they have been interviewing brits about the NHS.....not one interview has a good thing to say about them.
but millions of brits love the NHS(why hasn't it been repealed if it is so bad-politicians do not dare touch it for fear of revolution-the people must like it)....foxnews can't find one person who likes the NHS.....why is that?
you ers are losers(lemmings) and you know it.
...at least Micheal Moore outed Hilary for taking money from the pharmaceutical companies.
Well, here's liberal NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman asking if some Candadians are happy with their system:
I am concerned about the GOVERNMENT - its size, rate of growth, and virtually limitless power - and what they are doing/want to do to me.
You about Fox News.
Reevaluate, please, who the loser is.
So Micheal Moore is your moral compass.Micheal Moore also had investments in both Haliburton and pharmacutecal companies.He was outed in a book called "Do as I say".Britain also has taken guns away from it's people and they've staged massive demonstrations to recapture their rights to keep and bear arms, as it was revealed after guns were taken away violent crime skyrocketed in Britian.
The energy it takes to recapture your rights after they been stripped is termendous, goverments don't like to relinquish power. That is why so many people don't want the state to take over health care.... they fear, and distrust the state.
The interviews are to reveal the other side of state run health care, which the george soros brach of the DNC is ramming down our throats, using all the tools of the state legal and illegal to do it with.So now dissent and discourse are being stifeled....who's the real lemming.
you are
why even turn on cnn?
why do people even listen to Foxnews??????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????
good question
Why do people listen to CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC?
Actually, I don't listen, or watch TV at all. If your upset at FOX, why ain't you upset at MSNBC or ABC? I would be surprised if anyone thought they were "better." Unless they've changed an awful lot since the 80's, they were terrible, slanted, and biased. If FOX is bias in the other direction...good on them. Still ain't gonna waste any brain cells watching any of 'em.
Ah ..I see you'vre risen to the very zenith of your ablities george.
The people watching Faux want validation not information.
On what do you base that observation?
Do people about FOX News so much because it kicks other news channels' asses? More people watch crazy Bill O'Reilly than epic fail anchorwoman Katie Couric.
O'Reilly Factor get's about 3.1 million viewers.
Katie Couric's failing news program gets around 5.1 million viewers.
O'Reilly is a blow hard.
O'Reilly may not always beat Katie Couric in ratings but he has before and will continue to do so because she sucks. O'Reilly is entertaining. She's not.
Though this also holds true for most of those who watch MSNBC, read the NYTimes, listen to talk radio, etc. Fox is not alone.
The fact that most news sources are like that? Fox is just the worst, most obvious of them, but by no means alone.
Do you always compare apples to oranges?
Couric is in third place between ABC, CBS, and NBC... I mean last place. Fewer people have access to cable news. On top of that, she is in a timeslot before prime-time and O'Reilly is during prime time when people watch programs other than the news.
I don't care for him much, but O'Reilly has been the top ratings performer on cable news for 104 consecutive months. How can you begin to compare Couric?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-22-2009 at 11:26 AM.
Have you ever watched MSNBC? Probably not or you would not make that statement. If you think for one second that any network is more bias than MSNBC you are ing nuts. Seriously you are ing NUTS if you think they always report facts or will give a republican a chance to speak. What a bunch of stupid snobs they have over there. Those folks are tools. It's a republican 24 hour bash.
Greta and O'Reilly are good and most cases fair. Hannity can be but he goes off on dems to much. I wish they kept Colmes with Hannity. Much much better show with him on board. Beck is a head case. Geraldo seems to pick the dems over repubs more often. The former Gov that has his own show on Fox now still dreams he can be President so he is playing politician singing and dancing with his guest. Overall Fox gets a B in my book.
Those folks are tools.
They're all tools for their intended audiences.
So, where do you find the information around which you base your positions on current events?
If you notice, I mentioned Couric's program was failing. It's not a secret.
My point is that every day Bill O talks about his great ratings on the air. Acting as if he's spearheading a revolution in cable news. This is an old trick he learned from Howard Stern.
Meanwhile out of a potential 94 million viewers, O'Reilly pulls in about 2.5 to 3 million viewers.
If you mean by "information" ...which "stories" I choose to believe based on Liberal or Conservative radio/tv/internet broadcasts...I don't.
I view these outlets for what they are...a way to either recruit new followers or appease their targeted audiences. They would not be in existance if they were to report in a way that did not appease who they are targeting.
And it's not about reporting news anymore. It's about obtaining and retaining viewership and using a "news" incident to incite and recite their employer's agenda.
Most of what I base my positions regarding current events is from learning and retaining from past events. It's all the same. It's a recirculatory chain of events that happens over the course of time. One event leads to another. "For every action...there is an opposite and equal reaction"
For instance...If one thinks our economy suffers because of a Democrat or Republican in office...they are sadly mistaken and unaware of the recirculatory events that happens every time during an election year when the current president cannot run for office due to term restrictions.
The economy suffered at the end of Nixon's term....again with Reagan...again with Clinton...and yet again with Bush. These recirculatory events are not caused by any political affiliiated policy but because of an unknown of which party will be in office. This country is run by business and cartels. (Demacrats...you're living in denial if you think Republicans are the only ones catering to big business)
These businesses and cartels freeze their assests from circulation during this period. The affect by this freeze is devastating to the general public and takes approximately 2 years to recoup but usually in a way where the economy again flourishes. These freezes are just smart business practices until they can see who will be in political power so they can in turn objectively and profitably recirculate their assets back into the economy.
That's why it's so hard in modern times to unseat a first term president...businesses regardless of political alliance will choose capital gains over political affiliation in order to continue making a profit. But when it comes to having to deal with a totally new administration...they'll freeze up until it is known who is deemed the next leader of the free world.
Last edited by SpurNation; 08-22-2009 at 02:30 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
