Fox News Alert

[raven]

Another prime example of right wing extremist
hate propaganda on Fox News:
Intelligence Report
Fall 2007

how ironic that you are suggesting it's fox that's extremist when you regard any report you disagree with as "propaganda".
sad how people are still trying to censor free speech. tragic really.
why is it that non-thinkers are threatened by more information and always want less? facists must have an easy time at the news hours. they probably only watched "approved channels".actual thinkers are busy trying to catch all the news coverage they can. the fact you believe that any other news channel is fair and balance shows your naivete. what about the anti-semitism on bbc or the elitism of cnn or the out and out misreporting of AP & Reuters? sorry..not all of us can be go through life with blinders on and tow a party line. but i suppose it makes it easier for you to believe what you believe if you attack everyone you disagree with. ha!

 

[Smiling JOe]

I like a well rounded perspective of news, so I listen to many and keep in mind who is saying what. I listen to Fox News and I balance that out with NPR. It is interesting to hear the different slants on the same story, as they spin it one way or another. There is only one story, though there are thousands of journalists who try to beat each other to the story in the story. Back in the days when I had cable, I enjoyed watching any debates on CSPAN. They are the only channel which I've found to try and keep prospective in context. They announce callers' political affiliation before letting them comment or ask questions, and they tend to keep the number of calls from each party fairly balanced. Commentary from the journalists is also fairly balanced and unbiased. Other than CSPAN, I cannot say that I've ever seen a news story regarding poliTRICKS, to be balanced.

Without Line Item Veto, Politicians are able to show a voting history of whatever they want to highlight, and the journalists also have the ability to pick and chose what they want to show. I'll use that example of Hillary saying that while she doesn't support the war, she agreed to provide emergency funding to the soldiers. What she forgets to say is that the only reason she voted in favor of the emergency funding was because of the $21+ Billion of pork (non-emergency and non-military related) which was tied into that Emergency Funding Bill. With the current system in place, journalist will always have a job, politicians will be able to lean which ever way they want depending on who is in their audience, and the public will be fed a bunch of BS and fight for that which they think is the truth, unless they choose to listen to both sides of the story.

 

[Andy A]

.

Without Line Item Veto, Politicians are able to show a voting history of whatever they want to highlight, and the journalists also have the ability to pick and chose what they want to show. I'll use that example of Hillary saying that while she doesn't support the war, she agreed to provide emergency funding to the soldiers. What she forgets to say is that the only reason she voted in favor of the emergency funding was because of the $21+ Billion of pork (non-emergency and non-military related) which was tied into that Emergency Funding Bill. With the current system in place, journalist will always have a job, politicians will be able to lean which ever way they want depending on who is in their audience, and the public will be fed a bunch of BS and fight for that which they think is the truth, unless they choose to listen to both sides of the story.

Howtrue! How true! The answer to a lot of the problems we have with Congress would be solved if the president, whethere it be Bush, Clinton or Reagan, had the line item veto. Unfortunately, IMHO, it will never happen because Congress would percieve it as giving up some of their power. It has been needed for a long time and SJ is exactly right. It is sorely needed.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Howtrue! How true! The answer to a lot of the problems we have with Congress would be solved if the president, whethere it be Bush, Clinton or Reagan, had the line item veto. Unfortunately, IMHO, it will never happen because Congress would percieve it as giving up some of their power. It has been needed for a long time and SJ is exactly right. It is sorely needed.

But with the line item veto, wouldn't the president be able to function somewhat like a monarchy, or even worse support his/her political party's pork and not the other party. I don't see the benefit in giving one person the ability to pick and choose it on that level. I know you could say that Congress could still overturn the veto, but what about if the president and the majority of Congress were of the same party and thus "veto-proof". I could easily see this turning into a situation where one party is able to provide gifts to their constituency that no other party can and then all of the voters would only support the majority party thus leading to a greater majority. Over time this would lead from a two-party system to a one-party system and I don't believe that would be good either. I agree that it doesn't matter who has the power of the pen but I think it would be bad in both cases.

 

[hnooe]

Those that you that are not happy with Fox News, keep in mind that the news director is a resident somewhere down around the Camp Creek area. He said he likes to kayak in the dune lakes when he is down here, so seek him out and see if you can show him the error of his ways. Seemed like a reasonable guy. I just can not remember his name. Oh well.

Great! If he floats by my house here on Camp Creek Lake, I will put out my MSNBC flag..:roll:

 

[Teresa]

how ironic that you are suggesting it's fox that's extremist when you regard any report you disagree with as "propaganda".
sad how people are still trying to censor free speech. tragic really.
why is it that non-thinkers are threatened by more information and always want less? facists must have an easy time at the news hours. they probably only watched "approved channels".actual thinkers are busy trying to catch all the news coverage they can. the fact you believe that any other news channel is fair and balance shows your naivete. what about the anti-semitism on bbc or the elitism of cnn or the out and out misreporting of AP & Reuters? sorry..not all of us can be go through life with blinders on and tow a party line. but i suppose it makes it easier for you to believe what you believe if you attack everyone you disagree with. ha!

I do not believe anyone approves of or has suggested censorship on this thread. only that Fox can't be taken as a serious news agency. that is all. we don't have to watch it, or we can if we choose.

personally, I do catch it on occasion when visiting Bham (big fox fans up that way). it is quite a refreshing perspective... :roll: and entertaining as well.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

how ironic that you are suggesting it's fox that's extremist when you regard any report you disagree with as "propaganda".
sad how people are still trying to censor free speech. tragic really.
why is it that non-thinkers are threatened by more information and always want less? facists must have an easy time at the news hours. they probably only watched "approved channels".actual thinkers are busy trying to catch all the news coverage they can. the fact you believe that any other news channel is fair and balance shows your naivete. what about the anti-semitism on bbc or the elitism of cnn or the out and out misreporting of AP & Reuters? sorry..not all of us can be go through life with blinders on and tow a party line. but i suppose it makes it easier for you to believe what you believe if you attack everyone you disagree with. ha!

WOW! Some people see things clearly. Great post.

See some CLASSIC SoWal ecopal history here....

It is really shocking that BMBvagrant's crude and rude behavior is tolerated on this website.

The above was said during the "heated" seawall debates. I was blown away when some of the anti-seawallers jumped in to actually defend my right to express and defend my views.

I have no problem with ecopal's position on seawalls....just how he makes it.

Censorship, propaganda, bias....all things exhibited by ecopal...a few of the very same things he criticizes Fox News for.:scratch:

 

[Smiling JOe]

But with the line item veto, wouldn't the president be able to function somewhat like a monarchy, or even worse support his/her political party's pork and not the other party. I don't see the benefit in giving one person the ability to pick and choose it on that level. I know you could say that Congress could still overturn the veto, but what about if the president and the majority of Congress were of the same party and thus "veto-proof". I could easily see this turning into a situation where one party is able to provide gifts to their constituency that no other party can and then all of the voters would only support the majority party thus leading to a greater majority. Over time this would lead from a two-party system to a one-party system and I don't believe that would be good either. I agree that it doesn't matter who has the power of the pen but I think it would be bad in both cases.

I don't think that would be the case. We could also have line item Bills, but that would be too easy, eh? By having line-item vetos, what we would actually have is accountability. I understand what you are saying, but I think that having some accountability for each Congresspersons' vote, without them being able to spin it, would have far greater impact on the way they voted. No hiding behind the fence post.

However, Andy A is correct. All of the power of the politicians is bundled in this little convenient Bill building secret, of which apparently, most Americans are not aware. We will see Line-Item Veto right after we see Americans writing a pay check to Uncle Sam each week, rather than having him garnish our wages on each paycheck for the remainder of our working lives.

 

[BeachSiO2]

I don't think that would be the case. We could also have line item Bills, but that would be too easy, eh? By having line-item vetos, what we would actually have is accountability. I understand what you are saying, but I think that having some accountability for each Congresspersons' vote, without them being able to spin it, would have far greater impact on the way they voted. No hiding behind the fence post.

However, Andy A is correct. All of the power of the politicians is bundled in this little convenient Bill building secret, of which apparently, most Americans are not aware. We will see Line-Item Veto right after we see Americans writing a pay check to Uncle Sam each week, rather than having him garnish our wages on each paycheck for the remainder of our working lives.

And on this one, I am more cynical than you ;-) I understand the need for transparency though and I agree on your second part. They don't call them Christmas Tree bill's for nothing. The trick is to get your constituencies ornament as high on the tree as possible so when elections come around, it's see what I got you last session..

 

[JoshMclean]

how ironic that you are suggesting it's fox that's extremist when you regard any report you disagree with as "propaganda".
sad how people are still trying to censor free speech. tragic really.
why is it that non-thinkers are threatened by more information and always want less? facists must have an easy time at the news hours. they probably only watched "approved channels".actual thinkers are busy trying to catch all the news coverage they can. the fact you believe that any other news channel is fair and balance shows your naivete. what about the anti-semitism on bbc or the elitism of cnn or the out and out misreporting of AP & Reuters? sorry..not all of us can be go through life with blinders on and tow a party line. but i suppose it makes it easier for you to believe what you believe if you attack everyone you disagree with. ha!

Great post.