The War On Fox News - God Damn Usa!

[SmilezRoyale]

Although this isn't really 'recent' news, i can't help but talk about it since it had been on my mind for so long.

Note that I'm not stating what i am about to say as a fact, nor am I implying that the people in question are intending or capable of doing this, I am simply stating an opinion)

I actually think it would be a great thing for libertarians (maybe not conservatives or republicans, but for libertarians) if Fox news was in fact censored and shut down by the federal government.

Why?

Well a few reasons.

1) You didn't see George Bush or Dick Cheney censoring the 9/11 truthers, or the Info-warriors or other fringe groups, naturally because much of what they said was seen as un-true and dishonest. Even most Anarchists i know reject the notion that the government was so intelligent that it could intentionally destroy it's own buildings without people realizing it. All it took was a trip to the popular mechanics website to disprove the conspiracy theories.

That our fearless leader Barrack Obama would censor a news station because they are CLEARLY in opposition to him (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, i have ZERO expectations for any major news outlet, period, i EXPECT them all to be shit, so that Fox news is incredibly biased is not really something that phases me) would send a message to Other Americans that the White House has no honest or intellectual defense against the charges made by Fox News and, in particular, the Glenn Beckers. If all a person can do as a counter argument, is punch someone else in the face, it's proof that person is an empty suit, and it bolsters the legitimacy of the person who got punched in the face.

If nothing else, it will get conservatives even more angry. Currently i get the impression that conservatives, especially those that like Glenn Beck, regard our fearless leader and his underlings as criminal, but they still cling to this platonic conception of a good government. Barrack Obama may be a criminal, but it's still a sin to insult the State as a whole.

2) It will stop the Republican Party from coopting the anti government movement.

If the Republicans take office in 2010 or in 2012 we can kiss the anti-government protests good bye. And business (i.e. the agrandizement of state power) as usual in Washington will resume. Talk Radio has proven itself entirely too partisan to defend liberty when THEIR boys are in power. If someone like Mitt Romney became president in 2012, (And at this rate i see that as a strong possibility) Assuming that the government hasn't collapsed Wiemar republic style (And at this rate i also see that as a strong possibility), just as the spending that goerge Bush indulged in made presidents before him look fiscally conservative, and just as the spending that obama indulged in made george bush look fiscally conservative, i venture to say that a republican congress or a republican president will likely continue along a similar path. Resume foreign wars, continue to borrow on credit cards tied to American workers, continue to corporatize or socialize (I acknowledge the fact that those two are different, though the later is preferable to the former, (A debate i am not interested in reentering on this thread) freedom is the only sustainable solution to health care, or really to anything else) the healthcare system. Etc. Etc.

Although i Admire them both, i am extremely skeptical of the notion that Ron Paul or Peter Schiff or a hand full of principled individuals could, via the current electoral system, "Change" the system.

And what those Tea Party Protestors DO NOT need right now is some demagogue convincing them otherwise. What they need is to put their energies to better use and bring about political change through non-violence civil disobedience. "Let them protest all they want so long as they continue to pay their Taxes" (paraphrased but it's the same general idea) Stop protesting taxes and STOP paying them. Stop obeying federal laws. Trade in liberty dollars instead of funny money, perform your exchanges off the books.

Now the reason getting rid of fox news will keep the republicans from retaking office in 2010 or 2012 is relatively simple, no other news station is has the republican party's interest in mind; it's quite clear that their allegiance is sworn solely to Obama.

[fatape]

you realize obamma is a consevitive right?

[SmilezRoyale]

At 10/27/09 09:10 PM, fatape wrote: you realize obamma is a consevitive right?

Who is obamma and what is a consevitive

[Gobblemeister]

I'll tell you now why FOX shouldn't be censored

FOX news is the only outlet not mastermined by the liberal agenda

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

No other ideas are being communicated to children and soon Americans will degenerate into a close minded group of overly excitable left wing extremeists

FOX is the only network still communicating the right wing, if you have a problem with it, don't watch it but lets not become fucking China and censor everything that disagrees with the left wings

Americans deserve opposing viewpoints so they can decide for themselves

[Stretchysumo]

At 10/27/09 09:10 PM, fatape wrote: you realize obamma is a consevitive right?

You realize you're a retard, right?

[SmilezRoyale]

At 10/27/09 09:21 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: I'll tell you now why FOX shouldn't be censored

FOX news is the only outlet not mastermined by the liberal agenda

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

No other ideas are being communicated to children and soon Americans will degenerate into a close minded group of overly excitable left wing extremeists

FOX is the only network still communicating the right wing, if you have a problem with it, don't watch it but lets not become fucking China and censor everything that disagrees with the left wings

Americans deserve opposing viewpoints so they can decide for themselves

I get the TINY impression you didn't read the post.

If people know that the government controls the media, they won't trust what it has to say anymore. And even many liberals would very likely be more open to anti-statist ideas, since the government has commited the cardinal sin of censorship.

not that i care about 'the right wing' very much.

[Korriken]

about damned time someone started this topic. I wanted to, but I felt I made enough "obama bashing" threads lately.

the government censoring and shutting down any station for any reason would be a terrible thing for the American People. Also, Fox News is the #1 rated news network at the time, it's also the only news network that actually brings you the news that the government doesn't want you to see... like.... Acorn. Any news network that is a thorn in the government's side is actually DOING THEIR JOB!

News Networks should bring the people the news, not be a cheering squad for the president.

If the government manages to shut down 1 station, it's only a matter of time before they target anyone who stands against them, much in the same way Hugo Chavez does.

Our president really needs to grow the hell up and stop acting like a little kid. Always wanting to fire back at anyone and everyone who opposes him, and commenting on every situation that arises is just childish. He needs to stop worrying about what other people are saying and actually do his job, and not go running off to every tv show set that will have him and playing golf all the damned time.

I wonder how many hours Obama has actually spend sitting in the oval office doing actual presidential duties? my guess is, not much from the looks of it, it seems like every time i turn on the radio he's running off to some place to do some kind of town hall teleprompter reading, or appearing on some talk show, or playing golf... oh let's not forget his trip to Martha's Vineyard.

and BTW, has his children been vaccinated for the swine flu yet? it is a national emergency now, and its affecting kids!

[reverend]

At 10/27/09 08:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I actually think it would be a great thing for libertarians (maybe not conservatives or republicans, but for libertarians) if Fox news was in fact censored and shut down by the federal government.

It might be great but too bad it would violate the one rule that everyone enjoys. "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press." And you know the libertarians haven't really done anything noteworthy yet. What make you think they will do anything like that.

1) You didn't see George Bush or Dick Cheney censoring the 9/11 truthers, or the Info-warriors or other fringe groups, naturally because much of what they said was seen as un-true and dishonest. . . .

That our fearless leader Barrack Obama would censor a news station because they are CLEARLY in opposition to him would send a message to Other Americans that the White House has no honest or intellectual defense against the charges made by Fox News and, in particular, the Glenn Beckers. If all a person can do as a counter argument, is punch someone else in the face, it's proof that person is an empty suit, and it bolsters the legitimacy of the person who got punched in the face.

So are you saying that censoring and ignoring someone who disagrees with you bolsters your own views? Sound like a pretty poor debate especially if the arguments have some truth. Bush didn't need to response to 9/11 conspiracy theorist because their view were ludicrous; no better than the fake moon landing conspiracy debate. Now when it comes to debate over health care, you have to address dissenting concerns. Obama was right to be silent on the very idiotic news bits like the Kenyan Birth Certificate brew-ha-ha, but when it comes to government policy he has to speak up.

2) It will stop the Republican Party from coopting the anti government movement.

If the Republicans take office in 2010 or in 2012 we can kiss the anti-government protests good bye. . . . Etc. Etc.

This is just anti-conservative rhetoric and conjecture that has no relevance to Fox News.

And what those Tea Party Protestors DO NOT need right now is some demagogue convincing them otherwise. What they need is to put their energies to better use and bring about political change through non-violence civil disobedience.

"through non-violence civil disobedience." I believe that's what you call protesting. Trust me, some of those conservative group are not started by a conservative news show. I don't recall Fox News stating 'go forth and call yourselves Tea Party protests and do this, this and this." Do you think that MSNBC news has some say behind the ELF or PETA? Do they dictate what they should and what they shouldn't do? Don't think so.

"Let them protest all they want so long as they continue to pay their Taxes" (paraphrased but it's the same general idea) Stop protesting taxes and STOP paying them. Stop obeying federal laws. Trade in liberty dollars instead of funny money, perform your exchanges off the books.

The fact that you worry about a group that is only a couple thousand strong shows how effective they have become. If you start fighting their fights, then they will only become stronger. It's better to not give them the attention they, oh so crave.

Now the reason getting rid of fox news will keep the republicans from retaking office in 2010 or 2012 is relatively simple, no other news station is has the republican party's interest in mind; it's quite clear that their allegiance is sworn solely to Obama.

Granted that Fox News might be fanning the flames but they can't force people to do things. People have their own ideologies and their own free will. Shutting down a conservative news channel won't do much good when there are still people who are angry about where things are going. Whether it comes from people protesting the Iraq war to the Tea Partiers, there will always be dissatisfied people from both the left and the right. That's how things go in yesterday's and today's political society and if you haven't noticed, MSNBC is a total lap dog for the democrats. If you are going to criticize one then you have to do the other.

There is no good that can come from shutting up the dissenting voice. If you feel so passionate about it, to shut them up for good, then you have not created a free forum of discussion; you have created propaganda.

[Warforger]

At 10/27/09 08:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

:Assuming that the government hasn't collapsed Wiemar republic style (And at this rate i also see that as a strong possibility)

The main difference is that America was not stripped of its military, did not get super heavy war debts, the people weren't starving in the majority, we did not lose epiclly and needed someone to blame it on, and we are very much more rich then they were. So no its not even the slightest possibility.

While Fox is full of idiots, it should not be censored in the spirit of the American dream. However, Conservatives constantly think there the oppressed, this is rather annoying, as anyone who disagree's with them is a liberal luny who thinks all Conservatives are bigots and idiots. I remember just stating that people think like that and RightWinger claimed I was calling him a bigot -_-

[Glaiel-Gamer]

good thing Obama's not censoring the news then, he's just ignoring them.

[aviewaskewed]

I love how FOX News is suddenly a bastion of truth and not a cheerleading squad for the president now that they have a president completely opposed to their ideals.

When it was Bush in office however...

To me bias is bias, no matter which side is pumping it out and it's flat out wrong no matter which side it's favoring. News is supposed to be just that: news, informative truth, information we need. But that sadly just isn't the case anymore.

[Tancrisism]

At 10/27/09 09:21 PM, Gobblemeister wrote: I'll tell you now why FOX shouldn't be censored

FOX news is the only outlet not mastermined by the liberal agenda

Wow.

AKA it's the only outlet with an obscenely conservative bias.

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

Watch CNN sometime. They are neither liberal, nor conservative. They pan disgustingly to both sides, hoping to be seen as fair, while instead they give neither a side, nor news, nor information. They aren't biased themselves, but they aren't unbiased - instead they present both biases, but none of the information. They are almost a tabloid.

They are not left-wing though.

No other ideas are being communicated to children and soon Americans will degenerate into a close minded group of overly excitable left wing extremeists

FOX is the only network still communicating the right wing, if you have a problem with it, don't watch it but lets not become fucking China and censor everything that disagrees with the left wings

Agreed.

Americans deserve opposing viewpoints so they can decide for themselves

Agreed again. I disagree enormously though with your idea of the liberal majority, though it is true that if someone is extremely conservative anything less conservative (even people like Ron Paul) are going to seem liberal.

[daves234]

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

Watch CNN sometime. They are neither liberal, nor conservative. They pan disgustingly to both sides, hoping to be seen as fair, while instead they give neither a side, nor news, nor information. They aren't biased themselves, but they aren't unbiased - instead they present both biases, but none of the information. They are almost a tabloid.

Well unless you don't count glen beck then it's not really both

[lapis]

At 10/27/09 10:45 PM, Warforger wrote: The main difference is that America was not stripped of its military,

That only means that there will be more soldiers who can desert and join a right-wing Freikorps or a left-wing Rotfrontkämpferbund, groups that some time from now will be killing each other in the streets of Chicago. KILLING EACH OTHER IN THE STREETS I SAY. All because Obama wanted to socialise healthcare, and then banned FOX news and changed America's national anthem to The Internationale. I mean, let's stay realistic here.

[Tancrisism]

At 10/28/09 01:19 AM, daves234 wrote: Well unless you don't count glen beck then it's not really both

Notice that he isn't on CNN anymore, he is on Fox.

[SadHatter]

Two aspects of this thread interest me.

one, an aspect of the supposed news "ethic" is to present an unbiased opinion of the news, but that doesn't seem to exist in large corporations like fox news, (living in new zealand, I don't know exactly what fox is)

two, the reasons at the start involved ways to prevent protest and government change, if a government starts doing that, they are no longer represent the people.

[Korriken]

say what you will about fox news, but know that it takes news stations with slants to both sides to actually get the news across. Without fox news, many things would have never come to light, like the Acorn scandals. both sides cover the usual stuff, but most stations would be content to just leave out the parts the current administration would rather people not hear. and of course, the press are happy to not have to think up the hard questions to drill the president with, because that would be disastrous to his presidency. and of course, the Obama administration would have it no other way... that is, if they could get away with it.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 10/27/09 10:09 PM, reverend wrote:

At 10/27/09 08:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I actually think it would be a great thing for libertarians (maybe not conservatives or republicans, but for libertarians) if Fox news was in fact censored and shut down by the federal government.

It might be great but too bad it would violate the one rule that everyone enjoys. "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press." And you know the libertarians haven't really done anything noteworthy yet. What make you think they will do anything like that.

This statement makes no sense. I said "It would be great for libertarians if the government censored Fox news." When i say the government, I'm not talking about a libertarian administration. " When I say libertarians I'm not talking about the libertarian party, i'm talking about a political philosophy that has liberty in mind.

1) You didn't see George Bush or Dick Cheney censoring the 9/11 truthers, or the Info-warriors or other fringe groups, naturally because much of what they said was seen as un-true and dishonest. . . .

That our fearless leader Barrack Obama would censor a news station because they are CLEARLY in opposition to him would send a message to Other Americans that the White House has no honest or intellectual defense against the charges made by Fox News and, in particular, the Glenn Beckers. If all a person can do as a counter argument, is punch someone else in the face, it's proof that person is an empty suit, and it bolsters the legitimacy of the person who got punched in the face.

So are you saying that censoring and ignoring someone who disagrees with you bolsters your own views? Sound like a pretty poor debate especially if the arguments have some truth. Bush didn't need to response to 9/11 conspiracy theorist because their view were ludicrous; no better than the fake moon landing conspiracy debate. Now when it comes to debate over health care, you have to address dissenting concerns. Obama was right to be silent on the very idiotic news bits like the Kenyan Birth Certificate brew-ha-ha, but when it comes to government policy he has to speak up.

Clearly you either read what i said too fast or misread something.

If all a person (let's call him person A) can do as a counter argument, is punch someone else in the face (Call him person B), it's proof that person (person A) is an empty suit, and it bolsters the legitimacy of the person who got punched in the face (i.e. person B).

2) It will stop the Republican Party from coopting the anti government movement.

If the Republicans take office in 2010 or in 2012 we can kiss the anti-government protests good bye. . . . Etc. Etc.

This is just anti-conservative rhetoric and conjecture that has no relevance to Fox News.

Fox news as you yourself have stated is the only news station that gives the opposing veiws, I.E. the republican party. Note that i differentiate republican party to conservative. The Republican party is a political machine that panders to conservatism. Conservatism is a political philosophy. And Fox news is generally more favorable to republicans in general than the other news stations.

You can blame Reagan for it directly or blame the fact that he couldn't STOP other politicians, but regardless of who is to blame, under the reagan administration the government grew under Reagan. (the growth may have slowed down, or it may have not but under reagan it grew slower than it might have under a continuance of Jimmy Carter or some other democrat, but if that's the BEST that can be offered, it just means that the Leviathan state is inevitable regardless of political action.

"through non-violence civil disobedience." I believe that's what you call protesting. Trust me, some of those conservative group are not started by a conservative news show. I don't recall Fox News stating 'go forth and call yourselves Tea Party protests and do this, this and this." Do you think that MSNBC news has some say behind the ELF or PETA? Do they dictate what they should and what they shouldn't do? Don't think so.

Again i don't see how this is a rebuttal to anything I've said... And frankly i find it more frustrating that i'm stuck trying to find out how this exactly attempts to address any of what i've said. But whatever.

1) protesting is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. Protesting taxes is legal. Civil disobedience is not.

2) Fox news isn't directly connected to the tea parties, I'm aware of that. The danger fox news poses is the possibility that the tea protesters anti-government energies will be channeled into some demigogue who is either unable or unwilling to keep with his/her promises, not unlike Obama.

In fact, Obama is a perfect example of how the media can make healthy anti-government sentiment and funnel it into a politician. I don't think it's any mystery that the mainstream media supported Barrack Obama, So every american who wanted to see Bushes's foreign and domestic policies (generally relating to terrorism) removed, ended up voting for Obama. Their efforts (As far as i can tell from what has happened now) were wasted on Obama's election. Now all of those Anti-Bush liberals are silent, and the media that THEY listen to tells them that anyone who disagrees with the government is racist and anti-American, and the sheep were put back in the pen.

Given what had happened and what will likely happen i don't see why people are so incredulous of the idea that Fox news will do the same thing to the conservative wing of the anti government movement.

The fact that you worry about a group that is only a couple thousand strong shows how effective they have become. If you start fighting their fights, then they will only become stronger. It's better to not give them the attention they, oh so crave.

I'm confused here, are we talking about the tea protesters or fox news, or the obama administration?

Now the reason getting rid of fox news will keep the republicans from retaking office in 2010 or 2012 is relatively simple, no other news station is has the republican party's interest in mind; it's quite clear that their allegiance is sworn solely to Obama.

Granted that Fox News might be fanning the flames but they can't force people to do things. People have their own ideologies and their own free will. MSNBC is a total lap dog for the democrats. If you are going to criticize one then you have to do the other.

Disatisfaction is not enough. Americans still cling to the ideology of a legitimate government. Even if they think that what the government has done is wrong they are not yet willing to accept the idea that what they are doing is criminal.

Fox news, in one way or another, is helping the anti-government movement by 'fanning the flames' But as soon as election season kicks in. Unless they are actually able to kick out every single statist congressman and senator in government and replace them with politicians who care about liberty, political solutions are non solutions.

And yes i am aware of the fact that MSNBC is a lap dog for the democratic party. But if we censored MSNBC it would likely just make liberals feel even more convicted of their duty to impose an authoritarian regime.

There is no good that can come from shutting up the dissenting voice.

That's the god damn point. I want people on the left and on the right to see and to realize BEYOND reasonable doubt that television media is a propaganda scam and nothing that they say should be taken seriously.

I want fox news kicked out because i want conservatives to be angry enough to take EFFECTIVE NON POLITICAL action. The kind of action that actually CHANGES things.

[Tancrisism]

At 10/28/09 03:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I want fox news kicked out because i want conservatives to be angry enough to take EFFECTIVE NON POLITICAL action. The kind of action that actually CHANGES things.

That's a very frightening idea though. It seems that a large part of the people who watch Fox News are the type of people who believe that Obama is a Muslim terrorist and is trying to destroy the country. If he finally shut down their one outlet, they would probably do something very hasty.

[gumOnShoe]

Nah, I would rather see them sued for things like libel where applicable. There won't be any actual censorship, and it makes sense to elaborate on their falsehoods and post the truth somewhere...

Also, I don't think radicalizing sheep for some sort of Libertarian Revolution is as good as you make it out to be and sometimes I get the feeling that self-described "Libertarians" are just anarchists... :/ Or at least anarchists on anything they don't feel directly impacts them or their morality. I'm not talking about the actual definition of the Libertarian, but the self described ones and what they actually want.

[mayeram]

At 10/27/09 09:21 PM, Gobblemeister wrote:

FOX news is the only outlet not mastermined by the liberal agenda

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

No other ideas are being communicated to children and soon Americans will degenerate into a close minded group of overly excitable left wing extremeists

Close minded liberals? What?

From Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/l iberal

"1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule. "

Doesn't sound very close-minded to me. I would argue that someone that is suggesting the reforms you are talking about would not be liberal, at least not on that issue.

for comparison, this is what it says about the word conservative.

"1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar."

" 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4 a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

[railroadspike]

The conservatives failed in the 60's (civil rights, many others) and now ironically enjoy liberal media and entertainment (music, porn)

[Stelyu]

At 10/28/09 07:35 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 10/27/09 09:21 PM, Gobblemeister wrote:

FOX news is the only outlet not mastermined by the liberal agenda

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

No other ideas are being communicated to children and soon Americans will degenerate into a close minded group of overly excitable left wing extremeists

Close minded liberals? What?

From Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/l iberal

"1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule. "

Just because that's the definition of the word liberal, that does not mean that political liberals act at all like that. For example, liberals (by American standards; Europeans get so touchy when they insist that Obama's a conservative) want to shut down Fox News, which is being quite intolerant of political views that differ from their own.

[Korriken]

If Obama is a conservative, i'm scared to death to ask what a european liberal looks like.... which would also explain why europe is so messed up.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/28/09 08:38 PM, Stelyu wrote: Just because that's the definition of the word liberal, that does not mean that political liberals act at all like that. For example, liberals (by American standards; Europeans get so touchy when they insist that Obama's a conservative) want to shut down Fox News, which is being quite intolerant of political views that differ from their own.

Ah, ah, generalizations are bad for you!

I tend to consider myself a liberal and I do not want FOX News shut down. I would prefer a policy like Gum pointed out, if Fox commits libel, I would like to see them sued for it. Same for CNN or any OTHER outlet. I believe FOX News should stop calling itself a news network or claim to be fair and balanced and just come right out and hit us with some truth in advertising: "FOX News: Rupert Murdoch's channel for Republican news and views". I'd be absolutely fine with them if they did that, because that is what the channel is. To try and claim itself as the only network you'd need or something is ludicrous (but probably no more ludicrous really then Time/Warner's CNN, which by it's very name as the Cable News Network suggests some sort of supremacy in the news market). But I can't get too mad at them since every channel wants to play that game, just like everything that is in business and needs to make money would love to convince 100% of the potential customers that they're the best game in town and have them totally believe it.

Leave FOX to do what it does, but let's all be honest about what exactly it does. Same thing goes for all the other channels out there.

[fli]

At 10/28/09 11:49 PM, Korriken wrote: If Obama is a conservative, i'm scared to death to ask what a european liberal looks like.... which would also explain why europe is so messed up.

the politics isn't reflective the US.
Liberal has a whole different meaning over there, depending which country you're talking about (and Conservative and etc.)

[Stoicish]

You cannot censor Fox News because it violates the Constitution. As much as I hate the network and all the bad it does for America, I still understand it's rights to do so.

Go ahead and try to throw more wild theories in the air.

[Gobblemeister]

At 10/28/09 07:35 PM, mayeram wrote:

At 10/27/09 09:21 PM, Gobblemeister wrote:

FOX news is the only outlet not mastermined by the liberal agenda

Every aspect of America nowadays is choked by the left wing

No other ideas are being communicated to children and soon Americans will degenerate into a close minded group of overly excitable left wing extremeists

Close minded liberals? What?

I did not explicitly state that Liberals are close minded, I said that if the opposing viewpoint of conservative media is taken away then the society of America won't understand ideas that oppose Liberal media, therefore creating a society that only sees the left wing

From Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/l iberal

"1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Since when did constantly reforming mean that it is the best or even good, "Don't fix what isn't broke" works fine until you HAVE to reform, you don't have to keep trying to change every little problem, and religions should not have to change to suit society

Doesn't sound very close-minded to me. I would argue that someone that is suggesting the reforms you are talking about would not be liberal, at least not on that issue.

Just because it favors change doesn't make it open minded. The extreme Liberal mindset wants a complete overhaul and sometimes returning to ones roots is good.

for comparison, this is what it says about the word conservative.

"1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar."

" 1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4 a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.

Winston Churchill was conservative, I doubt anyone would call him close minded or an inept Prime Minister. Preserving traditions is healthy for society, what I was trying to say is that we need to balance society, and you would be ignorant to say that the liberal and conservative mindset is represented equally in America.

[awkward-silence]

At 10/28/09 11:49 PM, Korriken wrote: If Obama is a conservative, i'm scared to death to ask what a european liberal looks like.... which would also explain why europe is so messed up.

I believe Obama more closely resembles Jaque Chiraque (former pres. of France) in terms of political leanings. And on the French political spectrum he was a A moderate conservative. I am under the impression that Obama falls to the left of the current president over here (Sarkozy), but I don't think by too much.

And you pretty much hit the nail on the head, Europe got jacked by being too liberal, and the States got messed up by being too conservative. Right now, though individual nations seem to be making paradigm to opposite extremes of their political spectrum (In america we are shifting from right to left on a spectrum that is heavily skewed to the right, Europe is doing the opposite), but on the whole everyone is shifting toward center.

Its very interesting to move from a country where I am called a socialist/communist because I support NHS to move to a country to a country where I am a moderate conservative with crazy right-winger tendencies because I don't support gun control. Its kind of an eye-opener. I guess on the Global spectrum I'm much more moderate than my nation lead me to believe.

[TheReno]

For those who are tl;dr heres the one sentence version

"Hey guise, lets hope the gov takes fox news down so that the libertarians (and secretly the republicans) will protest and whine and gain power (but also cause it would destroy their chance at getting the white house).

Seriously, thats what it sounds like. You want to cause nationwide panic (because fucking with the first amendment would have that effect) and start protests possibly a civil war (Seriously, the only thing worse then taking our guns is taking our freedom of speech) just cause it would give libertarians more support while also keeping the republicans out the white house. Great plan, you know except for the civil unrest and rebellion you would spark.

Seriously, if you want the libertarians to gain support (and or win a presidential election, which is the only reason I can see that you would go through this batshit insane plan) then donate and vote for em. But if you want more support for them then take a page out of the republican handbook of victory and get yourself in the ground game. It works.

Make signs, not civil war!