Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
FOX hires some big names!

Posted by tobr24u z6 RI (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 5:16

Juan Williams from PBS, George Will from ABC, and Maria Bartiromo from CNBC are great acquisitions, especially Maria who is known as the Money Honey. I'll be watching FOX more now and surely you will be, too...


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

I like George Will's somewhat libertarian, usually reasoned analysis. Bartiromo is ok but I'm not quite sure if she has completely gelled yet.

But I don't know that I like either of them so much that I'm willing to watch FOX news to see them. :-)

Actually, I've never gone out of my way to see either. If they were on, I listened. If not, I didn't go looking for them.

I wouldn't watch folks I like if they went to MSNBC either.

I don't watch FOX because the clips I've seen are over the top, and I've only watched MSNBC to see how bad they are in comparison. Both of them are unmitigated train wrecks. Dreckage.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

I am a fan of "Special Report with Bret Baier". The news is straight and balanced. The best part of the show is the roundtable discussion with the likes of Mara Liasson (NPR) Juan Williams, Dr Ben Carson, and of course Dr Charles Krauthammer.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 8:04

Interesting, thanks. Seems as if Fox is trying to up its level of discourse a bit. One intellectual establishment old white guy and a couple of vaguely ethnic names with good reputations.

The reason Fox's business reports don't draw well, of course, is because business viewers don't want that information given the special Fox touch. If enough of Maria's audience doesn't follow her, it'll be interesting to see if her quality stays up.

I'll probably stop by for a while to see how the gentlemen perform on Fox -- but not stay if it's to wait for one of them to interject a note of erudition or intellectual honesty into the typical Fox product.

Who knows, though? Fox's special viewership is dying off, and Aisles and company may also have decided the monster they helped create needs to be tamed and brought back inside the fence. Yes, maybe a little too optimistic. :) I'm pretty sure, though, that this isn't the response the Tea Party was trying for when it boycotted Fox in an attempt to steer its "leftish" coverage of Benghazi off that cliff to the right.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Yeah, they need to live up to the standards of that leftie network MSNBC, and if someone doesn't agree with you, just call them vile names.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 9:18

I think that fox set those standards long before msnbc adopted them.

Good luck Maria Bartiromo, be careful not to morph into another Stew Varney's opinionated news hour.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Yeah, they need to live up to the standards of that leftie network MSNBC

Nonsense. They don't have live up to anything except the standards of respectable journalism, something that they have proven time and time again to not do. If they want to become a respectible source they have to do something otherwise they will just continue to be the fodder of late night comedy shows.

This has nothing to do with MSNBC, and all to do with their own lack of credibility. You can try to spin, deflect etc. but they are what they are, not what anyone else made them.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Usually when you are number one there is always someone trying to tear you down.

FOX NEWS

As previously stated, Fox News continues to be the hands-down ratings winner across the board in cable news. The network often posts better ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined and was the 7th most-watched cable channel overall during primetime in Q3. Its competitors didn’t even break the top 30, with MSNBC at #31 and CNN at #34.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

And, of course, Fox News' audience is miniscule compared to the major networks--which is what most of the rest of America is watching.

Kate


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

And we know that mrskjun rarely watches FOX news, for which reason she usually pleads ignorance about what are the sources of outrage de jour, often featured on FOX. But she is quick to uphold the network's high journalistic standard, citing viewership dominance. Even though she rarely watches FOX news. Curious.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 10:16

Yeah, Fox always falls back on the ratings is the measuring stick for reputable news excuse. Bill O'Really dances to that tune whenever he is criticized for reporting incorrect info. Calls his guests pinheads and spouts off rating numbers so therefore he is right on everything due to his viewership. When it comes to Fox, their ratings reflect it's entertainment value and not their journalistic talents. It's the same with Rushed Limbaughdomie and his ratings. Truth cannot be measured by it's popularity.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

"Ratings winner" doesn't address or reflect credibility or accuracy as we have discussed many times before when you have brought that stat up.

A poll by PPP from Februrary shows that their credibility continued(s) to decline.

PPP's annual poll on TV news finds that there's only one source more Americans trust than distrust: PBS. 52% of voters say they trust PBS to only 29% who don't trust it. The other seven outlets we polled on are all distrusted by a plurality of voters.
Just like its actual ratings, Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we've been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not. Fox has maintained most of its credibility with Republicans, dropping just from 74/15 to 70/15 over that period of time. But it's been losing what standing it had with Democrats (from 30/52 to 22/66) and independents (from 41/44 to 32/56).

and their findings:

Fox News’ credibility declines


Raleigh, N.C. ��" PPP's annual poll on TV news finds that there's only one source more Americans trust than distrust: PBS. 52% of voters say they trust PBS to only 29% who don't trust it. The other seven outlets we polled on are all distrusted by a plurality of voters.
Just like its actual ratings, Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we've been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not.

We find once again this year that Democrats trust everything except Fox, and Republicans don't trust anything other than Fox. Democrats put the most faith in PBS (+61 at 72/11), followed by NBC (+45 at 61/16), MSNBC (+39 at 58/19), CBS (+38 at 54/16), CNN (+36 at 57/21), ABC (+35 at 51/16), and Comedy Central (+10 at 38/28). Out of the non-Fox channels Republicans have the most faith in PBS at -21 (27/48), followed by NBC (-48 at 18/66), CNN (-49 at 17/66), ABC (-56 at 14/70), MSNBC (-56 at 12/68), CBS (-57 at 15/72), and Comedy Central (-58 at 8/66).

“We continue to find that Democrats trust most tv news sources other than Fox, while Republicans don’t trust anything except Fox,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “News preferences are very polarizing along party lines.”
When it comes to asking Americans which single outlet they trust the most and least out of the ones we polled on, Fox News once again wins both honors. 34% say it's the one they trust the most, compared to 13% for PBS, 12% for CNN, 11% for ABC, 8% for MSNBC, 6% for CBS, and 5% each for Comedy Central and NBC.

Even more Americans identify Fox News as the outlet they trust the least- 39% give its that designation to 14% for MSNBC, 13% for CNN, 12% for Comedy Central, 5% for ABC and CBS, 3% for NBC, and 1% for PBS.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

In 2012, some 4.7 million people who previously had cable/satellite discontinued their subscriptions, and some 30 million Americans, myself included, don't even get cable.

Compared to the 2.5 million - over the age of two - who watch FOX primetime news.

as for network news:

Numbers for the week of November 11, 2013:

NBC - 9,345,000
ABC - 8,243,000
CBS - 7,117,000

But then those stations don't have some dedicated band of fanatical groupies who faithfully post all over the internet what Brian Williams said.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 10:28

Fox rating are slipping? oh-oh, management may soon require an even more revealing new dress code for their lady pundits.....for more fair & balanced reporting of course.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

And the rest of the story.

When it comes to news outlets that Americans “trust the most” for news, FNC still beats all of its competitors. 34 percent say they trust Fox News more than any other source. 13 percent of respondents said that PBS is the network they trust most. CNN received the support of 12 percent of survey respondents, ABC received 11 percent, and MSNBC received 8 percent. 6 percent said they trusted CBS News the most, while NBC News and Comedy Central tied for last place with just 5 percent of respondents saying they trust those networks more than any other.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

You left out this bit from your quote:
The network [FOX] also has the dubious distinction of being America’s least trusted source for news.

Just the usual cherry picking.

also from your link...

FNC also ranks at the top of the charts for news organizations Americans trust the least. 39 percent of respondents say that FNC is the network they trust least compared to 14 percent of Americans who said the same of MSNBC. 13 percent said CNN is the least trusted name in news, and 12 percent said that of Comedy Central.

This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 10:48


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

You left out this bit from your quote:

The network [FOX] also has the dubious distinction of being America’s least trusted source for news. …. more Americans said they do not trust the news broadcast by Fox News Channel than say they do: with 46 percent saying they do not trust FNC’s product compared to 41 percent who said they do

And given that only 2.5 million people watch FOX to begin with, compared to the 24.7 million who watch network news, these percentages should, perhaps, be translated into actual numbers.

So 41% of 2.5 million who actually watch = 1 million people.

This post was edited by david52 on Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 10:51


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Mrskjun, you failed to quote this paragraph:

"For the first time since PPP has been conducting their news poll, more Americans said they do not trust the news broadcast by Fox News Channel than say they do: with 46 percent saying they do not trust FNC’s product compared to 41 percent who said they do. This ranks far behind the partially publicly-funded PBS, for example. 52 percent of respondents said they trust the news PBS broadcasts compared to 29 percent who said they do not trust it."

Cherry picking, as usual. Of course, choosing a poll from Feb. is just a coincidence while David's poll of this month shows his partisanship.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

It's all a big game of gothca -- even if it means cherry picking quotes so that the opposite of the findings is what is presented on HT.

The first casualty of "gothcha" is integrity; no filters or reflection on what can be used to trump perceived adversaries.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Marshall, I am the one that used the poll from Feb because it was the one I rememebered so that is not Mrsk but it showed then that their credibility was continuing to decline. I haven't had time to see if there was one more current from them.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

epi showed one side and I showed the other...get the conservative...pitchforks anyone? LOL


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

get the conservative...pitchforks anyone

No pitchforks Mrsk, just all the facts/information would be a nice change of pace instead of cherrypicking to suit your needs. Your "poor me", "always maligned" conservatives comments on here has grown old.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Epi, mrskjun linked to the poll in question. You may have originally posted it but I hadn't seen yours and only referenced her link and quotation.

Mrskjun, this is not "get the conservative" but pulling out the facts as collated by various pollsters as to the "truthfullness-in-media" ranking. Ignoring the bad news is "protect conservatives at all cost."


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

For someone who says she doesn't watch Faux, MrsK surely loves to defend them. They could bring Jesus Christ over as an anchor, and I wouldn't watch them. I see by the closed captioned scroll as I watch the latest NEWS on CNN that Fox is just always playing their latest "scandal"..Benghazi, ACA, etc

My favorite poll is the one where Fox watchers are less informed than people who watch nothing. That about says it. I might not know where Fox is on the remote, but I don't have to because Kjun and demi and the rest will spew the latest talking points everyday.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Understood Marshall, I just wanted to be clear.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Epi, I try to be fair and not attribute to other posters what others might have written or posted, unless I am fairly positive!


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Somehow I never thought of George Will as a Libertarian!


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Posted by lily316 z5PA (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 12:02

My favorite poll is the one where Fox watchers are less informed than people who watch nothing. That about says it. I might not know where Fox is on the remote, but I don't have to because Kjun and demi and the rest will spew the latest talking points everyday.

*

I seldom watch any televised news for well over a year now, so if I am "spewing" it's spewing MY OWN OPINIONS, which I have never done with the vitriol that you do about just everything not Lily Approved.

If Fox happens to agree with me, then that confirms others thin like I do on some issues.

But get this straight Lily--I don't "spew" anything from other sources, I have my own thoughts and opinions.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Has Fox given it's lead story about one of their own being their version of Rob Ford? Since I never watch Fox, inquiring minds want to know. We're talking about crack loving alcoholic Radel from Florida.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Posted by lily316 z5PA (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 12:02

My favorite poll is the one where Fox watchers are less informed than people who watch nothing. That about says it. I might not know where Fox is on the remote, but I don't have to because Kjun and demi and the rest will spew the latest talking points everyday.

*

I seldom watch any televised news for well over a year now, so if I am "spewing" it's spewing MY OWN OPINIONS, which I have never done with the vitriol that you do about just everything not Lily Approved.

If Fox happens to agree with me, then that confirms others think like I do on some issues.

But get this straight Lily--I don't "spew" anything from other sources, I have my own thoughts and opinions.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 13:12


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Well lily, the fact that you don't watch FOX, though you continuously tell us what you saw there, would be reason enough for me to watch it. I don't know what you do watch, but it sure makes you cranky!

Oh, and yes, FOX has been covering Radel for the past couple of days. You think they should string up Radel for admitting to using drugs? Seems to me that Obama admitted doing the same...you have any names for him?


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

I think Obama was 16 and not an elected congressman who wants to have welfare people tested for drugs. Oh, the hypocrisy. I get ALL my Fox news from the Righties on HT.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Did they bring up that Radel voted to drug-test welfare recipients in FL?

Then gets to DC, boozin' it up and snortin' coke off a hooker's …….. - all on the tax payers' dime?


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

I have no reservations at all saying I do watch Fox.
Not 100% of the time.
Mostly Brian Williams on NBC and Fox.

I do find Fox credible on most issues but I do keep an open mind
and do take in to account they tend to lean right (nothing wrong with that).
Most others tend to lean left and OMIT lots of issues OR
just briefly make mention of anything which would look very bad
and damaging to this administration.
I also keep on open mind with that and keep delving until
I decide which is fact or fiction.
Ultimately this is what most of us do isn't it or we wouldn't be on
opposite sides of the aisle.

I never expected anyone on the left to like Fox.
You don't have to but why and try to make others look bad or dumb
because they are watching something you don't like because the content might go against your views.

I can't stand that girl with the cropped off dark hair on either MSNBC or CNN Rachel? but she is so far to the left and her voice sounds so angry but alot of you like her and watch her.
That doesn't mean you aren't credible or that she isn't credible with what you conclude.
You just conclude different from some others.
I think its a very ugly motive to try to make anyone who does
watch Fox look dumb or uninformed.
Uninformed by a lefty's standards.

This rebuttal wore me out.......now I have to go rest.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

IMO it isn’t a matter of “like” or “dislike”. If Fox would report accurately I would watch them but they don’t. They lost their credibility long ago.

I prefer to base my opinions on sources that report stories honestly and accurately and Fox has shown time and again to not only slant their opinion but report fallacies as facts and not have the integrity to correct their misinformation. That is not journalism I can trust.

I shouldn't go to a news site and find fictional accounts of current events.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

You may not like lily's tone and attack mode, but she is right--there was a prominent poll not too long ago that found out that Fox viewers know LESS about current events than people who DO NOT WATCH TV.

I don't remember now where that poll was listed, but it got quite a bit of attention at the time it was published and the source is considered credible.

Kate


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Was it the Farleigh Dickenson poll in 2011 - where Fox viewers came up wanting on current events in the Middle East? Maybe the University of Maryland study (2010) that found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information about politics.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

I remember that poll. Fox was the worst, but MSNBC was not all that much better. I'd started watching more TV during a period when my attention span was under hormonal attack, but I cut back my viewing sharply after that little insight and upped my written news quotient once again.

Interesting (no attack on anyone here) is that new Pew Research poll that shows many more people than one would guess are watching both Fox and MSNBC, also CNN.

'In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time.'

Personally, I am drawn by Fox's edge and energy. Malice and carefully tempered aggression contribute much, of course, but...there it is. Genuinely fair and balanced gets you all the energy and white thighs of PBS, which we watch most nights anyway. But not for entertainment.

Here is a link that might be useful: Pew Research


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

It is all "infotainment". Turn off the TV and read various sources. It's good for you.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Oh, MrsK is on a roll today of posting half truths. Thank you epi, David and Marshall (and anyone else I might have left out) for filling in the missing pieces. Of course if you do that you are attacking conservatives according to MrsK. To the rest of us you are posting the facts.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

"Somehow I never thought of George Will as a Libertarian!"

:-)

It's kind of difficult to explain. I know he's a conservative, but on some issues - usually smaller ones - he has a libertarian perspective. But I wouldn't consider him a Libertarian (capital 'L').

I don't necessarily listen to him all of the time,so I'm no expert, but on the occasions I've heard him, he has made some cogent arguments. Not always, but sometimes. :-)


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

jill is it just facts...or the opinion of a survey that was skewered to serve an agenda.
I have to laugh sometime at the naive reasoning some think as fact because a group (?) got together and worked up a search and gather project.

If a group from say........Oral Roberts Univ ........did a project on liberals and came up with the "facts" that
liberals tend to be more mean-spirited than other people......would you take that as just facts?

Of, course thats untrue.......and silly even ......same as alot of other "facts" put out as written in stone.

Don't believe everything you read or hear or even see.
Lots of agenda's out there.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

CW..that cropped off dark haired girl is Rachel Maddow, a graduate of Oxford university and other colleges. She is a brilliant woman who happens to be a lesbian. I'll match her intellect any day with ANY of the shrill blonde bimbo's on Fox.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

"...white thighs of PBS..."

?????


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

I would match the degrees of those "bimbos" on FOX with Rachel Maddow any day.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

any Rhodes Scholars among them? Them bimbos?


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Brenda Buttner...She graduated from Harvard University with honors with a bachelor's degree in social studies. Buttner went on to be a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University , where she graduated with high honors and a bachelor's degree in politics and economics.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Many of you should be thankful for FOX news. Without it, you'd have nothing to post.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

I am embarrassed to admit that I don't recognize one of those names listed on the mommie dearest link. With all those credentials and education, those women ought to be running the company, not glossing our tv screens.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Spend one day watching FOX marshall and you will meet every one of them.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Oh GOD! can't I just take your golden word for their genius as well as pulchritude?

Short of some disaster or emerging war, I never sit for any length of time before the tube.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

jill is it just facts

Seems as though you missed my point.

MrsK picked a few quotes from her link and posted those which gave a false impression. When david, epi, etc posted the rest of the info from the link, it told a different story.

It doesn't even matter what the subject is. It's an often repeated tactic of MrsK. It does nothing but make her appear to lack integrity (to put it nicely).


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

jill, as you so often say...do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

epi posted one side of the story. Read my first sentence. The other side of the story. And then I linked to the entire article. If you see that little word "link", all you have to do is click on it and read the story in it's entirety.

omg...I can't believe I'm even answering one of your snarky posts.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 10:38

Uhuh.

Sable, I was attempting a joke. PBS tries to offer truthful, thoughtful discussion that's simply not compatible with Fox's predatory energy and display of long white thighs. Really, a dull, dumpy little offering of world events in comparison. :)


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

It doesn't read that way at all, mrsK. It sounds like cherry-picking to assert the validity of your viewpoint. Cherry-picking means, of course, that you are OMITTING the details that would change the viewpoint you seem to be transmitting.

If your point included BOTH sides of the issue, why didn't you just say so? Then there would have been no misunderstanding of what you were saying. When you leave out half of the story, you CHANGE the story. That is what people are objecting to.

Ironic--we finally convince you to link to source material, and now you misuse that technique to "hide" your full point behind the misleading partial point presented out in the open on the forum page.

How strange--you have so much trouble trying to figure out what documentation is for.

Kate


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

bwahahahaha...you are late Kate!


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

mrskj.........laughing and enjoying it!
You are one heck of a determined woman mrsk!
Anytime you post ......I sit back and wait.....lol and usually not for long.
If I didn't know better I would think they are all one and the same.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

In political circles, folks like mrskjun, demi and nika would be called political operatives, less famous perhaps than Lee Atwater or Drudge or the Rove that GWBush brought from Texas. Our operatives proclaim no Party affiliation so behave more like trolls of internet circles.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Marshallz, I hardly thought I knew ye. ;(


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

marshall...not my nephew speaking, or an alien, just me. I am a registered Republican and have said so many times. There are things with my party that I don't agree with, but less than the things I disagree with on the Democrats side. We have been here for years, so I think that slaps down the troll theory. As for being an operative, wouldn't I love that...at least if it were a paid position lol. I also thought you were a Libertarian, but you have also proved that to be wrong.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

"If I didn't know better I would think they are all one and the same."

How do you know better? I've had a couple of sets of pairs pegged as one in the same for quite a spell. The very same posters who complain about a former poster reincarnating with a new name may themselves be posting with separate IP addresses as multiple posters.

If that's true, it doesn't really matter; and it's an interesting thought to consider.

I wondered about the "long white thighs" remark, too. What about the "long brown thighs?" They're just as nice. Or is this sour grapes from stumpy-legged women?


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 18:53

Well, Faux News has a leg cam. Do these new people have great legs?

It's funny how quickly some topics get a response from a like minded member, especially conservative posts. I've wondered sometimes if they email each other, but now I'm wondering if they are all the same person.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

bwahahahaha...you are late Kate!

And another highly intelligent post by MrsK. It's what she does instead of addressing the valid criticism.

Good observation, Marshall.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

That's probably me....my nephew, an alien, and all the other conservatives on the forum. I'm a great multitasker you know.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Well, mrskjun, I despise fascism as much as I do communism, both of which have been well discredited. State Capitalism such as practiced in the US is the enemy of libertarians everywhere, at least of the non-autocratic types. I believe in small capitalism as in truly free markets and free people, none of which we have much of these days. I am not a fascistic Ayn Randian kinds of liberterian, more like the British liberals of yore.

The choice between living free but in ill health and dying younger and giving up more freedom in exchange for more health and wellness security is a terrible choice. Our system ought not be structured on those terms.

We can play word games all day but that will not change our situation of lacking any meaningful way of changing the system because both major political Parties are deeply wedded to the current system. Neither Party controls the options. We are all responding to programmed talkingpoints.

We will not have a single payer system because our political system will not be allowed to interfere with profit streams sucking wages, income and other assets and taxes from people and governments into the accounts of major economic and financial interests that control what happens here.

I have never supported the President or the AHCA process in large part because these have been put before us to becloud the continued stripping of wealth from the governments and people which protecting those that have gained so much through fraud and other financial games. Isn't it odd to you that stock markets have soared even while much of the rest of the country and the world continue in the doldrums?

Enough of this. I'm tired of thinking on these subjects.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

" Isn't it odd to you that stock markets have soared even while much of the rest of the country and the world continue in the doldrums?"

I've had a little trouble reconciling the fact that some of the same posters I see dissing Wall Street and lamenting the ill-gotten gains of corporate America and the "fat cats" brag about their stock market gains.

It IS tiring.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Isn't it odd to you that stock markets have soared even while much of the rest of the country and the world continue in the doldrums?

Odd, no, all that money they are printing has to go somewhere...sure isn't going into the economy. What is going to happen when the interest rates start to rise? We are paying a little over 2% on the national debt right now...what happens when we have to pay say 5 or 6%. Not only does the stock market take a dive, but America, you are screwed.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

do you know better? I've had a couple of sets of pairs pegged as one in the same for quite a spell. The very same posters who complain about a former poster reincarnating with a new name may themselves be posting with separate IP addresses as multiple posters.

Just more of Elvis' truthiness.

Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.


 o
RE: FOX hires some big names!

Perhaps we need some winnowing out of what we are talking about here. Because we are a mentally lazy people we do not make a distinction between 'opinion' shows and 'news' shows. News is supposed to be a simple reporting of what is happening-hard to do of course. If you pick and chose what you report you can still skew. Most of the shows we conflate with news are in fact 'opinion' shows. The person who presents the show has an opinion and they collect 'facts' that defend that point of view. That is why Fox and MSNBC are so confusing to people. Most of what you see is in fact not fact but opinion. Fox out right lies about what they are about but you dont have to be particularly observant to see it. They are perfectly credible when they are reporting on some event that is happening like the Boston Bombing but not when they start discussing what has happened. MSNBC is similar. I would watch both in that event because they have different feeds and sources. None of our 'news' has much credibility in world news because no one will spend the money to gather it because Americans don't care what is happening in the rest of the world if it doesn't impact us right this very second or why else when an airplane crashes they tell you how many Americans were on board. There is a question for us-why is an airplane crash always 'news' when a war in Africa isn't?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here