Fox News Rant

[Sonthert]

I hate Fox News. Haaattteeee! In 30 minutes I was watching it (Someone else had tuned it on), they brought up banning three things, super thin models, Citgo Gas Signs, Citgo Gas, and one other thing. I guess thats four. In 30 minutes. I guess thats why I hate listening to modern republicans. Everything is we cant allow, we want to stop this, we want to ban that, we want to amend the constituion to prevent the other thing. Thats all the republicans and republican voice boxes like Fox News ever say. Nothing is ever positive. Everything is how bad things are. Things are pretty good. Not great, but could be better. Every other word out of the republicans is stop or ban. The democrats for all their obvious faults at least propose doing things, not just stopping or banning preexisting things.Fuck negative people.I got an idea...lets start a movement to ban Fox News!What type of deodorant do republicans wear? Ban.

[azcoyote]

I agree they are very one sided. For relief from fox and their ilk I used to listen to the local affiliate for AIR AMERICA. Al Franken could make be laugh about the awful truths in the news. The station broadcast for about a year. Then some bible thumpers bought the freq. Made them an offer for much more than twice it's value. They are still on the air, and I can tell you their advertising isn't what's keeping thier doors open. My take:Just another example the republicans, using their big money and influence with the "evangelicals" to squash any opposing rhetoric. Neat trick.

[JesusDoesVegas]

come on... its fair and balanced. Would they lie to you?Heres an article you may enjoy...[url="http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview"]http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview[/url]I think the actual interview aired tonight, however this is an unedited transcript. Clinton shows his true strength as a mind and a speaker. You hear the phrase "liberal media" tossed around alot, but I havent yet come across it. Perhaps though its because I live in a red state that like banning things just as much as Fox. (MO banned gay marriage 2 years ago, and is banning smoking county by county... my favorite lounge has its days numbered)btw - this is my first post! ive been lurking for some time.

[Lukasa]

Instead of paralyzing the public with fear, in hopes that they'll cower under the guffawing right wing political agenda. (i imagine it as a giant guy in a 3 piece suit, a monacle, and a tophat) They should be getting out news that actually needs to get out. News that raises awareness and inspires action, not fear.Also, to any chicago HFers, Tamaron Hall is always drunk when shes on the air.

[Sonthert]

The term "liberal media" is a misnomer in my opinion, it should be more appropriately be called "Middle Media" as the media tends to eschew the values of people from the middle of the road. The democratic party tends to reflect those views more than the republican party...to the point of toadying sometimes and becoming indolent went the public's mind isn't made up. Media that represents left-wing and right-wing politics are very different than mainstream "middle media".

[Skimo]

ok so lets get some cool shirts and make some signs and ban fox news. wait arn't there alot more people out there doing this? so lets just go ahead and ban em all or we could make this positive and start a movement lol but tangiers ill let you take it from there seein how i dont even know where to start

[Lakemonster]

The modern Republican is nothing but a DemoRat in conservatives clothing. In conservative circles we call them NeoCons.

Neither side is worth a damn.

Speaking of bans...... Let me think of three things that were banned during the Klintoon admin.....

1. Various firearms (94 AFB)

2. Lawn Darts

3. Bottle rockets

4. Importation of assorted Chinese Manufacture firearms.

whoops. thats 4 of em. all of the scumbags are guilty.

[SanguineSolitude]

but id rather lose my lawn darts than my civil liberties. (patriot act, revoking right to abortion, banning same sex marriage, forcing god based policies, etc.)

[MilqueToast]

Doesn't O'Reilly have that no-spin guarantee? Lies?? No way. He PROMISED.

Didn't you know that prohibition of, well, anything works? Look what happened back in the 20s-30s...no alcohol means nobody drinks right? Therefore, it'll work no matter what we ban. Constraint is the answer.

[moosepotatoes]

Democracts propose solutions you're right, but that is ALL THEY FUCKING DO!
Constantly all I hear democrats talk about it how wrong republicans are and how there is a better solution. What's the solution? Yeah some republicans aer tight-assed, but so are democrats, dont pretend like they aren't just as bad. Both parties are at fault, they are like little kids arguing over who is better. No girls allowed, that kind of shit. Everyone needs to stop trying to find a label for themselves, and just be themselves.

[Claytron]

The problem - and I'll say this again - is the party system. It's an easily abusable system - but offtopic...

The problem is the solutions offered are resticting. They believe often times in the restriction of personal freedoms. It's a socially conservative hallmark. I judge politicians by different criteria. Social Issues and Fiscal Issues. Proper reasonable republicans are usually moderate on Social Issues (restrictions on personal freedoms) and very loose on Fiscal Issues (restrictions on economy). Then you get the real facists - VERY socially conservative (high restrictions on personal freedoms) in addition too the extremely loose economic policies. These are the assholes. I don't care so much on the fiscal issues though I am actually fiscally conservative - mostly Libertarian, but I HATE restrictions to personal freedom. The Constitution doesn't allow for it. The forefathers had the insight to leave the business issues to the people and provide the most basic of restrictions on personal freedom that allow society to exist and nothing more. The neocon facists want to rape the constitution because they don't don't agree with certain personal freedoms because they are assholes - usually on 'moral' grounds. The democrats are usually fiscally conservative and socially liberal but usually with the auspics of helping the greater good - does it usually work out well? No. That's the problem with the democratic party at this point. They're generally very bad at getting done what they want to make happen. I don't personally feel it's their fault - people like some of you above say they can't get anything done, but it's often because of opposition versus will to do so. Republicans often oppose democratic party initiatives and them blame them for not making good on their actions. That's a cop out. I'm not saying I agree with all the democrats actions - there are certainly better ways than taxes generally speaking.

There are exception in either case - Hilary Clinton is very socially conservative IMO, in addition to being fiscally restrictive. Which is a pretty dangerous combo. Joe Lieberman was the same deal - good ridance. John McCain is very liberal socially and fiscally very loose. There's another guy - younger dude who I can't remember who is similar in nature...... can't recall his name or state... But my real point is that the party system is a cop out on learning politicians true stances on political issues and fosters laziness in politicians by allowing them to vote along party lines.

[Sonthert]

I second Sanguine's proposition.

Claytron:Thats exactly the same thing these two guys proposed...Lenin and Trotsky. They said one party was much better. You are a communist? There hasn't been a fiscally conservative republican elected since Eisenhower.

Lake Monster: Why are you talking about Clinton's Administration? We were talking about Fox News. Hijack!

Moose: At least the democrats don't stand up there repeating the phrase "Stay the course" 50 some times during the presidential debates. Modern republicans are special interest whores who take money and screw the working man, the average man and run up the national debt and give it to super contractors who do nothing other than pass the contract off to someone else and keep 30-50 % of the money. The republicans also have no responsibility for others, they have no regard for human lives, they are immoral, unpatriotic scum. In general. Of course, like the conservatives who make generalizations, I'm making a generalization about the conservatives. Of course, I normally don't make generalizations. If there was a country where more money could be made, and taxes lower, the republicans would move like a Rocky Mountain river in the spring. There are a good percentage of the democrats who are the same way, but the number of loyal, honest servants of the American People are about 9 democrats for each republican. 8 of those 9 are as exciting as dish-soap, but nonetheless. The republicans should figure out that with power goes responsibility, and they have none. They replace it with greed disguised as concern. Just like republicans...attack the other side and then decry everybody as wrong or immoral. Its so much bullshit. You sniped at democrats with a "They're all the same" at the end, so I retaliated in kind. I hope you don't mind. I did the same thing you did, just in a longer more eloquent way. Thats the problem, truly. The republicans walk around "Everybody's greedy and dishonest, so I might as well join in.". You have to think poorly of other people and highly of yourself to buy into the republican bill of goods.

[Joey32b]

I don't think it's fair to classify Fox as Republicans. If you look at their primetime lineup, Hannity is the only one who is obviously on the right. Shepherd Smith is pretty much right down the middle. O'Reilly is conservative, but he is very critical of the Bush administration. Hannity is obviously far-right, but Colmes is far-left. Gretta just talks about Aruba and stories like that. She doesn't come across as a conservative to me. To be honest, I can watch Fox News or CNN, and I don't see a big difference. I like both.

Air America is failing as a radio station. That's why they are going off the air in a lot of markets. It doesn't have to do with "bible thumpers" buying the frequency. It has to do with them being able to sell advertising that Air American can't because they don't have the listeners.

Also, it's not fair to say that Republicans are the ones who want to ban gay marriage. I don't think many Democrats want to take a stance to legalize gay marriage because every time it's voted on in an election, it fails badly. It failed something like in 13/13 states in the last presidential election. The people spoke in that one.

Oh, and the Patriot Act had like a 98% approval from the Senators when voted on, that includes Democrats and Republicans. I actually don't agree with all of the Patriot Act, but you shouldn't bash Republicans. The one thing Bush has is conviction in his beliefs. He doesn't back off because of public pressure like the Democrats who voted for the Patriot Act and now say it's bad because they think they can get votes that way. Did they not read the text of it?

And what God-based policies are being forced on people? The only stories I hear about are crosses being taken down and prayer being taken out of school. I'm not even saying I agree or disagree with these, but I don't see any religious policies being forced on society, rather the opposite has been happening for the last 40 years.

[Sonthert]

Well, the news that Fox tends to publicize tends to be negative or pro-republican. Wouldn't you agree that 80+% of republican rhetoric tends to be "Stop this, prevent that, abolish this". The half hour I watched certainly would fall into that category. Thats why I was saying I didn't care for Fox news. CNN tends to be either more fairly negative or somewhat more positive, but like much media, it tends towards negativity...like 30-40%.

[Joey32b]

Negative is a relative term. Negative rhetoric doesn't mean bad. For example, abolish slavery. I think we all agree that this negative rhetoric is a good thing. Take modern issues that were brought up here like gay marriage or abortion. You can say Republicans want to abolish the rights of Americans, I can say we want to stop the degeneration of society and end the killing of babies.

[SanguineSolitude]

in the wake of 911 the patriot act was viewed by some terror blinded people as the only answer. that giving away the right to privacy and liberty would protect us from the terrorists who the administration claims hate liberty... but wait doesnt that accomplish their supposed goals? the administration played the terror card very well and convinced alot of stupid people that the patriot act was good for them. then when people came to their senses it was too late.

negative rhetoric can be ok. but what is better is proposing positives in the place of them. as in grant slaves freedom, let women have the right to vote, etc. ban gay marriage, abolish abortion, censor tv, dont allow criticism of the government.. etc. that fox news spouts is not constructive stuff.

like when the government spied on U.S. citizens through phonecalls what did fox news have to say? "would you rather the government collects your phonecalls or your dead bodies." its the same scare tactics the administration uses to pass things. the republicans try to appeal to "common sense" which is simply what they tell you it is. as in obviously if you legalize same sex marriage everyone in the country would turn gay and god would smite us down.

i dont even want to argue this crap. it gets nowhere because those who the scare tactics and fake news work on are too stupid to think their way out.

lets look at a statistical poll. [url="http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poll.htm"]http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/poll.htm[/url] the article is funny because it shows how the vast majority of highly educated people are democrats. but then takes a republican slant by trying to claim that this is because the higher education system doesnt allow diversity of opinion. Creationists say the same thing about higher education "it isnt fair." and guess what so does the flat earth society. in all these cases its not because the higher education systems are anti said ideas, but because if you are a clear thinking human being who pays attention to fact and logic, the only possible conclusion is that this administration is bad for america.

[Joey32b]

I don't really want to argue little topics we could come up with either and I do agree with some of the stuff you say like about the patriot act, but I strongly diasagree with you last sentence. I consider myself a clear thinking human being who pays attention to fact and logic, and I think you can conclude that this administration is good for America. I'm not saying I agree with everything Bush does, but all I'm saying is at least consider that fact that there is another side which says taking out a horrible dictator who killed thousands of people was a good thing. This seems to be the same thing Democrats want to do in Darfur. We shouldn't say Republican=bad, Democrat= good, or vice versa, but rather realize that both sides have legitimate points. Statements that pretty much say you are an idiot if you agree with the Bush administation show a closed world view, in my oinion

[Sonthert]

That is a funny article. Maybe more republicans should become professors. I don't think its because of a lack of perspective, I think that the democratic party is rooted in intellectualism...it has been for a long time, it still lies that way now. Liberal mindset is to think about things in an academic sense...is it a surprise that the pedagogues and the liberals live hand in hand? Not to me. The republicans reflect on issues based on emotionalism, like Joey 32b put it...stopping abortion stops babies from dying. Thats an emotional response. The uglier side behind it is, its a matter of relativity. Many conservaties who support banning abortion support a clause to allow abortion in the cases of rape or incest. Why? The logic is that the trauma of having that baby would be cruel to the mother. What about a woman who was not impregnated by rape or incest? Aren't there many circumstances that having the baby come to term might be cruel to her, as well? Well give the child up for adoption you say. In my way of thinking, the adoption, foster care system and halfway house system is abominable and cruel to put a child into it in the first place. Nevertheless, it is an option...so why isn't an option for the girl who was raped/incestually violated? My view is, who cares? Its none of my business to tell a woman, who is ultimately going to be responsible for that child, should it come to term what she should and shouldn't do with her body and the fetus. I agree, its a semantics game, fetus, child, whatever. I say, OK, its a child. Its OK to kill that child, if you have a fair reason. I don't want to have people sit around and decide which excuses are OK, so grant the benefit of the doubt to the woman that she is making a decision in the best interests of everyone involved. I think the practice is barbaric, but I don't believe its the government's right to force morality or responsibility on people.

I agree with you in substance, Joey, but banning supermodels, and Citgo gas and Citgo gas signs is barely news and nowhere on the same level as abolishing slavery. I also agree that you are an intelligent, clear thinking individual.

A very basic question...why should it be in the power of the government to make laws to prevent or compel people from doing a particular thing that only affects themselves reasonably?...ie why should it be in the charter of the US government to be able to ban burning the flag, as an example? If Christian wants to pay hard earned money for a US flag and then take it out to a legally recognized fire pit, where burning is allowed and burn it, why should the US government be able to control that?

A more specific, real example. A married woman becomes pregnant from a consensual encounter with a person other than her husband. Her husband threatens to leave her if she doesn't have an abortion. She is deeply sorry for her adultery, she is apologetic and wants to do what her husband insists...why should the government be able to inject opinion and statute into their lives? What a about a married woman who is a homemaker, gets pregnant by her husband and then her husband is accidentally killed a month later? She decides she doesn't want the baby because it would remind her of him and she is trying to avoid thinking about her husband. Each day the baby's in there makes her depressed. She wants to have an abortion. She has to put up with it for eight months of sadness and depression, even though she became preganant in a perfectly acceptable way? Should the governement be able to tell her she has to carry the baby to term? What about a single woman who gets pregnant, but then gets fired and realizes she won't be able to reasonably afford the baby? The government should be able to say no?

The original question I posed...why should it be within the power of the government to make laws to prevent or compel people from doing a particular thing that only affects themselves reasonably?

[Joey32b]

The way I look at abortion is there's three options.

1. Have the baby and keep it.
2. Have the baby and give it away for adoption.
3. Abort the baby.

If you were to rank these in order from best to worst, number three is always at the bottom. I think option three is extremely selfish on the mother's part. She made a mistake and takes it out on the baby. How is having the baby and giving it away for adoption a worse option than abortion for a girl with an unwanted pregnancy?

The reason the government should have the power to make laws here is that you are talking about a human life. It's not like the government is intervening in whether or not you can buy that television, we are talking about the life or death of a person.

And if one doesn't believe that a fetus is a human life, I can respect that opinion and I understand why you don't mind abortion. The thing I hate is when someone does believe a fetus is a human, but still thinks abortion is ok.

[Sonthert]

How many children die of starvation each day? How many children die of HIV every day? How many children die of preventable communicable and waterborne disases every day? If I were to believe that they weren't human, would that make them a little easier to let die? I say no...what about you? Its neither my place nor your place, in my opinion, to tell a woman what she should or should not do with her body. That its a human, oh well, people die from worse things all the time. At least somebody took the time to abort the unwanted baby, rather than let it starve to death or dump in a trash can to freeze to death...thats what you are trading for when you abolish abortion. The problem is, with your three options, just because you and I put them in that order, you don't know that there aren't a good section of women who will rank their choices this way:

1. Milk the governement for welfare.
2. Sell the baby for drugs.
3. Leave the baby on some hospital emergency room parking lot.
4. Let the baby starve to death and if that fails...
5. Wrap the baby in a plastic trash bag and drop into local dumpster.

Women have been performing dangerous and ill-conceived abortions on each other for years. The only difference is, not only did the baby die, the mother frequently did. Abolishing legal abortions is just reinviting trouble.


The basic question, Joey,why should it be within the power of the government to make laws to prevent or compel people from doing a particular thing that only affects themselves reasonably? Abortion issues aside.

[Joey32b]

The government should be able to make laws like the ones you speak of for this reason: the advancement and longevity of the nation. If the government thinks that certain things will hurt society as a whole, it has the responsibility to get involved. Let's say that 90% of people got high everyday, do you think we would have a productive society? I know 90% is a high number, but I think my point gets across. The government would have to prevent people from smoking weed if our economy took a huge hit because of it.

This would fall into a slippery slope argument, which I don't really like making, but I think it is valid here. For example, look at gay marriage in Sweden. After gay marriage became legalized, there was a huge drop in regular marriage. It wasn't that everyone was turning gay, it was that the institution of marriage got compromised and it didn't mean as much. So less people are getting married now in Sweden. What does this mean for the long term in that country? I guess only time will tell, but some believe that the family unit is the basis for a strong society and with less people getting married, the family is broken and society will eventually fall. I have no idea if that will happen or not, but my argument is that if government sees this and thinks it will hurt the longevity of the country, it has to step in and prevent it.

[Joseph]

Family's broken? Two men or two women can raise a family as good as a man and a women, and I challange you to find any aritcals in a peer reviewed scholarly journal that say otherwise.

[Joey32b]

I actually wasn't saying that gay marriage makes a broken family, I was saying that in Sweden a lot less people are currently getting married since gay marriage became legal. When people don't get married and have kids anyway, the kids suffer from lack of living with both parents, hence the broken family.

But I'll take your argument anyway. I think two men or two women could raise a child with all the love in the world, do their very best to raise the kid, and all-in-all be great parents. That being said, the lack of both a mother and a father would hurt the child. A father brings certain things that a mother can't and a mother brings certain things that a father can't. There are limitations to what a mother can do to help a boy become a man. Yes, straight families have a high divorce rate and there are terrible parents, but why intentionally put a child into a situation where they won't get all their needs met. A mom can't be a dad and a dad can't be a mom. Girls without a dad are more likely to get pregnant in their teens and boys without a dad are more likely to end up in jail.

I personally am not against gay marriage, but I am against gay families adopting. It isn't because I don't think they would give their all in being the best parents they could be, it's because they can't give a child all they need to grow up.

[Joseph]

Better than what the foster care system can give, and I know plenty of normal, well adjusted people who are contributing to society who had one parent. Like I said, just back up what you say with peer reviewed citations. I am a student of science, and where I am from thats how things are done.

[Joey32b]

I'm not saying it can't work out for the kid with one parent or for the kid in a same-sex family, but why intentionally put them at a disadvantage to start with when there are lots of families willing to adopt?

I honestly don't care enough to do research on the subject and cite articles. I listen to a lot of radio and watch a lot of news and these are things I've heard over the years. Are you challenging the fact that kids are better off with two parents? Why do I need to cite an article for you to believe that?