O'Reilly NEVER claimed, that he is a journalist. He stated many times, that he is an "commentator".
-
Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!
An American Tragedy
- Thread starter Phil G
- Start date
- 10/6/10
- 3,129
- 458
- 83
It is not the commentators that make Fox the RNC's tool, it is the control of the news from the Rove like overlord Ailes.
The commentators just make Fox assholish.
The commentators just make Fox assholish.
Will somebody explain me, please, why FOX News is #1 in rating, and beat CNN, MSNBC and others COMBINED?
Just askin'...
Well, that's easy. First, Fox is an entertainment channel that has only one agenda, to press the right wing agenda. It has it's core audience of hard core Republican Social Conservatives who take it all in as truth and actually believe it to be "news". Yeah right!
The other ones you mention are with the exception of MSNBC are actually news channels, not entertainment channels. We all know the news is in general rather boring to the average dumb American. You also notice that MSNBC doesn't have the word "News" in it's title, although it actually does have more programming that is actually devoted to news than Faux News has.
Also, the Democratic Party (or the LEFT, as you like to call it) is a much more diverse group with much more diverse opinions, rather than the Hard Right who spend all their waking hours thinking about how the Illegitimate Kenyan President and the US Go'mint is out to screw them, force abortions on their wimmin and take away their guns.
You got a real sick group sucking up that drivel on a daily basis. Most of the Democrats are too busy working and trying to get by to spend time watching crap like that.
I watch many channels on daily basis, FOX included, and if I'm interested in something, I always try to find out the truth. I never found any lies in FOX. Some exaggerating - maybe. Lies - never. Bias - yes. But CNN and especially MSNBC are sooo full of agenda - it's even not funny to watch. Haters. Biased to the balls.
Have to add one more thing.
Country is divided, it's obvious. Some prefer capitalism, less nanny state, more responsibility. Some love socialism, huge Gov't, welfare system, zero responsibility. Each group has it's own media. It's understandable. Just recently our country discovered a few very problems with current Govt - Benghasi, IRS targeting "some" groups, spying on AP, Holder's perjury, Rosengate, "Fast"n"Furious", and strange thing - liberal media, practically, never talk about it. "It's irrelevant". Oh, really??? Hillary lied under the oath, and she, probably, will run for office in 2016... it's not relevant? We don't care? Holder lied under the oath, and again - who cares... Nobody went to jail, nobody even lost the chair. No wonder the World laughing on us.
Country is divided, it's obvious. Some prefer capitalism, less nanny state, more responsibility. Some love socialism, huge Gov't, welfare system, zero responsibility. Each group has it's own media. It's understandable. Just recently our country discovered a few very problems with current Govt - Benghasi, IRS targeting "some" groups, spying on AP, Holder's perjury, Rosengate, "Fast"n"Furious", and strange thing - liberal media, practically, never talk about it. "It's irrelevant". Oh, really??? Hillary lied under the oath, and she, probably, will run for office in 2016... it's not relevant? We don't care? Holder lied under the oath, and again - who cares... Nobody went to jail, nobody even lost the chair. No wonder the World laughing on us.
No, you always try and find your truth as you would like it to be. That's a natural way everyone looks at the world. Your view is just a little more narrow than most people.
From my perspective, the average I. Q. of the moderators on MSNBC are head and shoulders above the likes of Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly, et al. Forget about the agendas of each.
And when did CNN become such of target of your hate? Liar's and Haters???? You surely must feel the same way about the ABC CBS and NBC nightly news anchors. They pretty much spout the same "agenda".
So, it seems that if it's on Faux News it's "good" and on any other network, even if you watch it, it's "bad". But you keep an open mind by watching other news channels even if they are all haters and liars. Whew!
By the way, I just realized that more people watch The Kardashians than Faux News. If we're going by head count, I guess Faux needs to pick up their game.
You know Luthier, most of those things have been beat to death, yet once again you're looking at them all through the brainwashed eyes and ears of Faux News. Always looking for a scandal that isn't there. That's why the normal media never talks about it. As your bud John Boner likes to say, "It's all sizzle and no steak".
The world may be laughing at us but it's not for those reasons.
KBH, I don't hate anyone. Never did. I have my own world, and I live in it. I'm not a democrat, I'm not Republican, I'm not even independent. I'm me. I have my own rules and laws. I, actually, don't care media at all. And I definitely never watch crap, like Kardashians or any TV Shows, except NCIS. I have my own opinions on some things, and I don't have opinions on things I don't care. I look on this country in a whole, and I don't like it. That's it.
Its obviously true Fox News will beat things to death to push the right wing cause. But to their delight they have actually had a lot of legitimate material to work with over the last year. To say Benghazi has been beat to death when NOT ONE PERSON has been held responsible is sickening. If one of those four dead were one of your family members I don't think you would feel that it was Old News. You would want the same public outcry that Trayvon Martin has received. Don't get me wrong Fox News is only beating this to death because it fits perfectly into their agenda NOT because they have any journalistic integrity. That being said if you follow the story its pretty disgusting that no other new outlets are asking tough questions.... why you ask? Because they have the same journalistic integrity and IT DOESN'T fit into THEIR agenda. So before you break your arm patting yourself on the back for completely discounting everything from Fox you should ask yourself why the President would call our Embassy being attacked, Ambassador kidnapped and murdered "Old News".
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
....Like the last Senate sponsor on this bill?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/bil...&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=8536&SessionID=3&SpecSess
Can you condense this local Illinois bill down to something that makes sense in the 30 seconds or less that I'm going to spend reading it. And maybe how it relates to the conversation here.
Thanks in advance.
opcorn:Can you condense this local Illinois bill down to something that makes sense in the 30 seconds or less that I'm going to spend reading it. And maybe how it relates to the conversation here.
Thanks in advance.
Nope. Thanks for exposing a big part of the problem tho.
Do your own homework.
I do.
Couldn't have said it any better. I long for the day when someone comes up with the bright idea to have a news channel that simply reports the news, lots of it, and moves on to the next story. No agenda, no commentary, no polls, no audience....
As far as a dead kid's character assassination, bringing supressed information to light isn't assassination, and certainly isn't any worse than those seeking to make money or fame off a corpse like used cars salesmen competing for some golden trophy.
This whole conversation is based on a fault of society as a whole rather than the actions of these two people. So many people are so dissatisfied with their own lives that they either need to live vicariously through someone else's, or have found that they can make a living selling it. So many people in general have become so morally fat and lazy that it's easier to become outraged at the character of another than it is to develop their own.
Bad news sells. Drama sells. Peace and happiness? Sells to people looking for quick fixes, but who, in the end, rarely can resist the temptation of drama- because that's where they are the most comfortable.
7 Billion (est) people on this planet- both of these nitwits could disappear and it really wouldn't make any difference. They are getting far more attention than either deserve, as are the snake oil salesmen who sell their inflammatory potions.
All right. Since you're to lazy to cut and paste, here you go. First It's a Illinois law which has nothing to do with the conversation of an act commited in the state of Florida under a totally different law. You just have to throw it in because the name Obama is involved.
Puleeeze spare me. I'm not stupid!
I've boldened a few of the parts which are some of the main parts of the law, yet have nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case.
You've really got nothing here other than a law Obama signed onto years ago as a freshman Senator.
B2386 Enrolled
LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b
1
AN ACT concerning criminal law.
2
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3
represented in the General Assembly:
4
Section 5. The Criminal Code of 1961 is amended by changing 5
Sections 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 as follows:
6
(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1) 7
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person. 8
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against 9
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that 10
such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against 11
such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is 12
justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to 13
cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes 14
that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great 15
bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a 16
forcible felony.17
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force 18
justified under this Section give rise to any claim or 19
liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within 20
the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this 21
Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such 22
a person, against the person or estate of the person using such 23
justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or 24
wanton misconduct. 25
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
26
(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2) 27
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling. 28
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against 29
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that 30
such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's 31
unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is
SB2386 Enrolled - 2 - LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b
1
justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to 2
cause death or great bodily harm only if: 3
(1) (a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, 4
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes 5
that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or 6
offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the 7
dwelling, or 8
(2) (b) He reasonably believes that such force is 9
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the 10
dwelling. 11
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force 12
justified under this Section give rise to any claim or 13
liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within 14
the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this 15
Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such 16
a person, against the person or estate of the person using such 17
justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or 18
wanton misconduct. 19
(Source: Laws 1967, p. 696.)
20
(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3) 21
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property. 22
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against 23
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that 24
such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's 25
trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with 26
either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal 27
property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of 28
another who is a member of his immediate family or household or 29
of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. 30
However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended 31
or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he 32
reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the 33
commission of a forcible felony.34
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force 35
justified under this Section give rise to any claim or
SB2386 Enrolled - 3 - LRB093 20660 RLC 46519 b
1
liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within 2
the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this 3
Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such 4
a person, against the person or estate of the person using such 5
justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or 6
wanton misconduct. 7
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
WTF does this have to do with somebody walking home to his legal residence at the time and be shot to death by a vigilante. Absolutely nothing.
Maybe you need to spend a little time reading before you post such gibberish.
What this is, is basically called the "Castle Doctrine" and I agree with it 100%. If someone come into your house with ill intentions, you shoot the bastard. and if he falls down in your yard you drag his corpse back into your house. That was the friggin law in Florida long before the NRA made it legal to shoot anyone that pissed you off.
Arguing with some of you guys is almost like having a tooth pulled.
...If you read it...its more than just a "Castle Doctrine". It allows for, and exempts from prosecution anyone who feels their life is in danger. It can and has been argued...successfully...that getting your head bashed into concrete by someone meets that standard.
Dragging someone back into your house that you shot would be a criminal act btw... And can you post the law from Florida that lets you just shoot anyone who pisses you off? I would LOVE to read that!
The point of the post....quoted to another user...was to point out that its not just "knee-jerk NRA lapdogs" who support the right to self defense.
Unless the former Senator from Illinois falls into that category.
"However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended
or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he
reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the
commission of a forcible felony"
Thank you, KBH. End of story. If somebody would sit on me, beating my head against the beton, and I wouldn't know, which blow will end my life - I'd put all 10 bullets in him, not just one. And it doesn't matter, did I follow him or not. I DID NOT START THE FIGHT. PERIOD.
By the way... Being Senator, Obama voted FOR "Stand my ground" law.
or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he
reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the
commission of a forcible felony"
Thank you, KBH. End of story. If somebody would sit on me, beating my head against the beton, and I wouldn't know, which blow will end my life - I'd put all 10 bullets in him, not just one. And it doesn't matter, did I follow him or not. I DID NOT START THE FIGHT. PERIOD.
By the way... Being Senator, Obama voted FOR "Stand my ground" law.
- 30/3/08
- 43,850
- 19,592
- 113
First up, the Illinois law looks like good lawmaking to me. It gives you rights to protect but it doesn't remove the rights of the other party.
Now they don't always get it right but generally they do and when they don't there is an oversight committee to pull them up about it.
I need to agree with Luth here, Bengazi stinks to high heaven and if you can't see that I feel sorry for you. Read what Pat (sfa437) has written next door, he has a far closer insight into the matter than we do and he's sickened. It's sad to watch a patriot such as Pat realise he can't trust his government to help him in a crises any longer. Oke, he's madder than most but he knows exactly what could have been done and wasn't.Fantastic. 4 people, including US Ambassador, are dead, and it's "old news"...
And... why Benghazi attack survivors get a gag order?
We do here and believe it or not it's run by the government. We have a national broadcaster called the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) who's impartiality is enshrined in law. They still do opinion pieces (but not on the news show)but they are balanced to give an even perspective. That is to say everyone has a say from their POV at some point. Their current affairs show (four corners) has long been a bastion of responsible journalism in this country and stands head and shoulders about the pap that passes for current affairs on the commercial networks. The news on the ABC is just that, news. No agenda, commentary, polls, audience or other BS at all. Just news.
Now they don't always get it right but generally they do and when they don't there is an oversight committee to pull them up about it.