Poll: If you could topple FOX news would you?
- Thread starter bfgmetalhead
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's SOCIETY'S fault, not FOX's.VanTesla said:
I find it interesting how so many people complain about censorship and that "people should make their own decisions", and now I'll be able to counteract those statements with this thread.
I think a better route would be to use an education system that's worth a damn. From what I can tell, people think the current one isn't.VanTesla said:
Of course not. MSNBC and CNN are every bit as biased, they just happen to play for the other team. None of the mainstream cable news networks are totally unbiased. Fox just happens to cater to the conservative types. If that's not you, watch something else.
Banning a network just because you don't agree with their underlying point of view? Seriously? I'm not terribly fond of Al Jazeera English but I'm not going to start a thread suggesting they be censored out of existence.
Banning a network just because you don't agree with their underlying point of view? Seriously? I'm not terribly fond of Al Jazeera English but I'm not going to start a thread suggesting they be censored out of existence.
No. They're entitled to freedom of speech the same as everyone else.
I'd just place someone on standby to kick any staff member in the crotch if they use the phrase "fair and balanced."
I'd just place someone on standby to kick any staff member in the crotch if they use the phrase "fair and balanced."
I wouldn't, but I would create a weekly show called: "Previously on Fox News"
The show would feature clips of the previous Fox News segment with a panel of experts picked for the topic dissecting everything Fox News had just said and providing appropriate information to the public.
Freedom of Speech works both ways.
The show would feature clips of the previous Fox News segment with a panel of experts picked for the topic dissecting everything Fox News had just said and providing appropriate information to the public.
Freedom of Speech works both ways.
Yes, because while I believe in free speech, I don't believe in lying and slander for political agenda. If you want to outright say that you're biased and be biased, fine, but I don't condone this criminal facade of news casting, which is supposed to be unbiased and made up of pure facts by definition.
Part of the law is that free speech is only condoned if it remains only speech, as far as I know, using free speech to say, provoke violent behavior, is not condoned, and neither should slander, lies and propaganda be.
Part of the law is that free speech is only condoned if it remains only speech, as far as I know, using free speech to say, provoke violent behavior, is not condoned, and neither should slander, lies and propaganda be.
No. On a side note, I am enjoying the format a lot of posters are using for this thread.
[Something about believing in free speech]
But...
[Something about how freedom of speech doesn't pertain to a an organization that has the audacity to have different opinions than I do.]
I know Fox News has gotten some things wrong but so have other news organizations. I do honestly wonder how many of these folks have come to their conclusion from an in-depth study of Fox News, and how many are just going off of what the internet has told them to believe.
[Something about believing in free speech]
But...
[Something about how freedom of speech doesn't pertain to a an organization that has the audacity to have different opinions than I do.]
I know Fox News has gotten some things wrong but so have other news organizations. I do honestly wonder how many of these folks have come to their conclusion from an in-depth study of Fox News, and how many are just going off of what the internet has told them to believe.
Never. They have the right to free speech as much as the next person. Even if I don't agree with their views, I have more of a quarrel with those who would remove their freedom of speech then Fox itself.
I actually laugh at the ignorance of people when they talk about Fox duping the uneducated and easily fooled. Fox spins shit from time to time, but guys, get out of your ivory tower, you're not above everyone else.
I actually laugh at the ignorance of people when they talk about Fox duping the uneducated and easily fooled. Fox spins shit from time to time, but guys, get out of your ivory tower, you're not above everyone else.
I'm not particularly convinced by an argument that the merits of legislating 300 million people should be judged on the candy brought home to a single district. That seems an extremely narrow view given the scope of the legislation, and we have three distinct levels of government for a reason.Kryzantine said:
Not that I particularly dispute it but I thought this line was kind of odd, considering every single thing that's been reported about him lately has turned out to be 100% true, and I thought maybe you had specific examples in mind.
You've actually managed to take a more cynical view of federal government than I, and I didn't think that was possible. To say that there are precisely zero people who employed any honesty in the entire history of the House strikes me as being an even more absurd claim than if I had said that they were all honest to a fault. And no, I don't think any government framer has ever said, you know what would be great? If the laws of our country were made by despicable human beings who are indecent and dishonest and do not have the public interest in mind at all. Somehow, I don't envision Madison and Paterson having that particular discussion.
You probably couldn't, but that wasn't the point. The point is, at the framing of our current Constitution, the House was the only part of our central government that was directly elected by the people, and was meant to be the part of the central government closest to the people. But each member of the House is closest to their district, and they should vote according to their own district's desire.TheSchaef said:
In the eyes of the Framers, Weiner honestly should not give a fuck what 300 million people want, he should give a fuck on what his 867,000 or so constituents want. When it comes to legislation on a national level, that's the Senate's job to debate and the President's job to approve. House representatives are supposed to vote on what they think, and what their people think is right. I said already that even though 10% of the country might like Weiner at this point, 80% of his district still does. THAT'S what matters, because his district is how he gets his power.
The scandal should have killed his ambitions of becoming NYC mayor, not his House career. But then the Democratic Party threatened to give him the boot, and we all know how difficult it is to be an Independent in America.
fox news are an incredible source of stupidity for a country way too large, with too many impressionable people and too much access to weaponry.
so of course i'd remove any source that'd drive them to rampage/ support stupid laws that hurt the entire community.
it is the cancer that is killing tv.
so of course i'd remove any source that'd drive them to rampage/ support stupid laws that hurt the entire community.
it is the cancer that is killing tv.
That really doesn't speak at all to your previous claim that the House was designed to be dishonest and indecent. Unless the implication is that the American people are dishonest and indecent and the intent was to populate the government with their own corrupt kind.Kryzantine said:
That doesn't make sense. The House legislation IS written on a national level; it IMPACTS ALL 300 MILLION. There's a difference between representing the views of the people who elected you, and making sure you bring home their bacon and damn the consequences to anyone else. Additionally, Senators are elected to represent their state, and yet you ascribe their function to national-level legislation, rather than state-level which would be consistent with your interpretation of elected House members.
Either way, apart from the federal government, we have state governments and municipal governments. There's a reason for that.