- Status
It takes a weak mind to be a fascist, Rupert Murdoch is like many modern day "elite" who inherited wealth and expanded it through treachery, and then called it intelligence. These 5th generation rich kids couldn't have possibly done anything with their lives if they were born poor, old Rupert would be some trashy redneck Aussie hunting kangaroo and drinking a 40 of Foster's...
I find it funny how Faux News watchers believe that all other news channels are left-wing liberals. When you think everyone else is wrong, please reexamine your own position. I don't ever remember MSNBC, this one is in fact a left-wing liberal news-channel, to lie about a report. Sure, they sometimes get things wrong from bad sources, but they have apologized. Faux News claims their within their rights under the First Amendment to lie. That's the difference.
All this shit about Obama is a socialist, you know what? The military is the biggest socialist institution in America. Big business = corporate socialism.
All this shit about Obama is a socialist, you know what? The military is the biggest socialist institution in America. Big business = corporate socialism.
crockdaddy
Distinguished
- Apr 20, 2007
- 32
- 0
- 18,580
Wow ....
If you can step back from the name calling. Clearly Foxnews has a conservative slant. So what? Clearly NBC, ABC, CBS, NY-Times has a liberal slant. Does that happen to make one right an the other wrong? I suppose it simply depends on which point of view you happen to subscribe to. I do laugh a bit at the obvious left side bias of the Toms commentors (those of us posting comments) lol. If the post had been on Anandtech (dailytech) then the leftys would be voted down and the conservative dudes voted up. Name calling solves nothing it simply brings you down to the other guys level.
If you can step back from the name calling. Clearly Foxnews has a conservative slant. So what? Clearly NBC, ABC, CBS, NY-Times has a liberal slant. Does that happen to make one right an the other wrong? I suppose it simply depends on which point of view you happen to subscribe to. I do laugh a bit at the obvious left side bias of the Toms commentors (those of us posting comments) lol. If the post had been on Anandtech (dailytech) then the leftys would be voted down and the conservative dudes voted up. Name calling solves nothing it simply brings you down to the other guys level.
crockdaddy: There's conservative slant, then there's a covert propaganda operation, Fox news doesn't make mistakes, they lie, which places them in the latter group. Since we now know that everything told to the public to garner support for the Iraq war was a lie, we should question Fox's motives for being the biggest liar of the bunch. And the other MSM news channels are not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, only Rush Limbaugh listeners even think there is a liberal media in the US. You really need to watch the whole 10 minutes of this:
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=2030
That piece halfway through with Russert and Rumsfeld is beyond hilarious, you have to hand it to Rummy, he tells the most absurd lies with absolute conviction. Offices in a cave, LOL.
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=2030
That piece halfway through with Russert and Rumsfeld is beyond hilarious, you have to hand it to Rummy, he tells the most absurd lies with absolute conviction. Offices in a cave, LOL.
Dave_69
Distinguished
- Mar 27, 2009
- 68
- 0
- 18,580
Better yet, go watch Glenn Greenwald's documentary called "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." It's free to watch at Google Videos. If you don't come away thinking that Faux Snooze is deliberately lying about being "fair & balanced," then at least you'll experience some bona-fide cognitive dissonance as a result.
[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]Where is your proof that we "tortured" anyone? Its odd that you say Google has all this "evidence" yet the people who want to prosecute the Bush administration have not brought any of this, so called evidence to light. And just like the Bush DOJ, I do not define "enhanced interrogation techniques" as "torture". If you can equate making prisoners strip naked, forcing them to be in the same room with a lady bug, or be touched by a female guard with pulling off finger nails, burning body parts with butane torches and sawing off heads on video, then you are one sick individual. The closest thing to "torture" there is ANY evidence for is that we waterboarded 3 high profile prisoners that provided information that stopped terrorist attacks on the West Coast. My friends and I waterboarded each other to see what it was like and its distressing but not harmful. I once fell down while water skiing as a kid and didnt let go of the rope, that was worse than being waterboarded. And I love how you can talk smack about Fox News being biased, but make no mention of any of the other networks. Sorry MOONBLOOD, but your hypocrisy is showing.[/citation]
You are the dumbest corporate apologist I have met. Just Google US Torture Death. The Red Cross, the legally appointed body to oversea such things, has reported numerous times that thousands were tortured and hundreds have died. Dozens of books by award winning journalists have been published. Documentaries have come out. Evene the MSM has reported this. The reason there are no prosecutions is because the government and the corporations rule everything. They investigate BJ's but they will never investigate war crimes. You have fallen for the propaganda like the sheeple you are. Even the three cases you cite about water boarding is torture. The US has prosecuted Japanese after WW2 and killed them for water boarding americans. The US also prosecuted US soldiers that committed waterboarding during the Vietnam era. You are an ignorant uneducated sheep with no facts. You live in fantasy land. Any idiot can research and find all this out. It would take you 5 minutes. As for your claim that it prevented attacks on the West coast, research that to because there is no evidence...period!!! It is propaganda. The supposed attack on the west coast was fictitious and even then it "happened" one year before the torture. Idiots like you should actually research a bit because the US has tortured and killed detainees...there are even investigations going on about this...too bad you are an inbred chimp!
You are the dumbest corporate apologist I have met. Just Google US Torture Death. The Red Cross, the legally appointed body to oversea such things, has reported numerous times that thousands were tortured and hundreds have died. Dozens of books by award winning journalists have been published. Documentaries have come out. Evene the MSM has reported this. The reason there are no prosecutions is because the government and the corporations rule everything. They investigate BJ's but they will never investigate war crimes. You have fallen for the propaganda like the sheeple you are. Even the three cases you cite about water boarding is torture. The US has prosecuted Japanese after WW2 and killed them for water boarding americans. The US also prosecuted US soldiers that committed waterboarding during the Vietnam era. You are an ignorant uneducated sheep with no facts. You live in fantasy land. Any idiot can research and find all this out. It would take you 5 minutes. As for your claim that it prevented attacks on the West coast, research that to because there is no evidence...period!!! It is propaganda. The supposed attack on the west coast was fictitious and even then it "happened" one year before the torture. Idiots like you should actually research a bit because the US has tortured and killed detainees...there are even investigations going on about this...too bad you are an inbred chimp!
mm,yes, and a lot worse things have happened in the past than torture.
We can not deny that.
However, there are those countries who still do those things.
The worst that ever happened was 'NAM.
Villages massacred and raped. But in times of war these things just happen. You don't go making a palace for your prisoners, especially not those that can at any time stab you in the back with a knife.
That's why Vietnam was such a chaos.
I think under the reign of Bush, the USA was very responsible in Iraq,and probably fought the cleanest war ever fought, with a minimum on civilian casualties.
Yes,Bush spend too much in armies in Iraq. But the current president Obama wastes too much in unneccesary causes, and thinks he can pay back debt by loaning more money,and giving that to the poor!
If instead of financing those without work, why not finance companies to hire new (unemployed) personnel?
That way a company has less cost to pay an employee, the work will be lighter for all, and the employee get a low, but full wage; which is better than nothing.
And Barak should also do something about the housing.
Wooden houses that can be placed for $12.000 should not be sold for 120.000, and rent of a one bedroom appartment should not exceed $300 (see eg: Miami environment, where renting prices are just too high, and often go beyond half of a person's wage!)
In a healthy economy, less than 30% of a combined wage should go to a house, 30% for food and living, and 15% for saving.
An additional 15% for tithes (if you belong to a church), or perhaps for unusual events.
The reason people have no money is because they rent houses that cost them more than 50%of their combined wage.
We can not deny that.
However, there are those countries who still do those things.
The worst that ever happened was 'NAM.
Villages massacred and raped. But in times of war these things just happen. You don't go making a palace for your prisoners, especially not those that can at any time stab you in the back with a knife.
That's why Vietnam was such a chaos.
I think under the reign of Bush, the USA was very responsible in Iraq,and probably fought the cleanest war ever fought, with a minimum on civilian casualties.
Yes,Bush spend too much in armies in Iraq. But the current president Obama wastes too much in unneccesary causes, and thinks he can pay back debt by loaning more money,and giving that to the poor!
If instead of financing those without work, why not finance companies to hire new (unemployed) personnel?
That way a company has less cost to pay an employee, the work will be lighter for all, and the employee get a low, but full wage; which is better than nothing.
And Barak should also do something about the housing.
Wooden houses that can be placed for $12.000 should not be sold for 120.000, and rent of a one bedroom appartment should not exceed $300 (see eg: Miami environment, where renting prices are just too high, and often go beyond half of a person's wage!)
In a healthy economy, less than 30% of a combined wage should go to a house, 30% for food and living, and 15% for saving.
An additional 15% for tithes (if you belong to a church), or perhaps for unusual events.
The reason people have no money is because they rent houses that cost them more than 50%of their combined wage.
Dave_69
Distinguished
- Mar 27, 2009
- 68
- 0
- 18,580
Uh... Hiroshima & Nagasaki??? I'm always dumbfounded by the sheer hypocrisy of modern American politicians who run around clamoring for nuclear disarmament, when the US is the ONLY country to have ever deployed an atomic weapon in combat (and upon two defenseless non-military targets too).
Also, price controls don't work. Take some basic economic classes, please. They ruin the supply/demand curves, to the point that the supply is exhausted and then the attainment of those goods/services which have a price fix have to be dealt out through lottery or other "by chance" means. I have an advanced degree in economics, BTW.
The problem with conservatives in America and Asia is the "lemming" factor. Most people who are liberals atleast understand what the convservatives want and why they want it, they just so happen to see the error of conservative's way, hence they are liberal.
Conservatives, on the otherhand, have never properly explored liberalism, they won't associate with someone who claims to be liberal, and 99% of the time they "inherited" their ideology from their parents, who inherited from their parents. They watch extremists like Limbaugh and O'Reilly explain why liberalism is sooooooo bad, and why no sane person would ever want to be a liberal, not realizing that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are crooks and liars, and that real liberals are nothing like what they say they are. Willful ignorance prevents these people from ever engaging in an intelligent political discussion. They view politics like sports, and root for the Republican team every election.
Conservatives, on the otherhand, have never properly explored liberalism, they won't associate with someone who claims to be liberal, and 99% of the time they "inherited" their ideology from their parents, who inherited from their parents. They watch extremists like Limbaugh and O'Reilly explain why liberalism is sooooooo bad, and why no sane person would ever want to be a liberal, not realizing that Limbaugh and O'Reilly are crooks and liars, and that real liberals are nothing like what they say they are. Willful ignorance prevents these people from ever engaging in an intelligent political discussion. They view politics like sports, and root for the Republican team every election.
waffle911
Distinguished
- Dec 12, 2007
- 108
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]independant_liberalis[/nom]The problem with conservatives in America and Asia is the "lemming" factor. Most people who are liberals atleast understand what the convservatives want and why they want it, they just so happen to see the error of conservative's way, hence they are liberal.[/citation]
It certainly seems that way some times. Like the recent lies spread by conservative political groups about how Obama's healthcare and insurance reform are going to take away our right to private insurance plans et.al. I've seen people go ahead and declare the news broadcasts and talk shows on public radio as "liberal talk radio", which is almost as far from the truth as if it were "conservative talk radio". I've heard both, they're both gormless out of their minds lunatics. I consider myself as independent because I try and look at all the facts behind every claim made by politicians and more often than not, the liberals make a better argument (or rather, an argument that is much harder to refute if at all possible). It also seems like a lot of republican political thinking is very narrow-sighted and ignores the bigger picture, like how they basically said on television (this was a political announcement aired in Texas) that 'so-and-so percent of insured Americans are satisfied with their health insurance, so why should we change it?' And I think, yeah, but how many Americans do not have or cannot get health insurance? That's a very big number in and of itself and cannot be ignored in the bigger picture. And sure, that economic stimulus package is a tremendous amount of money to be spending when we're so far in debt, but consider how much worse off we would be next year or the year after that if we hadn't spent it. Most credible economists (republicans included) point to doom and despair without the stimulus.
It didn't take 6 months to get into this mess. We were neck-deep in it one year ago. Now we're over our heads. But this mess didn't spring up over night, or over the past 4, 8, 16, or even 24 years. Bush just happened to be the president when the sky started falling, and for the most part his policies only accelerated the flames that were already blazing, starting as embers from decades ago. This was a disaster 2 generations in the making, at least. And no one person is responsible for it, though it is certainly easy to find a few heads to put on the chopping block for it, and rightly so. But anyone saying that the liberals are batshit insane communists needs to re-evaluate the information that they use to form their opinions and actually listen to everything the other side is saying. I listen to the complete argument when both sides speak, and point fingers then. So far, I've been wagging a lot more finger at republican political statements than liberal political statements.
Is Obama a savior? Hell no. I think he's a great deal smarter than Bush with his overall strategies (and planned political speeches), but I often find his execution to be somewhat sloppy and not thoroughly thought out and his inexperience shows in his lack of ability to think clearly on his feet when confronted with something that wasn't expected. He lacks tact. But Bush was never really a role model for that, either.
A home-made billboard out in the countryside last year said "There is only one patriotic, God-fearing man running for president." I think that about sums up their political beliefs as incorrect as that statement was. It was made pretty clear that Obama was the practicing Christian and McCain was not. So I voted for who the sign told me to, though for very different reasons. Not that it ultimately mattered in Texas.
I listen to public radio. For the people and payed by the people, liberal and conservative alike, with no influence of big corporations. If you think they're all that skewed in one direction or the other, you should think about re-calibrating your position. I know that they have gotten me to on several accounts, when I was leaning liberal in one matter or another. But that's how the news and current event talk shows should be. And let me tell you, Faux News (and News Corp.) is unequivocally the worst offender here, but they are certainly not the only guilty party. Freedom of speech stops at libel, but 49% of statistics and 87% of official statements or documents can be twisted to say anything. 76% of statistics are also made up on the spot. But they sure sound official and studied. By all means, go ahead and drink the Kool-aid, but for God's sake, stop eating the powder by the spoonful and try some other flavors/brands.
It certainly seems that way some times. Like the recent lies spread by conservative political groups about how Obama's healthcare and insurance reform are going to take away our right to private insurance plans et.al. I've seen people go ahead and declare the news broadcasts and talk shows on public radio as "liberal talk radio", which is almost as far from the truth as if it were "conservative talk radio". I've heard both, they're both gormless out of their minds lunatics. I consider myself as independent because I try and look at all the facts behind every claim made by politicians and more often than not, the liberals make a better argument (or rather, an argument that is much harder to refute if at all possible). It also seems like a lot of republican political thinking is very narrow-sighted and ignores the bigger picture, like how they basically said on television (this was a political announcement aired in Texas) that 'so-and-so percent of insured Americans are satisfied with their health insurance, so why should we change it?' And I think, yeah, but how many Americans do not have or cannot get health insurance? That's a very big number in and of itself and cannot be ignored in the bigger picture. And sure, that economic stimulus package is a tremendous amount of money to be spending when we're so far in debt, but consider how much worse off we would be next year or the year after that if we hadn't spent it. Most credible economists (republicans included) point to doom and despair without the stimulus.
It didn't take 6 months to get into this mess. We were neck-deep in it one year ago. Now we're over our heads. But this mess didn't spring up over night, or over the past 4, 8, 16, or even 24 years. Bush just happened to be the president when the sky started falling, and for the most part his policies only accelerated the flames that were already blazing, starting as embers from decades ago. This was a disaster 2 generations in the making, at least. And no one person is responsible for it, though it is certainly easy to find a few heads to put on the chopping block for it, and rightly so. But anyone saying that the liberals are batshit insane communists needs to re-evaluate the information that they use to form their opinions and actually listen to everything the other side is saying. I listen to the complete argument when both sides speak, and point fingers then. So far, I've been wagging a lot more finger at republican political statements than liberal political statements.
Is Obama a savior? Hell no. I think he's a great deal smarter than Bush with his overall strategies (and planned political speeches), but I often find his execution to be somewhat sloppy and not thoroughly thought out and his inexperience shows in his lack of ability to think clearly on his feet when confronted with something that wasn't expected. He lacks tact. But Bush was never really a role model for that, either.
A home-made billboard out in the countryside last year said "There is only one patriotic, God-fearing man running for president." I think that about sums up their political beliefs as incorrect as that statement was. It was made pretty clear that Obama was the practicing Christian and McCain was not. So I voted for who the sign told me to, though for very different reasons. Not that it ultimately mattered in Texas.
I listen to public radio. For the people and payed by the people, liberal and conservative alike, with no influence of big corporations. If you think they're all that skewed in one direction or the other, you should think about re-calibrating your position. I know that they have gotten me to on several accounts, when I was leaning liberal in one matter or another. But that's how the news and current event talk shows should be. And let me tell you, Faux News (and News Corp.) is unequivocally the worst offender here, but they are certainly not the only guilty party. Freedom of speech stops at libel, but 49% of statistics and 87% of official statements or documents can be twisted to say anything. 76% of statistics are also made up on the spot. But they sure sound official and studied. By all means, go ahead and drink the Kool-aid, but for God's sake, stop eating the powder by the spoonful and try some other flavors/brands.
waffle911
Distinguished
- Dec 12, 2007
- 108
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]I think under the reign of Bush, the USA was very responsible in Iraq,and probably fought the cleanest war ever fought, with a minimum on civilian casualties.Yes,Bush spend too much in armies in Iraq.[/citation]
Responsible? Perhaps. But it was definitely as unnecessary as the Vietnam war, if not more so. It's not our behavior but the overall nature of the war. It's pointless now. We had a reason going in, and even when that reason turned out to be bunk we stayed and spent more money fighting against an idea. 'Nam was a disaster because we were fighting an idea. We were not fighting for ourselves or anyone we truly cared about, no matter how the politicians spun it. We are fighting an idea that has no geopolitical boundaries and no home base of operations and no adherence to the "laws" of war. How do we fight something that doesn't physically exist? Our morale is low. Troops are committing suicide because they no longer believe in fighting this war, because they no longer believe in fighting for themselves, because they no longer believe in who and what they are, because... the list goes on and on. Our enemies are nearly indistinguishable from the civilians and the two are frequently confused for one another.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom] But the current president Obama wastes too much in unneccesary causes, and thinks he can pay back debt by loaning more money,and giving that to the poor![/citation]
Heaven forbid we should learn anything about morals from Robin Hood. Heaven forbid that there are people who are impoverished despite their best honest efforts and despite their education, upbringing and former employment. Heaven forbid we should actually take a lesson from the Bible or whatever you want to call it and help our neighbors when they cannot help themselves. I'm not saying we should help those who can help themselves and don't bother to do anything about it, but there is a good reason to take from the rich and give to the poor.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]If instead of financing those without work, why not finance companies to hire new (unemployed) personnel?That way a company has less cost to pay an employee, the work will be lighter for all, and the employee get a low, but full wage; which is better than nothing.[/citation]
Tell that to all the companies sending jobs overseas because they can work for much cheaper because the cost of living is so much cheaper than it is here. Tell that to the companies whose executives give themselves big, fat bonuses they didn't earn while sending jobs over seas and firing hard-working Americans. Tell that to the small businesses who actually are willing to hire unemployed Americans and actually are getting government support for doing so.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom] And Barak should also do something about the housing.Wooden houses that can be placed for $12.000 should not be sold for 120.000, and rent of a one bedroom appartment should not exceed $300 (see eg: Miami environment, where renting prices are just too high, and often go beyond half of a person's wage!)In a healthy economy, less than 30% of a combined wage should go to a house, 30% for food and living, and 15% for saving.An additional 15% for tithes (if you belong to a church), or perhaps for unusual events.The reason people have no money is because they rent houses that cost them more than 50%of their combined wage.[/citation]
And that's why he has. It wasn't the prices fault people coudln't afford their houses, it was their fault and the banks' fault for thinking they could afford the mortgage on those houses even after factoring in all those other expenses you listed. They did account for all that when they financed. The banks screwed them over with adjustable rate mortgages that leaped to astronomical rates that Americans could no longer afford and were thus caught completely without warning and off guard. Obama has stepped in to stop these "predatory lending practices". The problem is that the people were not properly educated in the weight of the risks they were taking on when signing those loans; they were falsely assured that they were safe bets. If you had any idea what the crises is really all about, you would know why your statements are completely erroneous. As for prices, that's called supply and demand. That's the cost of real estate. You say $20,000 house? On what property? Property costs money. That property is worth $100,000 because that's how much other people who are financially able to would be willing to pay for it. Voila, $120,000 house. You don't have to live somewhere expensive. Someone else is perfectly willing to spend the money to live there. It's how a free capitalist economy works. People want the land, so it effectively goes to the highest bidder. But hey, the only reason for you not to live in a trailer park is if you don't want to and can afford better.
Responsible? Perhaps. But it was definitely as unnecessary as the Vietnam war, if not more so. It's not our behavior but the overall nature of the war. It's pointless now. We had a reason going in, and even when that reason turned out to be bunk we stayed and spent more money fighting against an idea. 'Nam was a disaster because we were fighting an idea. We were not fighting for ourselves or anyone we truly cared about, no matter how the politicians spun it. We are fighting an idea that has no geopolitical boundaries and no home base of operations and no adherence to the "laws" of war. How do we fight something that doesn't physically exist? Our morale is low. Troops are committing suicide because they no longer believe in fighting this war, because they no longer believe in fighting for themselves, because they no longer believe in who and what they are, because... the list goes on and on. Our enemies are nearly indistinguishable from the civilians and the two are frequently confused for one another.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom] But the current president Obama wastes too much in unneccesary causes, and thinks he can pay back debt by loaning more money,and giving that to the poor![/citation]
Heaven forbid we should learn anything about morals from Robin Hood. Heaven forbid that there are people who are impoverished despite their best honest efforts and despite their education, upbringing and former employment. Heaven forbid we should actually take a lesson from the Bible or whatever you want to call it and help our neighbors when they cannot help themselves. I'm not saying we should help those who can help themselves and don't bother to do anything about it, but there is a good reason to take from the rich and give to the poor.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]If instead of financing those without work, why not finance companies to hire new (unemployed) personnel?That way a company has less cost to pay an employee, the work will be lighter for all, and the employee get a low, but full wage; which is better than nothing.[/citation]
Tell that to all the companies sending jobs overseas because they can work for much cheaper because the cost of living is so much cheaper than it is here. Tell that to the companies whose executives give themselves big, fat bonuses they didn't earn while sending jobs over seas and firing hard-working Americans. Tell that to the small businesses who actually are willing to hire unemployed Americans and actually are getting government support for doing so.
[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom] And Barak should also do something about the housing.Wooden houses that can be placed for $12.000 should not be sold for 120.000, and rent of a one bedroom appartment should not exceed $300 (see eg: Miami environment, where renting prices are just too high, and often go beyond half of a person's wage!)In a healthy economy, less than 30% of a combined wage should go to a house, 30% for food and living, and 15% for saving.An additional 15% for tithes (if you belong to a church), or perhaps for unusual events.The reason people have no money is because they rent houses that cost them more than 50%of their combined wage.[/citation]
And that's why he has. It wasn't the prices fault people coudln't afford their houses, it was their fault and the banks' fault for thinking they could afford the mortgage on those houses even after factoring in all those other expenses you listed. They did account for all that when they financed. The banks screwed them over with adjustable rate mortgages that leaped to astronomical rates that Americans could no longer afford and were thus caught completely without warning and off guard. Obama has stepped in to stop these "predatory lending practices". The problem is that the people were not properly educated in the weight of the risks they were taking on when signing those loans; they were falsely assured that they were safe bets. If you had any idea what the crises is really all about, you would know why your statements are completely erroneous. As for prices, that's called supply and demand. That's the cost of real estate. You say $20,000 house? On what property? Property costs money. That property is worth $100,000 because that's how much other people who are financially able to would be willing to pay for it. Voila, $120,000 house. You don't have to live somewhere expensive. Someone else is perfectly willing to spend the money to live there. It's how a free capitalist economy works. People want the land, so it effectively goes to the highest bidder. But hey, the only reason for you not to live in a trailer park is if you don't want to and can afford better.
Jesus is the embodiment of liberalism, 99% of conservatives are Christians, there's definitely hypocrisy going on there.
OTOH, there are many parallels between biblical stories and modern day tabloids. If I read a story in the National Inquirer about Jennifer Aniston dating Bigfoot, the fact that Jennifer is real doesn't mean that Bigfoot is, clearly the authors of the Bible were more after a good sensationalist story rather than something that would withstand closer examination later.
OTOH, there are many parallels between biblical stories and modern day tabloids. If I read a story in the National Inquirer about Jennifer Aniston dating Bigfoot, the fact that Jennifer is real doesn't mean that Bigfoot is, clearly the authors of the Bible were more after a good sensationalist story rather than something that would withstand closer examination later.
1)calling this garbage from FOX(and many others)NEWS is a joke,and should be a crime.I'm sure there are others that remember when news cast were responsible-there was the"news"and then a disclaimer"the following opinion...yadayada"(and often a camera angle change)then they ran the editorials or ed-ops,followed by another disclaimer"the preceding message was the opinion of____and does not represent yadayada".Thats what gave the news its dignity so you just might be able to trust the stories you were hearing.Today its not News anymore-its one big editorial,which would be fine if they did'nt treat it like news,or worse as gospel GEOD
Ahumado
Distinguished
- Jan 31, 2003
- 7
- 0
- 18,510
Fox News is good news with good reporters. I think you guys mean Fox News commentators suck . Which they don't(except for Geraldo). It's time to think for yourself not how the rich and powerful and beautiful people want you to think. I know it's a lost cause on some but there is always hope
Ahumado
Ahumado
News is a strange thing to build business on.
It's just information that can be copied for no cost.
(Try to copy a text file and figure out what that cost you!)
The problem is they aren't the only one that can give the product.
There can be other sources too that can give it away for free.
Because it's not their business.
Doing business with only information as the product in general seems nowadays very unattractive and prone to information-leaks, failure of delivering exclusive content.
It's just information that can be copied for no cost.
(Try to copy a text file and figure out what that cost you!)
The problem is they aren't the only one that can give the product.
There can be other sources too that can give it away for free.
Because it's not their business.
Doing business with only information as the product in general seems nowadays very unattractive and prone to information-leaks, failure of delivering exclusive content.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Phone stuck at boot screen logo after having 99% disk space usage
- Started by desbest
- Replies: 6
-
Question Does Tidal provide Audiobooks for uses?- Started by pinkiena
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
Question Best Wireless Earbuds for iPhone & Android – Expert Review- Started by anjelinaw3
- Replies: 4
-
Facebook
Twitter