CNN fired him a couple of weeks ago.  (Okay, 'declined to renew his contract' if you will.)  He's moving to Fox.

Yay for Fox.  Consolidating the crazies to one location is always a boon.

The Companies are - the news is not.  They are considered a "public service" and as we saw from the internal memos at CBS - immunce from the penny pinchers. 

Dont be so quick to close the door when your foot is still in it.

Typical talking points for those who dont listen and get their information from mediamatters.org or some other left wing site.

KFC, you weren't forced; welcome to capitalism and free will. You could've turned it off and gone and done something else, or  changed the channel.

 

 

Dude, have you ever set foot in a place like that? I have, and I'm heading into the journalism field as well and have interned/volunteered/worked at news places. SC had it spot on, period. You can ask any journalist or journalism student.

 

Typical assumptions from someone who's obviously ignorant on where I get my news. For the record, I get my news from a very wide number of sources; foxnews, msnbc, etc... I keep it balanced between conservative, liberal, and nonpartisan. (Heck, I even go outside the united states.)

Back to my comment, I said it not because of your asinine assumption, but because of some of the shit they talk about on those shows. I mean seriously, anyone rational or logical couldn't in their right mind nod their head at the stuff. Now, a disclaimer, I don't mean all of what they say, but some of it.

 

My son is a front page  editor  of a medium sized newspaper after graduating as a communications major.  I also have a friend who writes a column once a week in one of our local papers.  Both say the media is very biased and in only one direction. 

My friend who writes an op-ed column said he had to leave the biggest newspaper in the state because it was so slanted.  They were always on him making sure he didn't get too far away from their side of things.  He was constantly hounded and watched by the bosses so he eventually quit for a much smaller paper and more freedom to write what was on his mind. 

Yes, the left is a very angry Bunch: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445044,00.html

Police: Huffington Post Writer Stabbed Ex-Lover 220 Times With Screwdriver

KFC, your few examples doesn't mean much, it's all about the area. Example: Here where I live, our newspaper is extremely conservative because our community is conservative. I heard directly from the head guru's mouth, "We're biased because it's what sells here."

 

 

That one guy; one guy, doesn't represent every frigging liberal/lefty. Dear God, sometimes people are completely illogical. You're all taking things way too personal. Politics isn't about the parties or who is what, but getting things solved.

 

of course it does......these are the guys in the know.  The newspaper I have here also is a bit on the conservative side but it's not the norm.  Everyone who is in the very least a bit objective knows that the media whether, it be print journalism or broadcast journalism, is for the most part very liberal.  It's just the way it is.  They are supposed to be neutral but they're not.  They're not very good at hiding their biases I suppose.  Outside of Fox they've got a huge corner on the liberal market.  Thank goodness (for now) for talk radio. 

I mean, look at the View, for instance.  How many on that talk show are liberal and how many conservative?  How about the other talk shows?  Who comes to mind as conservative?   Ellen?  Oprah?  Barbara Walters?  How about the oldies like Phil Donahue and Walter Conkrite?  Yep, liberals.  Katie Couric?  Dan Rather? 

You get my drift. 

 

You can't explain away the success of conservative talk radio & Fox News.  There is now a marketplace of ideas where listeners have a choice.  It is a mistake to think that all their listeners/viewers simply held all those beliefs all along & are just listening as 'feel good therapy'.  There is some of that, to be sure.  But doesn't that leave you wondering why liberal equivalents have largely failed miserably to attract an audience?  Is it just that radio & TV are too borgeois?  I try to regularly catch some of the traditional networks, CNN, Fox & MSNBC to be sure I'm not too insulated in my thinking & I think it's great to have as many sources of information & points of view as possible.  I think it's healthy.  Liberals call it 'polarizing' and want to use government to shut down the marketplace in favor of homogenized pap they can more readily control.

Much of the media doesn't have too good a grip on what it is it 'needs to say' then.

You did not read the link. And the theme is "the left is such an angry bunch" and that was just another nail in the coffin. Stabbings happen all the time. But this demonstrated the point 2 ways:

1. 220 times! You dont have to be a moron to realize that is excessive and born of extreme anger, not dispassionate thought.

2. The perp was a blogger at the Puffington Host - a noted whacked out liberal left site.

But for your education since you apparently CANT read, the perp was female and she stabbed her ex-lover (female as well) 220 times!

Now why dont you read before commenting and making a fool of yourself? Or is that beyond your paygrade? (the reading - since the fool part appears to be your Job Description).

 

Doc, I read the link. How can you associate the action of ONE person, to an entire group. you can't. I could just as easily attribute the actions of the man that gunned down the church a while back (in tennessee I believe), who was arguably conservative, to the fact that "the right is such an angry bunch." It would just as pointless and illogical. You can't say that A is to BCDEFG, if they're not the same. The parameters doc, the parameters.

Although i will agree she was wacked. It still doesn't imply that because of her, or that she was liberal, that all liberals are that way. It just doesn't float. (Btw, I tend to use guy as a general, all encompassing term. My bad, I'll bring along my translator next time)

 

Dont lie, or you would not have said he.

You are such a lousy liar.

My parents lived in a communist marxist country (German democratic republic) and my brothers and me partly grew up in it so we experienced socialism first hand. Now we live in a capitalist country called federal republic of germany which is basically a Social market economy and calling Obama and Marxist is about as accurate as calling Angela Merkel an Marxist.

USA isn't a pure free market society anyways, you have subsidies, minimum wage (something we don't have in germany as it would destroy hundred thousands, maybe even a million jobs), Alaska has some sort of basic income with this public ownership of the oil licenses.

Your Government took over large parts of the finance sector...

You could call that all socialism so why are you so worried about some small detail changes Obama might bring.

It is not a giant leap, but just another creeping incrementalism.  Europe is based on the old feudal system, so Socialism is the only thing they really have ever known (actually becoming more free over the last 200 years).  America never had that experience, so we are creeping to it.  And many do not like it.  Obama is not going to turn a free society into a communist one, but he is going to take more rights away.  One piece at a time.

You know the old joke -how do you eat an elephant?  one bite at a time.  Obama is just very hungry in that regard.  You have only known gaining freedom. We are losing it.

you aren't seriously telling me that europe is socialist?

 

 

 

Well, compared to America, it is (Who isn't?!?!). But it's still a country where the rich can pay and earn/spend a lot of money as they see fit. That's not in my definition of "socialism"

Yes, very much so.  Not communist, socialist.

I suspect your definition would be closer to what I would call Communism (the pure kind, not that which is practiced in China and the old USSR).

Wow.  Political discussion has reached a new low.  Congrats.

It's funny, you know, people love to make broad sweeping assertions using anecdotal or limited evidence.  "I know someone in the know who says ____."  Impressive.  "Based on an isolated event of stabbing, liberals are angry."  Good argument.  Here's a suggestion:  get a nonpartisan research organization to do a peer-reviewed study that uses a reliable measure of political liberalism/conservatism and trait hostility.  Try to include some behavioral observations rather than just self-report data.

If you can find something then, I'll believe you.  But until then, your claims have about as much weight as the claim that the moon is made of cheese.

calling europe socialist is total nonsense, while there are many definitions of socialism they all share the idea of state property of means of production like it was in the socialist GDR or SU (they call themselves socialist with the goal of ultimately reaching communism), name one european country where this is the case.

But I wonder how you explain that, if you consider europe a socialist bunch of countries and you are very scared of socialism because it destroys the economy (which I totally agree as we still recover from that, but that was real socialism not what you call socialism), a Country like germany is the world largest exporter of goods (with 80 Million inhabitants!) and also the country with the biggest trade balance surplus.

 

My Parents Generation fought to overcome Socialism and managed to get rid of it without using force and I think the careless use of the word socialism to describe policies you don't agree with is very insulting, its pretty much like calling george bush a fascist because of guantanamo.

Sorry, I dont do PC 101.  You can follow the thread and plainly see the fabrication - lie.  You dont like it, dont read it.  But dont tell me I have to be a damn politician and couch my words in euphamisms.  There is a reason I have never run for political office and probably never will.

You can either read the thread or eat your cheese.  Personally I dont give a damn.

Not scared, averse to it.  Scared is used for many nuances, not all of them mean "shaking in your boots".

And the right prescription can save a life - or kill the person if they do not need it.  America - love it or hate it - is not Europe.  It was founded based upon a revolt of the European way 230 years ago.  If you apply the Europe "cure" to that which is alien to it, you may very well kill the patient.

And that is why I do not want SOcialism.  The reason America came from nowhere to pre-eminince in less than 200 years is not because they were copying Europe - but because they were creating a new model.  One that may be better than the old model or not.  But killing it you will never find out.

Amen to that.  If people want to go to Socialism why don't they move?  It would be alot easier!

See, I believe in something called "discussion."  This may be an unfamiliar concept to you, so I'll lay it out.  People talk to each other.  They don't always agree.  In fact, they shouldn't always agree.  When they don't agree, they say it.  I don't really care about PC-ness.  I do care about baseless or uninformed arguments.  You seem to feel perfectly fine about talking about the things other people say that you don't like, but magically when someone calls you out on something you respond with this.

The cheese tastes good, by the way.

I'm no loony lefty but I do take issue when dialogue is based on loony premises. Taxes--even Adam Smit admitted--is based on the ability to pay for general services and governance for all. 

Discussions do not begin and end with lies.  A lie is a lie.  A discussion is a discussion.  I guess you are unfamiliar with the difference.  That is your problem.  You can post anything you want on these boards, but dont expect not to be called out on a lie when you do.  As I said, once that clown lied, the discussion is over.

I may not agree with you, but then I wont call you a liar until you are caught in one.  I did not go to the Bill Clinton school of semantics.