comes to conservative values; because of that they are divergent from my beliefs (do not read into that statement that I agree with FOX on their "news" presentation).

I support regulations. If you allow a man or a company to do whatever they want, they will do the worst.

No politician is honest.

Again, I am not saying CNN has no bias. I am saying they are less bias than fox.

[QUOTE="hkmp5a2"][QUOTE="SeanDog123"]

Now we all know that Fox news tends to fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but why is this such a bad thing? Most of the media has a strong liberal bias, so why is it such a problem that Fox news takes a different angle?

surrealnumber5

Couldn't I say the exact same thing about older people when it comes to the right? Mainly senior citizens.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="hkmp5a2"] You just answered your own question. I remember when another network did a story about a tea party being held and how white people were brining guns and they showed a person with an AR-15, but not his entire body making it look like he was infact,white while fox had to air the real version showing the person was really black. The person didn't fit the story, but they went ahead and just changed how the video was being taken. Every network leans toward one side, most of them lean to the left, while fox leans to the rightPixel-Pirate

Couldn't I say the exact same thing about older people when it comes to the right? Mainly senior citizens.

Besides, why should foreign nationals have an expectation of privacy in regards to their foreign communications?

dkrustyklown

http://gopclownshow.com/fox-breaking-news-obama/

This kind of behavior is why.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

It really boggles me how anyone can say CNN is biased. They're easily the most balanced of the big three and they usually actually report the news instead of having 24/7 commentators. I couldn't tell you what Larry King or Anderson Coopers political affiliations are. Because they don't let their words drip with bias. More than I can say for MSNBC or Fox.

If you want the news you watch CNN

If you're conservative and want reinforcement of your beliefs you watch Fox

If you're liberal and want reinforcement of your beliefs, you watch MSNBC.

1KyardStare

Do you really think that when one volcano produces more green house gasses in one day than we do in a year that we actually can have such dramatic results on our environment?

I just wanted to let people know, that statement was proven to be a myth a long time ago.

Link

Link

good relations? besides, I haven't seen you prove that foreign countries, in fact actually tape every international call.Hewkii

LOL, you doubt that China records every incoming and outgoing international phone call? Puh-lease. The Chinese keep international communications in and out of their country locked down tighter than a virgin's daughter.

Likewise, I know, personally, that Colombia records its international phone calls. The US provided them the equipment with which to do it :roll:

It's common sense.

LOL, you doubt that China records every incoming and outgoing international phone call? Puh-lease. The Chinese keep international communications in and out of their country locked down tighter than a virgin's daughter.

Likewise, I know, personally, that Colombia records its international phone calls. The US provided them the equipment with which to do it :roll:

It's common sense.

dkrustyklown

if it's common sense there should be, I dunno, an article or something you could dig up from fox news.Hewkii

Why would the fact that China records phone calls be news?

Don't put your head in the sand...

Why would the fact that China records phone calls be news?

Don't put your head in the sand...

dkrustyklown

if it's common sense there should be, I dunno, an article or something you could dig up from fox news.Hewkii

Oh, and China's telecommunications infrastructure is, for the most part, relatively new. It was built from the ground up with the intention of the Chinese government to be able to record and monitor all phone traffic.

It's not just China, either. Western European countries such as the UK have also built in the capability to monitor and record all phone calls, although they do not record all domestic calls. They do flag all call records with the #'s involved and the call durations.

In fact, in most countries, there are no constitutional or statutory obstacles to their governments recording every call made.

Placing an international phone call puts that call in the jursdiction of the government that is not restrained in any way from monitoring or recording that call. How can you have an expectation of privacy in a phone converstation which can be and often will be recorded on the other end (in the case of China & Colombia, it will be recorded, no ifs ands or buts about it).

It's not just China, either. Western European countries such as the UK have also built in the capability to monitor and record all phone calls, although they do not record all domestic calls. They do flag all call records with the #'s involved and the call durations.

dkrustyklown

give me an article then. anything, really.Hewkii

...and where is your article, then? It is an exceedingly weak argument to demand sources when one does not have sources oneself :roll:

Do your own research, instead of asking for it to placed upon a silver platter for your consumption. Speak to US army majors stationed in Colombia, yourself. Ask Google, yourself.

...and where is your article, then? It is an exceedingly weak argument to demand sources when one does not have sources oneself :roll:

dkrustyklown

Fox news is pretty blatantly in favor of the republican policy. Certainly other networks may swing the other way, but that still doesn't make it right.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

So we're now going that all scientists in the world are secretly trying to support Al Gores agenda to get richer and outsource carbon outputs, and that CNN is trying to secretly turn people into gun hating wusses via subliminal coercsion? I'm not really one for way out there conspiracies.

Even if all that was true....CNN is STILL less biased than fox and MSNBC.

1KyardStare

So if they are so unbiased why are you when it comes to conservatives making money off of green energy but when Al Gore does, it's ok?

If you go back and read some of my posts on Fox and their bias, Isimply said it is based on your beliefs. I feel that most of the "Live News Organizations" (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC) are left leaning and Fox is right. If you sit on the left side of things, then yes CNN is more centered. Here is a quiz I found online, though the site is libertarian the question are fairly representative of political beliefs. See what you think and where you sit:

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

The articles on the main page are incredibly biased and that quiz is also off, it put me in the center, while the political compass put me at around -3.-3.

Fox news is pretty blatantly in favor of the republican policy. Certainly other networks may swing the other way, but that still doesn't make it right.

sonicare

my article for what? proving a negative? you're the one making a statement, not I.Hewkii

A negative statement is still a statement, and requires no less validation than a positive statement.

My positive statement is: "China closely monitors electronic communication".

To refute my positive statement amounts to stating: China does not closely monitor electronic communication.

Now, given all that we know about China; how the concept of privacy is nonexistant in that country, how the Chinese government publicly asserts its right to censor and monitor any and all communication, and how paranoid the Chinese government is about dissent; which of these statements is more credible: China closely monitors electronic communication OR China does not closely monitor electronic communication?

It does not take a lot of deductive reasoning to figure out which statement is more credible.

A negative statement is still a statement, and requires no less validation than a positive statement.

dkrustyklown

Most of what they present as news is not even news. It's commentary, where the commentators don't even attempt to hide their bias.Engrish_Major

I think it works like this, Liberals hate Fox News because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

It presents a different opinion on the news then all the other stations.

no, because a positive statement is changing the status quo. you are stating 'x'. I am stating 'prove x'. nothing else.Hewkii

Status quo? What status quo does my statement change? What in the world are you on about?

Are you trying to say that the status quo is that China does not monitor electronic communicatioin? In what kind of fantasy does that status quo exist?

Given that it is common knowledge that China censors, monitors, and restricts all forms of communication, the burden in this case is on you to prove that China does not monitor electronic communication.

This discussion hinges on whether it is more credible to say that "China monitors electronic communication" or if it is more credible to say that "China does not monitor electronic communication".

Given what we know about the People's Republic of China, the positive statement that China monitors electronic communication is far closer to any "status quo" than any negative statement to the contrary.

You are abiding by a very simplified view of debate, which is that the negative statement is automatically true absent evidence to the contrary. This is preposterous on its face and is not actually how formal debate even works. A negative statement does not, automatically, pertain to the status quo. On some questions, like this one, it is the positive statement that represents the status quo and it is the negative statement that contradicts the status quo. I suggest that you visit with your local representative of the National Forensic League in order to ask for clarification as to the nuances of debate.

You might be confusing debate with a criminal trial, in which the negative is the status quo (innocent until proven guilty) and is automatically true unless evidence is provided to the contrary. Debate is not a trial, and in debate the status quo can pertain to the positive or the negative, depending on the question at hand.

I think it works like this, Liberals hate Fox News because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

Snipes_2

Or maybe stuff like this is the reason why people don't take it seriously.

Are you trying to say that the status quo is that China does not monitor electronic communicatioin? In what kind of fantasy does that status quo exist?

dkrustyklown

[QUOTE="Hewkii"] no, because a positive statement is changing the status quo. you are stating 'x'. I am stating 'prove x'. nothing else.dkrustyklown

Status quo? What status quo does my statement change? What in the world are you on about?

Are you trying to say that the status quo is that China does not monitor electronic communicatioin? In what kind of fantasy does that status quo exist?

Given that it is common knowledge that China censors, monitors, and restricts all forms of communication, the burden in this case is on you to prove that China does not monitor electronic communication.

This discussion hinges on whether it is more credible to say that "China monitors electronic communication" or if it is more credible to say that "China does not monitor electronic communication".

Given what we know about the People's Republic of China, the positive statement that China monitors electronic communication is far closer to any "status quo" than any negative statement to the contrary.

You are abiding by a very simplified view of debate, which is that the negative statement is automatically true absent evidence to the contrary. This is preposterous on its face and is not actually how formal debate even works. A negative statement does not, automatically, pertain to the status quo. On some questions, like this one, it is the positive statement that represents the status quo and it is the negative statement that contradicts the status quo. I suggest that you visit with your local representative of the National Forensic League in order to ask for clarification as to the nuances of debate.

You might be confusing debate with a criminal trial, in which the negative is the status quo (innocent until proven guilty) and is automatically true unless evidence is provided to the contrary. Debate is not a trial, and in debate the status quo can pertain to the positive or the negative, depending on the question at hand.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Fox news is pretty blatantly in favor of the republican policy. Certainly other networks may swing the other way, but that still doesn't make it right.

Sajo7

Well, he looks that way. I don't know if it's because he's really made a bigger effort to be more fair, or if he just looks better by comparison next to Sean Hannity, who now that Colmes is gone can say whatever he wants, and Glenn Beck, who as we all know, is Glenn Beck.

In any case, at least he's a legitimate journalist.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

I think it works like this, Liberals hate Fox News because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

Silent_Bob32

Or maybe stuff like this is the reason why people don't take it seriously.

[QUOTE="Silent_Bob32"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

I think it works like this, Liberals hate Fox News because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints.

Snipes_2

Or maybe stuff like this is the reason why people don't take it seriously.

Fox and MSNBC are ridiculously biased. The only person I like on both of those networks is Bill O'reilly. Love him or hate him I think hes extremely fair, contrary to popular belief. Gretta van Susteren is ok as well. Geraldo Revera is really annoying and usually has no idea what he is talking about.. Glenn Beck is Glenn Beck.. Rachel Maddow also doesn't know what she is talking about and doesn't know how to have a 2 sided argument, and Keith Olberman is Keith Olberman. I suggest CNN : )

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Silent_Bob32"]

Or maybe stuff like this is the reason why people don't take it seriously.

PannicAtack

They Wiretap the calls, I don't think they do it for EVERYONE though. That would be quite an undertaking :PSnipes_2

Listening to them all would be quite an undertaking, but recording them all is quite easy.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] That site hardly seems reliable. They take stabs at Fox News any chance they can get. I doubt it was to "Block out Obama's Speech", because they've already shown that exact same speech 50 times. (Obvious Exaggeration). Snipes_2