Even if 90% of conspiracies are wrong, there 10% that are right. You can look to our war. How long was torture and cherry picking intelligence denied and dismissed as conspiracy. Now, the people invovled have said they participated in the execution and cover-up. The last administration grabbed way too much power for itself. I think that we will have a lot more conspiracies (some of which will end up being true) about the white house over the next few terms. This goes for people from both major political parties. Power corrupts. Some more than other, but it nearly always happens.

That video linked that talked about things that were once conspacies but are now historical fact should remind everyone that being sceptical of these theories is good but they shouldn't all be dismissed offhand.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"][QUOTE="bluezy"]Fox News makes a mockery of people such as myself and it's embarrassing. The fact that it's even disguised as "news commentary" or whatever is disgusting.bluezy

Correct.

I find it funny when people actually do defend Fox "news" as neutral or the most accurate. Personally I read the newspapers and I like to watch Olberman because he gets angry and it's fun. Maddow though is actually pretty critical of Dems when she questions them. Her personal views are obviously liberal, but I think she presents a much more neutral show than her beliefs would make you expect. That said, I know that I am watching a liberally biased network. I make no delusions that it is the most "fair and balanced" network. The problem is that there is nothing to watch that just presents the news anymore.

C-SPAN: Well, it's factual, but trying to figure out when important things are actually going to be on is a pain.

CNN: They want to seem balanced so they present a topic, then get a far left guy and a far right guy to talk about it with equal air time. That isn't balanced. That's pandering. These guys need to present the actual events. If the events make conservatives all look like morons, then present it and call them out. Don't brush it aside and bring up something minor about the dems to appear fair. The same goes in the other direction too. If the dems are acting like idiots, present it to population. When Fox news became popular, CNN was less critical and put on morons like Glen Beck to appear more conservative. CNN was never really liberally biased, it was just that the GOP at the time was full of a bunch of out of touch morons. Just becasue the news makes one party look stupid doesn't mean it is biased.

Fox: This is a "news" channel and not a news channel. They present blatant factual inaccuracies. During the debates about the financial plan, they would present conservative talking points that were lies. Okay, if they wan't to be biased, just show information that is favorable to one side. Lying to the public and parading as a news network is just wrong.

MSNBC: Liberally biased. I personally can't stand Hardball. It's almost up to the bar that Fox set for crap on a news network. That said, Olberman and Maddow are factually more accurate than anything but C-span. About a two weeks ago Olberman gave a 10 minute run down of the legislation and decisions leading up to crisis. He ripped into Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. He is pretty equal opportunity when he calls someone out which is good. Also, his special comments are quite possibly the most well done monologues in American journalism at this time.

Now back on topic. That clip was utterly distasteful. Canadian millitary personnel have died in the war that we started. They stood beside us as allies. Making fun of our allies is just as unpatriotic as attacking our own troops. These people should be kicked off the air. I don't care if it was meant to be tongue in cheek. The first part was not humorous in the least.

[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]Well, if Hilary wins the nomination, you can be almost sure that you'll have a republican president,
Obama is the only one with a chance against McCain, and he still leads in the deligate totals,
keep in mind, he won 12 states in a row before hilary got the last 2.
LJS9502_basic

That depends......I'd vote for Clinton...but not Obama...so McCain would get my vote in that case.;)

I don't get this. I vote on policies. Clinton and Obama are very close on most policies and it is the details where they differ. McCain on the other hand is drastically different. Both the Dem candidates want to change health care, the war, tax breaks for the super rich, etc. McCain wants to make tax breaks permanent, keep health care in the hands of companies who's goal is to please stockholders and not the sick people buying insurance, and stay in Iraq with current or perhaps increased troop levels. Oh, and when congress swung democratic again a bunch of regulations were put up about lobbyists and such (still not enough though) and McCain is a huge acceptor of lobby monies.

Personally I would like to see a Hillarly win because I believe they both have strong ideas, and Obama would be a good choice 8 years down the road.

In the end though, people need to vote on policies and get over the gender and color of skin crap. The republicans of the last 20 years have focused on keeping things the same. The democrats have focused on change (heh, except most of Clinton's term was witha republican congress so NOTHING got passed meaning a record surplus... which is good I suppose.). Have you noticed that the US is drastically falling behind the rest of the world in tech developments, value of the dollar, health care, education, list goes on. Not only that but we are the laughing stock of developed countries for our social systems and political leader. Change is NEEDED just to keep up in this world. Any policy focused on keeping things the same is doomed to failure.

Glen Beck is a moron, and a jerk to boot.

I am from MN. One of our new Reps in last election is Keith Elison, a great person and a Muslim. In an interview with him before Ellison won in a landslide, Beck said

"GLENN: No offense, and I know Muslims, I like Muslims, I have been to mosques . . .
I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not [stammers] working with our enemies, [extending palm--Ellison is smiling] and I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Truly, any American who isntantly thinks of terroism when they think Muslim is a moron. Christans have killed more people in the world than Muslims. Anyone who links terrorism to a religion is an idiot. Fanatics of any ideollogy can do bad things. It doesn't make the ideollogy bad.

Glen Beck also referred to the Katrina survivors as "scumbags" with this wonderful quote.

But the second thought I had when I saw these people and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims. These guys -- you know it's really sad. We're not hearing anything about Mississippi. We're not hearing anything about Alabama. We're hearing about the victims in New Orleans. This is a 90,000-square-mile disaster site, New Orleans is 181 square miles. A hundred and -- 0.2 percent of the disaster area is New Orleans! And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones we're seeing on television are the scumbags -- and again, it's not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they're getting all the attention. It's exactly like the 9-11 victims' families. There's about 10 of them that are spoiling it for everybody.

You can find pages of this kinda feces falling from his mouth on an almost daily basis. He has said all of Mexio was criminals from top to bottom. . If you truly think he is unbiassed and worth listening to, I am sad for you. :(

He said this too.

BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.

If you like Beck, you obviously dont' like Michael Moore. But a radio/tv host saying stuff like this and calling it "NEWS" is just plain wrong. CNN only hired the moron because for some inexplicable reason the biggest propoganda station in the US is popular and they wanted a chunk of that ratings pie.

MSNBC is liberal, FOX news is blatantly conservative and tries to pretend they are "unbiased". CNN is really the most middle of the road and unbiased of those stations, with the exception of a couple people too far in either direction. The channel too conservative for some and too liberal for others... meaning they are probably just right.

If you really want "unbiased" news watch CSPAN. :D