Should Fox news, and Conservopedia ...

[spidergoat]

They have been taken to court on the subject of wether they can be allowed to lie, and they can. As much as I hate Fox, they should be free to present themselves however they wish. An internet site should have no regulations apart from preventing illegal things. Consumer beware.

 

[oiram]

FOX News shouldn't be allowed to even call itself "news" in my opinion.
I don't think ANY for-profit media companies should be allowed to call themselves "news".
When news is for profit there is an inherent conflict of interest.
All news organizations should be not for profit and executive salaries should be regulated.

‘Fair and Balance’ My ass! Fox News is anything but this, they a have their agenda and they spread it like a secret conservative society out to singlehandedly change the world. If you listen to Shepard Smith he is their news commentator and he does the news, but the other shows are nothing but talk shows with slanted and bias views.

Bill O’Reilly has said many times (during his arguments with guests) if you listen to him that his show and those shows like his that he is not a news commentator but rather a perspective commentator or some other bull crap like that.

Ask Bill O’Reilly his Salary and he will not say, he is a coward hypocrite!
O’Reilly avoids this question at any length and does so by claiming privacy and other standards that excuse him from responding to such a direct question, O’Reilly is a hypocrite here as he claims when providing the salaries of oil executives and other executives that this is acceptable because those oil executives are making their money by a product that is a cornerstone of the economy and that being in such a position oil executives answer to the people, this I can say is the same for O’Reilly as information and news are also a huge cornerstone of life and the economy and O’Reilly providing his bloviated opinion and pushing his agendas should require him to disclose his salary, the reason he won’t is the popularity of such a number one cable news program might fall if viewers knew just how much he was sponging off them to be number one and how much he is getting paid to spin his biased and conservative agenda and information.

O’Reilly might be so mad at me for this commentary that he will probably try sending a camera man and reporter to intimidate me with questions in an attempt to embarrass me on his program like he does so many others who don’t conform to his so called fair and balanced perspective like the bully Fox news has become. Ever see how they go after Judges for doing their job when Fox News or Bill O’Reilly don’t like a sentence or how they are doing their job, It’s total intimidation and nothing fair or balanced, they say ‘We report, you decide’ I have decided after being able to see through their agenda and their bullshit that I no longer watch their programs.

The person on Fox News I dislike more than anyone else is Sean Hannity, I simply just turn the channel whenever he is on as he is the most pompous self righteous bigot I have ever seen on any TV program in my entire life. There is nothing else to say and I have nothing nice to say about him or his tactics.

Do you want to buy a book, Fox sells more than Amazon?

Every employee and guest and Fox contributor on Fox News has a book out and Fox News is always pushing and promoting their books as they make money off them as the publisher. This is such a sad sight and one I think most people have either just overlooked or become complacent by, too me it erodes the respect and dignity of it being a true news outlet and respectable News corporation. CNN might be a little to international or slow but they have dignity and respect.

Bill O’Reilly on Prostitution

On July 23, 2008 Bill O’Reilly hosted a guest who was a former prostitute and Bill was arguing and very adamant that legalizing prostitution would not work and that it was simply a waste of time and effort. O’Reilly explained that people strung out on drugs and 14 year olds who were prostitutes wouldn’t come forward to legally register or get a health card as they already know they wouldn’t qualify as so they would simply continue to turn tricks without being registered and having the medical tests required to become a legal prostitute. It won’t work it’s a waste of tax payer’s dollars etc. etc..
The debate of legalizing prostitution is for another thread I just brought this story up as an example of how Bill O’Reilly uses his pulpit for his agenda.
After all prostitution is illegal but it doesn’t seem to stop it or the people who use it like self righteous people like Elliot Spitzer.

In my life I have seen so many self righteous people fall from grace the most recent mentioned aboved Elliot Spitzer, but I can reach all the way back to the 80’s and remember Rev. Jim Baker, Rev Jerry Fawell, Jimmy Swagger, President Clinton, too many senators and congressmen to count, and all of them were all typical self righteous do-gooders, it would not surprise me to one day hear of such with Senior members of fox news. I laughed at this link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/dsmithmug1.html

Bill O’Reilly on a mission with sex offenders

One other area I completely disagree with most people including Mr. O’Reilly is these sex offender laws such as Megan’s and Jessica’s law, they are just out of control and unrealistic and that too is for another thread but I bring this up as if O’Reilly applied the same negative outlook to this situation on the sex offender registration as he did to legalizing prostitution where his argument was why do it as there will still be those who participate in prostitution who are junkies and minors so why go through all of the trouble to legalize prostitution when it won’t work with heal cards and registering prostitutes. The same argument can be made about sex offender registries, why have them as they only give people a false sense of security and although they might help prevent some bad from happening it will not stop people from doing things. How can a registry prevent someone who has never been convicted of a crime or an illegal immigrant (who might be sex offender in another country) from committing a sex crime, and the registry won’t prevent this at all, so it could be argued it is a waste of all those tax dollars, but time will show this to be true.

Fox uses intimidation and scare tactics sending camera crews after judges they feel are too light on sentencing and Bill O pushes for people to either join his crusade or be dammed for not. I invite everyone to ask where Bill O’Reilly and this entire sex offender crusade are in 20 years. Reminds me of Dallas Texas DA Henry Wade debacle that is unfolding, with his convictions of innocent people and hidden evidence and lies. So too will Fox news be remembered for their part in the Bush white house and the fact they are not trustworthy news.

These two issues I brought up only to show how Bill O’Reilly’s agenda is based on conservative beliefs where they condemn prostitution and want to lynch all sex offenders, and at the same time not legalize prostitution and turn a blind eye to its reality but offer no real solution or help to those people.

 

[Norsefire]

That's specific.

It's nonsense

No one denies this, not liberals, not anyone whom I've ever heard. The question is usually "Can [gays/jews/punk kids/reverse vampires/multinational corporations/etc.] engage in activity X?" The response "they can do it if they want to" is the liberal response under (generally) special circumstances, namely:

exactly so liberals have no sense of morality and don't care about anything. They don't care if society has structure, as long as "you can do it if you want to"; this isn't a playground, it's society.

The conservative position really varies in the identity of the values in clause (2). For example, if the question were "Can gays marry?" Liberals might say that their marrying doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't hurt the environment and doesn't otherwise trample any ideals they hold dear, so yes, gays may marry. Conservatives may or may not agree about the harm, but many definitely feel that it intereferes or sullies a value they hold dear.

That's the problem with liberals; they don't know right from wrong!

While there are certainly anarchists, not all liberals are. also, I think you do not understand anarchism. Anarchists tend to think that a world without governments will be a world where people volunteer to help one another and everyone lives in peace. You think an anarchic world would be one of selfishness and strife. I happen to believe you are right, but no one has rock solid proof one way or the other...we only can say that "in societies" people are very selfish. Many people, in a line of though many trace to Jean Jacques Rousseau, think that man "in a state of nature" would be more noble than man under the pernicious influence of society. The noble savage would not have a concept of property, so would, for example, be more willing to give and share with others. He would not know war, because war is by its very nature a societal affair (and since he'd be living in near other nobly savage carebears, giving and sharing because they have no "property", he'd have no need to attack them to take things he needed).

Well, guess what? With anarchy, the toughest can do as they please.

Taxes are thievery? What happened to "Society has structure and order. If you want to be a part of it, you need to abide by them"?? Again, you only believe that when you agree with the rules, for the rules you disagree with, like perhaps maintaining a system of welfare for the poor, somehow those are alien to our "structure and order" and aren't things *you* need to abide. You, like a liberal, pick and choose what is part of the "Order" and what can be disregarded as outside of it. This is old clause (2) from the above. the things you think important are sacrosanct, the things you thing unimportant or dislike are anomalies that may be (or in some cases "should" be purged).

It's thievery when they take all of your hard earned money and give it to nonsensical social programs that never work.

Liberals, on paper, do have more things they feel that the federal government "needs" to do, but both liberals and conservatives are ultimately making a cost-benefit analysis rather than a pure needs analysis. (I say "on paper" because of the habit of conservatives to increase the size of the government's budget, just as it is with liberals.)

What people think of as things the government "needs" to do is usually based on

However liberals don't care about right or wrong

 

[Tiassa]

You are correct: it is nonsense

It's nonsense

Well ... right. Kind of like your gay rape fantasy. I'd ask where you come up with these things, but they're not especially unique. Nonsense, indeed.

 

[joepistole]

be allowed to keep their slogans ?

If I were an internet newbie, and I found conservapedia, not knowing what it meant, and was misinformed ? Is it permissable ?

And what about Fox News ? Fair and balanced, my ass. Be as conservative as you want, I don't give a fuck, but stop pretending and lying that you are an objective news source.

Seriously.
These two entities should either stop lying or shut the fuck up.

These exclusive so called news sources come from the need to avoid truths not consistent with beliefs and desires. This is truely the most disturbing of modern trends...reminds me of facists and communists. Instead of hearing an unbiased truth and all the facts, conservatives today just discount inconvenient truths by tagging them liberal and only want to hear news consistent with their belief system.

No I am neither liberal or a so called conservative. I used to be a Republican and still think my beliefs are Republican. I believe in free and open markets, states rights and limited government. However, when free markets are obstructed the only recourse is socialization....not an optimal choice. But one that may become necessary when the current system becomes too corrupt. And it is heading that way full steam ahead...in no small part because the Republicans like to avoid these nagging inconvenient truths.

 

[Cazzo]

FOX News shouldn't be allowed to even call itself "news" in my opinion.

Along finally comes a news media organization that finally gives BOTH points of view on stories, rather than just a left-wing slant, and sure enough, some radical leftists would like it shut down. If Fox "lied" about it's stories, they'd suffer the same or worse fate than what Dan Rather suffered. Of course, some leftists deliberately mix up Fox news with Fox commentary (which is opinions, not factual news) and then say Fox "lies" about it's news (which is really commentary).

I think what pisses radical leftists the most about Fox News is how it exposes some of the problems leftists (as well as right-wingers) have around the world, as well as some of their deceptions. Not to mention, Fox doesn't fear being non-politically correct.

 

[spidergoat]

Their balance is so fake, everyone knows it, but there's no reason to limit their freedom of speech.

 

[Challenger78]

Their balance is so fake, everyone knows it, but there's no reason to limit their freedom of speech.

Are you sure ? what if you've never watched tv ?

Is it ethical for them to get away with this consumer fraud ?
What I'm saying is, it's fine for them to have conservative views, but to blatantly lie about it is wrong.

 

[one_raven]

Along finally comes a news media organization that finally gives BOTH points of view on stories, rather than just a left-wing slant, and sure enough, some radical leftists would like it shut down. If Fox "lied" about it's stories, they'd suffer the same or worse fate than what Dan Rather suffered. Of course, some leftists deliberately mix up Fox news with Fox commentary (which is opinions, not factual news) and then say Fox "lies" about it's news (which is really commentary).

I think what pisses radical leftists the most about Fox News is how it exposes some of the problems leftists (as well as right-wingers) have around the world, as well as some of their deceptions. Not to mention, Fox doesn't fear being non-politically correct.

Not only am I not even close to far left, but Fox news has not only admitted to lying, they fired a reporter for refusing to do a false story and defended their actions in court claiming they have no responsibility to be truthful to the public.
Furthermore, this was not the firt time they used this defense in court.

Rather than making an ass of yourself by making assumptions about who I am and claiming bullshit, perhaps you should do some research and check your facts.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66650