Fox lets Glenn Beck show Scariest chart ever?!

[brandon]

If you think that winning a texting poll is grounds to include someone in a debate, fine. If you think that winning a straw poll is grounds to include someone in a debate, swell. Fox didn't seem to think that way, they wanted to use classic polling numbers from old school places like Zogby or Gallup. You think that's wrong, ok. Great. Call Fox tell 'em how you feel. I agree with Fox. And you know why? Because we were showed this election just how unreliable internet and straw poll support really is. Turns out they were right by not including him based on the numbers bc election time he didn't get very many votes.

I didn't claim that "winning a texting poll" is grounds to include someone in a debate. I was merely refuting your claim. You seem to forget what you even said. Let me recap for you.

You claimed: Fox is merely catering to what their viewers want and that is why they didn't include Ron Paul in the debate

I then proved that a large plurality of the audience for all previous fox debates favored Ron Paul. So I was merely refuting your point as I said I would.

There are many more reasons RP should have been included in the debate, which I have already mentioned earlier in the thread including him raising more money than ANY candidate in the quarter prior to the debate, polling better than two other candidates that were included in the debate, and beating one other candidate in the debate in the Iowa Caucus. Additionally, the NHGOP wouldn't even sponsor the debate due to Fox's blatant censorship.

This is only one incident, there are literally thousands of other example of FOx's censorship of RP, including the extremely small amount of time he was given to speak in the debates he was allowed in, cutting out RP's debate responses when re-airing the debate (and not cutting ANYTHING else), moderators loudly laughing while he was speaking during debates, etc etc etc

 

[tmosley]

Then the real source of your animosity should be towards the complacency and the ignorance of the majority of the American people, and if Fox news is profiting off of their vanity, then maybe you should buy preferred stock, and no amount of "education" or unbiased news coverage is going to change that fact.

Turns out the real reason for the collapse isn't the Fed, or Congress, or the Bush administration, or the bankers. It's your next door neighbors, and how they've let this country be run straight into the ground. Next time you see them, be sure to thank them.

Awesome, blame the victims. That's what neoconservatism is all about.

How's that whole "Palestinian Holocaust" working out for you guys? Gay raped any terror detainees recently?

Seriously, when something goes wrong, you blame the ones with the power. Although political power ultimately rests in the American populace, they have been sense deprived since birth for the most part. Blame the people who stuck them in the Matrix. Blame the people who bought out the newspapers and television media, and used their new acquisitions to wage a campaign of disinformation against the world and the American public.

 

[teacherone]

Seriously, when something goes wrong, you blame the ones with the power. Although political power ultimately rests in the American populace, they have been sense deprived since birth for the most part. Blame the people who stuck them in the Matrix. Blame the people who bought out the newspapers and television media, and used their new acquisitions to wage a campaign of disinformation against the world and the American public.

That's plain nonsense. People today have access to more knowledge at their fingertips than at any time in history. The fact that they are too lazy to get educated in not the "PTB's" fault. It is their own.

 

[silverlinkx2]

Awesome, blame the victims. That's what neoconservatism is all about.

How's that whole "Palestinian Holocaust" working out for you guys? Gay raped any terror detainees recently?

Seriously, when something goes wrong, you blame the ones with the power. Although political power ultimately rests in the American populace, they have been sense deprived since birth for the most part. Blame the people who stuck them in the Matrix. Blame the people who bought out the newspapers and television media, and used their new acquisitions to wage a campaign of disinformation against the world and the American public.

Your posts have been too laughably ridiculous to be taken seriously. Americans are the victims here? 300 million people allowed a whole country to be usurped by a bunch of yahoos in suits in D.C. and on Wall Street? Are you kidding me?

 

[tmosley]

That's plain nonsense. People today have access to more knowledge at their fingertips than at any time in history. The fact that they are too lazy to get educated in not the "PTB's" fault. It is their own.

Not everyone. Can your grandmother use the internet? Does she vote?

The internet is a great tool for those looking for a wider variety of news with less, or at least different, bias than they are used to. But not everyone is skilled in its use. The Ron Paul movement went just about as far as an internet-only campaign could. The power of the other forms of media is just too overwhelming.

 

[silverlinkx2]

I didn't claim that "winning a texting poll" is grounds to include someone in a debate. I was merely refuting your claim. You seem to forget what you even said. Let me recap for you.

You claimed: Fox is merely catering to what their viewers want and that is why they didn't include Ron Paul in the debate

I then proved that a large plurality of the audience for all previous fox debates favored Ron Paul. So I was merely refuting your point as I said I would.

There are many more reasons RP should have been included in the debate, which I have already mentioned earlier in the thread including him raising more money than ANY candidate in the quarter prior to the debate, polling better than two other candidates that were included in the debate, and beating one other candidate in the debate in the Iowa Caucus. Additionally, the NHGOP wouldn't even sponsor the debate due to Fox's blatant censorship.

This is only one incident, there are literally thousands of other example of FOx's censorship of RP, including the extremely small amount of time he was given to speak in the debates he was allowed in, cutting out RP's debate responses when re-airing the debate (and not cutting ANYTHING else), moderators loudly laughing while he was speaking during debates, etc etc etc

Did you ever bother to think that RP didn't really have the support of a large number of fox viewers, but instead a large number of fox viewers didn't bother to take place in a poll that had no real inherit worth? that seems more likely to me. I had no plans to vote for paul and I still didnt' take place in any of those text polls.

 

[silverlinkx2]

Not everyone. Can your grandmother use the internet? Does she vote?

The internet is a great tool for those looking for a wider variety of news with less, or at least different, bias than they are used to. But not everyone is skilled in its use. The Ron Paul movement went just about as far as an internet-only campaign could. The power of the other forms of media is just too overwhelming.

You're blaming the media for a problem that was not of their creating.

 

[SnappleLlama]

Not everyone. Can your grandmother use the internet? Does she vote?
The internet is a great tool for those looking for a wider variety of news with less, or at least different, bias than they are used to. But not everyone is skilled in its use. The Ron Paul movement went just about as far as an internet-only campaign could. The power of the other forms of media is just too overwhelming.

LOL...just as an aside, my grandmother is 83 and she uses the internet every day. She also volunteers for local political campaigns.

Go, Grandma!

 

[tmosley]

Your posts have been too laughably ridiculous to be taken seriously. Americans are the victims here? 300 million people allowed a whole country to be usurped by a bunch of yahoos in suits in D.C. and on Wall Street? Are you kidding me?

Uuuuhhh, yeah, that's actually exactly what happened.

You can't really blame the German people for the rise of Hitler, either. A person may be smart enough to see through the deception, but large groups of people are easily controlled, especially when a few people can dictate the terms of thought through mass media.

Terrorists. Pedophiles. Shoe bombers. Internet hackers. Scary things. Give up your freedoms and you won't have to fear them any more. Etc.

 

[tmosley]

You're blaming the media for a problem that was not of their creating.

Right, so Fox news holds NO SWAY WHATSOEVER over it's viewer's opinions? Are you an idiot?

People naturally look to those on the television screen as leaders. Why on Earth do you think Arnold got elected? I don't see many other bodybuilders running for office, yet he went straight for the governors office and got it. Why do you think that is?

Name recognition.

 

[silverlinkx2]

No, it isn't. Just like torture isn't a vague word, except in the minds of those who twist words to steal our freedoms.

So you define "freedom" to be the "freedoms" that are explicitly granted in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, a document that is largely ignored today and completely arbitrary and is subject to change at any time?

You can keep your definition of freedom.

Ever hear of the FCC? How many millions of dollars do you think you have to spend to clear the regulatory hurdles to get on the air? How many other companies that are protected by anti-competitive laws do you think you have to get around before your show is ever picked up by any of the cable or satellite providers? Why do you think there aren't more than 5 or 6 over the air television stations even in the largest cities?

So the answer to my question about whether or not the government is enforcing a monopoly on the cable networks would have been a simple "yes." In which case, you have a legitimate complaint. Write your Congresspersons.

And because you didn't answer it, I think I can guess your opinion.

You weren't a Bush administration political appointee by any chance? You sound JUST like them.

Contrary to popular belief, money buys political influence. Shocking, I know, but all free countries/free markets drift towards socialism and corporatism in the end due to lobbying and ::GASP:: a complacent, overindulged populace. I ask the question about what you would do to make sure a company/corporation wouldn't be allowed to buy a politician but I'm sure you'd say something about the free market again, at which point I'd be forced to ask how many law enforcement personnel the free market has at its disposal.

 

[SnappleLlama]

People naturally look to those on the television screen as leaders.

You're right about this, and it's terrifying.

 

[silverlinkx2]

Uuuuhhh, yeah, that's actually exactly what happened.

You can't really blame the German people for the rise of Hitler, either. A person may be smart enough to see through the deception, but large groups of people are easily controlled, especially when a few people can dictate the terms of thought through mass media.

Terrorists. Pedophiles. Shoe bombers. Internet hackers. Scary things. Give up your freedoms and you won't have to fear them any more. Etc.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. That's why I can't stand most people. There are literally millions of us and a very small segment of the country is ruining us. And we let them do it. How ridiculous is that? We have no one but ourselves to blame.

Right, so Fox news holds NO SWAY WHATSOEVER over it's viewer's opinions? Are you an idiot?

People naturally look to those on the television screen as leaders. Why on Earth do you think Arnold got elected? I don't see many other bodybuilders running for office, yet he went straight for the governors office and got it. Why do you think that is?

Name recognition.

So if people are that gullible and that easily mislead and that awed by a cult of personality who holds a lot of charisma coughschiffcough and they take every word that person says as absolute truth, then they deserve to be controlled, and no democracy or republic will ever exist for longer than a very short period of time.

But of course that could never happen, right?

 

[teacherone]

Not everyone. Can your grandmother use the internet? Does she vote?

yes and yes

 

[silverlinkx2]

yes and yes

shhhhhhh....your grandmother is a poor technologically illiterate old woman with no say in politics or the direction of her country...and we can only blame the televison

 

[Feenix566]

I just can't believe the sheer volume of stupidity in this thread. And I'm not talking about silverlinkx2. I'm talking about all of you who have responded to him. I'm very disappointed.

You guys need to learn how to take constructive criticism. Did it even occur to you that he might have a point? Maybe running through the streets screaming explitives at Sean Hannity was not the best way to achieve success in politics. I'm not asking you to agree with everything Hannity says. I sure don't. But screaming insults at him accomplishes nothing.

Likewise, typing insults at silverlinkx2 accomplishes nothing. If you seriously want to reform America, you need to learn how to make friends, not enemies. If all you want to do is get your nuts off as a keyboard jockey, then that's all you'll ever do.

 

[tremendoustie]

Contrary to popular belief, money buys political influence. Shocking, I know, but all free countries/free markets drift towards socialism and corporatism in the end due to lobbying and ::GASP:: a complacent, overindulged populace. I ask the question about what you would do to make sure a company/corporation wouldn't be allowed to buy a politician but I'm sure you'd say something about the free market again, at which point I'd be forced to ask how many law enforcement personnel the free market has at its disposal.

They wouldn't want to buy a politician, because if we had a government that was properly restricted from interfering in the private lives and finances of its citizens, it wouldn't have enough power to benefit these companies.

They hire the lobbyists because government runs our economy, picking winners and losers. You're not going to fix that problem by getting the very politicians who are on the take to pass laws about what money they can recieve.

They'll find a way to buy the votes, above board or below it. The only way to fix the problem is to take tyrannical power away from the government in the first place. That way, the corporations will have nothing to buy.

Corporatism requires government assistance. We haven't had a free market in years -- we have corporatism and political cronyism. We need freedom, not more power to the foxes who "guard" the henhouse.

 

[SnappleLlama]

shhhhhhh....your grandmother is a poor technologically illiterate old woman with no say in politics or the direction of her country...and we can only blame the televison

lol

 

[teacherone]

You can't really blame the German people for the rise of Hitler, either. A person may be smart enough to see through the deception, but large groups of people are easily controlled, especially when a few people can dictate the terms of thought through mass media.

Of course you can blame the Germans for the rise of Hitler-- there was no Vulcan Mind-Meld placed over them--no mass hypnosis either. They followed their primary instincts-- fear and greed (or Eros and Thenatos if you wanna get Freudian) and allowed an atrocity to take place.

That's exactly what the American people did for the last eight years. Neither you or me are any better. We could be leading a subersive campaign to topple the emporor, but we are having a useless internet forum discussion in the comfort of our own living rooms instead.

 

[tmosley]

So you define "freedom" to be the "freedoms" that are explicitly granted in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, a document that is largely ignored today and completely arbitrary and is subject to change at any time?

You can keep your definition of freedom.

The Constitution does not "grant" freedoms, it enumerates them. Those freedoms are inherent in every human being. The Constitution exists so that those in power don't try to take away those freedoms through force of arms, which would only lead to bloody conflict. The Constitution could be changed so much as to be unrecognizable and evil, but all of those freedoms would still exist.

So the answer to my question about whether or not the government is enforcing a monopoly on the cable networks would have been a simple "yes." In which case, you have a legitimate complaint. Write your Congresspersons.

Right, so stop telling people that they don't get to bitch about the content of television because they are free market people.

Contrary to popular belief, money buys political influence. Shocking, I know, but all free countries/free markets drift towards socialism and corporatism in the end due to lobbying and ::GASP:: a complacent, overindulged populace. I ask the question about what you would do to make sure a company/corporation wouldn't be allowed to buy a politician but I'm sure you'd say something about the free market again, at which point I'd be forced to ask how many law enforcement personnel the free market has at its disposal.

Modern society can only exist due to segregation of labor. If we all had to spend time defending our freedoms, we'd all be living like militias out in the woods.

The answer to your question is simply this: Don't allow the politician any power, except over a few defined subjects. Limited government is the answer to corruption for exactly that reason. Trying to bribe a public official would be like trying to bribe a police officer to overlook your expired license plates when they aren't required.