Forum Thread

Why is FOX the most important net work?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 24 1 2 Next
  • Independent
    Ohio
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    That's easy. Diversity. Without FOX we have no real critical thinking regarding government. The other networks are simply cheerleaders for the whitehouse, parroting whatever they say. Taking the presidents word for everything and moving on. Real questions regarding Benghazi are not asked. I want my president to explain why he wants to restrict my right to bare arms yet he has no problem sending our most lethal weapons to drug lords. On your dime. At least FOX is willing to ask these questions. The president's "balanced approach" has turned out to be a balance of yet another tax increase and more spending. His promise of deficit reduction and meaningful spending cuts dissapeared immediatly after the election. FOX has pointed this out. From the rest we get crickets. For freedom to prevail we absolutley must has a voice of dissent. At least one news organization that is not in the back pocket of the president. Without it we have total government controlled media. Tyranny. So rather than hating FOX and pointing out every mistake they make ask yourself this: If not FOX, then who?
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Altair13 Wrote: That's easy. Diversity. Without FOX we have no real critical thinking regarding government. The other networks are simply cheerleaders for the whitehouse, parroting whatever they say. Taking the presidents word for everything and moving on. Real questions regarding Benghazi are not asked. I want my president to explain why he wants to restrict my right to bare arms yet he has no problem sending our most lethal weapons to drug lords. On your dime. At least FOX is willing to ask these questions. The president's "balanced approach" has turned out to be a balance of yet another tax increase and more spending. His promise of deficit reduction and meaningful spending cuts dissapeared immediatly after the election. FOX has pointed this out. From the rest we get crickets. For freedom to prevail we absolutley must has a voice of dissent. At least one news organization that is not in the back pocket of the president. Without it we have total government controlled media. Tyranny. So rather than hating FOX and pointing out every mistake they make ask yourself this: If not FOX, then who?
    The problem I have with your statement is that at present "polarization" is the unpleasant thing. Therefore there should be a referee in the middle.
    PBS tries this but is a bit wishy, washy and not very well represented. What we need is a strong middle media who is clear and stands strong on issues. Right now I have the impression it is the game of bloted BS all the time. Even very simple straightforward issues are twisted and turned to anyones advantage. Sorry to say most political programs turn me off, because of all the blah, blah.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Fox is like Pravda in that it represents one party only and is not a true news program. We saw how this concept fails in the last election. Fox created a news bubble from which only the Republicans went. Thus they were shocked when Romney lost big. Then Fox lopped off heads but has not changed SOP. Thus we get the "Benghazi questions" when the rest of us know the timeline and can see why confusion reigned supreme for a few days after the incident went down. Only those in the news bubble think a coverup has happened.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't see the comparision between Pradva and Fox, Fox does air opposing viewpoints while Pradva did not, Fox is not government controlled as was Pradva. The entire Bengazi incident was so politically oriented it became a shame, and it wasn't just for few days and it wasn't confusion that caused all the misleading and misinformation to be aired, it was a plan to not have the coming election decided by this event,no matter how the spin was applied,it was apparent someone screwed up monumently and he/she was someone who needed to be protected,and I am not talking about Obama. Only Fox kept this story alive regardless of the White House's attempts to spin it, and as the event played out , it had very little effect on the results of the election although the Administration took well deserved big hit on its creditabilty and although the full truth may never be known ,it was because of Fox News that the incident was not shoved under a rug. Right now ,here in Philly, we have one of the most gruesome trials trials going on regarding a Doctor,his aides and his clinic, he accussed of murdering 7 infants born alive after late term abortions and the death of one woman who died from one of his botched abortions,in cludes horriffic photo's of babies being beheaded, infants feet being severed and placed in jars and his procedure known as snipping,which means severing the spinal cord at the neck, and yet only Fox reports this,why? One reason being given is that the other networks feel the trial gives a bad spin to abortions in general.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I was fully aware of the doctor without Fox. He preyed upon the poor. Fox spins it into an anti abortion thing but the fact is if we make abortions illegal all abortions will be like this idiot did. Why conservatives want to return to the coathanger days is beyond me. Has Fox explained why to you?
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well, it's a free country so I am free to hate Fox and so I do. I have tried to watch Fox on occasion. I tell myself, you have to consider the other side of the coin. Every time I turn to their channel, it's idiots chanting the party line. I've never heard fair debate on any topic on Fox. Remember we had 8 years of a repub. admin. and did Fox do any fair journalism during that time ? NO. Dutch was right..... to have an organization who stuck to the middle would be a great thing. I don't expect it though.
    And it's all white guys. Even their people of color are white.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don't Fox believe is spinng anything but the fact that the main stream media has completly ignored this monster because of a perceived bias against abortion, the Congressman from New Jersey hit the nail on the head when he said before the House, "if this Doctor shot 7 babies in a nursey with a AR-15 they be all over it", he wants to know why the Networks of ABC,CBS and NBC have zero reporting on this and have so much time devoted to the Rice University Coach who abused his players. This issue is not about abortion but the complete failure of the Pa. Health System who allowed this cretin from hell to practice medicine especially after warnings from previous patients and other area hospitals ER rooms had reported him for botching abortions, he would have gone on doing this if he didn't get greedy and opened up his office as a Pill Mill, for which the Drug Enforcement Officers from both the State and County of pa. excuted search warrants related to the drug allegations and found along with the drugs an infant chop shop horror.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Altair13 Wrote: That's easy. Diversity. Without FOX we have no real critical thinking regarding government. The other networks are simply cheerleaders for the whitehouse, parroting whatever they say. Taking the presidents word for everything and moving on. Real questions regarding Benghazi are not asked. I want my president to explain why he wants to restrict my right to bare arms yet he has no problem sending our most lethal weapons to drug lords. On your dime. At least FOX is willing to ask these questions. The president's "balanced approach" has turned out to be a balance of yet another tax increase and more spending. His promise of deficit reduction and meaningful spending cuts dissapeared immediatly after the election. FOX has pointed this out. From the rest we get crickets. For freedom to prevail we absolutley must has a voice of dissent. At least one news organization that is not in the back pocket of the president. Without it we have total government controlled media. Tyranny. So rather than hating FOX and pointing out every mistake they make ask yourself this: If not FOX, then who?
    What I would point out to this is that FOX is not a news station. They may have "news" next to their name, but anyone with an IQ higher than an 8th grader knows they are not a news station. FOX is an entertainment station and nothing more than that. I ask you to name ONE person that does a journalistic show on their network. Just one.

    I do ask where FOX was when our former president was driving up our deficit? Where was FOX when our former president led us into two wars on the credit card? Where was FOX when our former president pushed through a spending package that was labeled as a tax cut for the middle class but in actuality was a giveaway to the rich in our society? The list can go on and on. FOX is a right wing behemoth and trying to compare them to an actual news organization is laughable.

    You may not like news that tells you the truth, but that's what a news station is supposed to do. Now we do have to separate MSNBC and CNN from the rest of the bunch. I ask you to watch the PBS Newshour and ask yourself if this is really a liberal media. Just because a news station doesn't say something that you like doesn't mean it's liberal.

    I'm not going to spend the energy pointing out each and every inaccuracy you have in your post, but I do want to remind you that proposing a military assault weapons ban and background checks is not tyrannical. The Presidents budget is a heck of a lot more balanced than the House Republican budget, which uses a formula that says that if you just gut all taxes and regulation than the economy will thrive. How did that work out the last 10 years? I am quite sure that policy led to one of the worst economic downturns our world has seen in a century. And with regards to "sending lethal weapons to drug lords on our dimes"--Our government is the number one arms seller in the entire world. We were long before President Obama took office and we will unfortunately be long after he is out of office. Claiming that it's HIS fault that bad people get weapons is showing your absolute disregard of facts.
  • Republican
    Natick, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is just one thing that bothers me about FoxNews. And, believe me, I am a big fan. Three reliable sources, Senator Linsey Graham (once, in part), Catherine Herridge (at least twice- her article, interview on Huckabee), and Senator Rand Paul (at least twice- Clinton hearing, Hannity show) have brought to the attention of the American people that Benghazi had to do with a weapons trade from Libya through Turkey to the Syrian rebels, including Al Qaeda warriors. Amb. Chris Stevens, hours before the raid, had spoken to the Turkish emissary at the Benghazi Consulate. This was all over the internet in October and November, then more was added in December involving weapons being brokered by US CIA again from Qatar and to a lesser extent, the UAE, through Libya and Turkey to Syria. SoS Clinton was involved with a weapons buyback program in Libya to round up weapons all over country. So she, Stevens and CIA were involved with this illegal proxy war (thinking they could work with Al Qaeda apparently-keep your enemies closer), breaking all kinds of international laws. This is why even Republicans (RINOs) are shying away from further investigations into Benghazi, telling 30 witnesses to keep their mouths shut (mostly CIA, I think, anyway). 10,000 SA-7s supposedly in Syrian rebel/Al Qaeda hands. Check out internet - very reliable sources. Then it went dead.

    When Rand Paul brought it up to Hilary Clinton during her hearing, she acted surprised, like she never heard anything about such allegations, despite them being all over the internet, then said, "You'll have to check with the that agency." (the CIA). and dropped it. Whe Rand Paul brought it up to Sean Hannity, Hannity acted like he didn't even here him. I couldn't believe! Mr. LET'S_GET-TO-THE-BOTTOM-OF-THIS-COVER-UP is full of crap.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    trueblue Wrote: There is just one thing that bothers me about FoxNews. And, believe me, I am a big fan. Three reliable sources, Senator Linsey Graham (once, in part), Catherine Herridge (at least twice- her article, interview on Huckabee), and Senator Rand Paul (at least twice- Clinton hearing, Hannity show) have brought to the attention of the American people that Benghazi had to do with a weapons trade from Libya through Turkey to the Syrian rebels, including Al Qaeda warriors. Amb. Chris Stevens, hours before the raid, had spoken to the Turkish emissary at the Benghazi Consulate. This was all over the internet in October and November, then more was added in December involving weapons being brokered by US CIA again from Qatar and to a lesser extent, the UAE, through Libya and Turkey to Syria. SoS Clinton was involved with a weapons buyback program in Libya to round up weapons all over country. So she, Stevens and CIA were involved with this illegal proxy war (thinking they could work with Al Qaeda apparently-keep your enemies closer), breaking all kinds of international laws. This is why even Republicans (RINOs) are shying away from further investigations into Benghazi, telling 30 witnesses to keep their mouths shut (mostly CIA, I think, anyway). 10,000 SA-7s supposedly in Syrian rebel/Al Qaeda hands. Check out internet - very reliable sources. Then it went dead.

    When Rand Paul brought it up to Hilary Clinton during her hearing, she acted surprised, like she never heard anything about such allegations, despite them being all over the internet, then said, "You'll have to check with the that agency." (the CIA). and dropped it. Whe Rand Paul brought it up to Sean Hannity, Hannity acted like he didn't even here him. I couldn't believe! Mr. LET'S_GET-TO-THE-BOTTOM-OF-THIS-COVER-UP is full of crap.
    Did you believe them when they (over and over again) said Romney was a shoe in?
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    GemsWoven Wrote:
    trueblue Wrote: There is just one thing that bothers me about FoxNews. And, believe me, I am a big fan. Three reliable sources, Senator Linsey Graham (once, in part), Catherine Herridge (at least twice- her article, interview on Huckabee), and Senator Rand Paul (at least twice- Clinton hearing, Hannity show) have brought to the attention of the American people that Benghazi had to do with a weapons trade from Libya through Turkey to the Syrian rebels, including Al Qaeda warriors. Amb. Chris Stevens, hours before the raid, had spoken to the Turkish emissary at the Benghazi Consulate. This was all over the internet in October and November, then more was added in December involving weapons being brokered by US CIA again from Qatar and to a lesser extent, the UAE, through Libya and Turkey to Syria. SoS Clinton was involved with a weapons buyback program in Libya to round up weapons all over country. So she, Stevens and CIA were involved with this illegal proxy war (thinking they could work with Al Qaeda apparently-keep your enemies closer), breaking all kinds of international laws. This is why even Republicans (RINOs) are shying away from further investigations into Benghazi, telling 30 witnesses to keep their mouths shut (mostly CIA, I think, anyway). 10,000 SA-7s supposedly in Syrian rebel/Al Qaeda hands. Check out internet - very reliable sources. Then it went dead.

    When Rand Paul brought it up to Hilary Clinton during her hearing, she acted surprised, like she never heard anything about such allegations, despite them being all over the internet, then said, "You'll have to check with the that agency." (the CIA). and dropped it. Whe Rand Paul brought it up to Sean Hannity, Hannity acted like he didn't even here him. I couldn't believe! Mr. LET'S_GET-TO-THE-BOTTOM-OF-THIS-COVER-UP is full of crap.
    Did you believe them when they (over and over again) said Romney was a shoe in?
    Sorry you guys; I've been there and worked there in the '70's; at that time I was already warned about "smiling" Libyan contacts. The story is quite simple; this young ambassador did not have a clue about Libya; CIA breefings are useless. Ifyou know Libya then you prepare yourself, before you are sent out. This guy was totally naive and thought, they are nice to me and like me; mistake nr. one. Why did he think that? Because they ( his contacts) wanted things from him, because he was a sourse of supply etc. Smiling faces in those countries mean nothing. He fell for it and it was his undoing. End of story. All other stories are either cover-ups or total BS. Nothing bad about the dead but this guy goofed off by not demanding protection before he went there in a country in turmoil. Fox or any other news have no clue whatsoever; neither does the CIA.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    ..."Smiling faces in those countries mean nothing"...

    What are ..."those"... countries? You mean ..."those Arab countries"?... Because people will smile at you in ALL countries and then stab you in the back as soon as you turn around. It may be worse in some countries than others, but it happens everywhere including your home country The Netherlands, and my home country, America.

    I've been to "those countries" in Asia and yes it happens there too.

    Where are ..."those countries"... that you are referring to? There are good and bad people in ALL countries.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: ..."Smiling faces in those countries mean nothing"...

    What are ..."those"... countries? You mean ..."those Arab countries"?... Because people will smile at you in ALL countries and then stab you in the back as soon as you turn around. It may be worse in some countries than others, but it happens everywhere including your home country The Netherlands, and my home country, America.

    I've been to "those countries" in Asia and yes it happens there too.

    Where are ..."those countries"... that you are referring to? There are good and bad people in ALL countries.
    I guess you are playing games; You and I know very well that countries which are in turmoil and are not very stable political etc. then you know what I mean; if you were to be sent to Syria what would you do? To Mali what would you do? do I have to tell you more; you know the answers.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch I'm not playing games, your statement just sounded almost racist..."those countries" Like "those Arab countries, or those Asian countries, or those European countries"... You sounded like you were painting a bunch of "those countries" with a broad brush.

    My point is that every country has people who will smile at you then change when they think they can take advantage of you. This ambassador chose to take the job, and by taking the job it meant he would trust his security to the US government and he paid with his life. It was not his fault that he got killed because he trusted the US government to take care of him. The State Dept, the CIA, I don't know who but someone in the US government sure let him down. The government put him in position to get killed and his mistake was to trust his own government.

    Syria? No, I wouldn't go for all the money in the world. Even when I was younger I don't think I would have gone to a place that screwed up, there's more to life than money.
  • Republican
    Natick, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Ambassador was not naive. He was very involved in the arms trade. He met w/ Turkish emissary on 9/11 hours before raid on Consulate began regarding new shipment of weapons for Syrian rebels (including Al Qaeda).

    All you have to do is GOOGLE: BENGHAZI SYRIA WEAPONS

    Then it's all there for you to see. Agencies involved: State Dept., CIA, POTUS
    (no Pentagon involvement -
    probably why they wanted to disobey POTUS and do rescue, despite "stand down" order)