Who's Behind Nat Geo....

[compost]

I loved watching fox news before the 2008 elections when there most liberal commentator had such a hateful look on his face every time he said barrack hussein Obama. After they had hammered home the name to conjure either a terrorist or link him to Saddam a few hundred times they would reiterate how the other news stations aren't fair and balanced like fox news

I am tired of journalist telling me how I should think about the news. Maybe we should get back to the days of when they just told a factual story and let us make up our minds for ourselves.

 

[Baba Ku]

My point was that these folks were equating Murdoch with the right.
I was pointing out how they were making a ludicrous argument trying to tie Murdoch in with the right wing...because he owns Fox News.
Voting for Obama was simply another example of how Murdoch is far from a right winged individual.

And BTW...voting for Obama means you want to get your share of his stash. You want your check. Nothing more, nothing less.

I sure didn't vote for someone that had absolutely no resume as a leader.
But I have gotten my check. A mutherfucking unemployment check.
Great fucking times.
When will people wise the fuck up?

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Fuck National Geographic now. fuck em right in the ear with a slimy dog dick. lol

 

[AbbieDoobie]

And the horse they rode in on. LMAO

~Abbie

 

[Closet_Grower]

My point was that these folks were equating Murdoch with the right.
I was pointing out how they were making a ludicrous argument trying to tie Murdoch in with the right wing...because he owns Fox News.
Voting for Obama was simply another example of how Murdoch is far from a right winged individual.

And BTW...voting for Obama means you want to get your share of his stash. You want your check. Nothing more, nothing less.

I sure didn't vote for someone that had absolutely no resume as a leader.
But I have gotten my check. A mutherfucking unemployment check.
Great fucking times.
When will people wise the fuck up?

Fox news is what's wrong with the USA, and anyone who owns such a company is part of the evil that will soon crush every economy in the world.

I understand people feel the need to vote and play the game, my point is that both sides are working together to FUCK us all over in the end. Politicians do not run the world IMO. Money and CEO's do.

Look into the Economic Hitmen and Jackals that your government employ on your dime... I bet they're not on Unemployment. Working overtime these days.

Get your check? The party is over, sit back and watch the shit show... the economy is a joke... US dollar is crap now. Even the loony is stronger.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Get your check? The party is over, sit back and watch the shit show... the economy is a joke... US dollar is crap now. Even the loony is stronger.

It's not even a good knock knock joke.

I wonder if Nat Geo is going make a doco about the "shit show"?

Nat Geo presents...........When Fiat Dies....... an in depth look at what happens when you throw feces into the fan and it all lands back on you.

 

[mocs0]

My point was that these folks were equating Murdoch with the right.
I was pointing out how they were making a ludicrous argument trying to tie Murdoch in with the right wing...because he owns Fox News.
Voting for Obama was simply another example of how Murdoch is far from a right winged individual.

It's just another example of how right and left mean nothing to the billionaire boy's club. Right-wing/left-wing is an illusion of a 2-party system and a way to divide people who aren't filthy rich.

When will people wise the fuck up?

After it's too late.

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations.

 

[Greensub]

Just to piss you guys on the right off... I'm slowly starting to warm up to the idea of re-instating the fairness doctrine.

I watch news all day... a bunch of different channels (FOX & MSNBC included)

Unfortunately with the way we have it now... the left and the right can't even argue meaningfully because they don't agree on the underlying facts.

One sides lying though... and I'm always doing all kinds of research and digging to decide who it is for myself.

As for the Nat GEO Doc... I didn't feel it was as bad as it could have been, though they definitely weren't up on their facts in a lot of spots. They easily could have been much more negative than they were.

As far as Rupert Murdoch Supporting Obama... I think he was being disingenuous & sneaky...

Like he was in 2010...

Rupert Murdoch Donations Raise Eyebrows

By TIM ADLER in London | Thursday October 14, 2010 @ 6:40am PDTTags: Foreign & Colonial News Corp, Karina Litvack F&C, News Corp, News Corp Political Donations, News Corp Republican Party, News Corp US Chamber of Commerce, Political Contributions, Politics, Rupert Murdoch Political Contributions, Sir Rod Eddington
Foreign & Colonial, a British fund manager which controls shares in News Corp, is unhappy with Rupert Murdoch for allegedly using company funds to support the Republican Party. It will vote against the re-election of audit committee chairman Sir Rod Eddington to the board at the media giant's annual investor meeting in New York on Friday. News Corp has given $2 million to the Republican Party in recent months -- it recently gave $1 million to the US Chamber of Commerce, a lobbyist group which campaigns for Republicans to take control of Congress and $1 million to Republican candidates standing for election in the mid-terms. F&C represents investors angry that Murdoch is using News Corp funds for personal politics. "There is no evidence of a political contributions policy or process at News Corp and the board does not have an explicit oversight role," F&C tells me. F&C's corporate governance head Karina Litvack has expressed "concern" at News Corp using shareholder funds for political contributions. News Corporation declined to comment.

http://www.deadline.com/tag/rupert-murdoch-political-contributions/

He USED to support the labor party in Australia... but since 1975 he's supported the center-right liberal party (remember elsewhere than the US liberal is conservative)

Murdoch and politics

Murdoch is seen as either a political neo-conservative or simply an opportunist, who will regularly back an expected winner regardless of principles. In the early 1970s, Murdoch actively supported the Australian Labor Party. Since 1975, however, he and his newspapers have generally supported the Liberal Party of Australia (which is a center-right party). In the US he has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Regarding Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential bid, he said, "He's right on all the issues." Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. In Britain, he formed a close alliance with Margaret Thatcher, and The Sun was widely credited with helping John Major win an unexpected election victory in the 1992 general election. However, in the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005, Murdoch's papers were either neutral or supported Labour under Tony Blair. This has led some critics to argue that Murdoch simply supports the incumbent parties (or those who seem most likely to win an upcoming election) in the hope of influencing government decisions that may affect his businesses; though it should be noted that the Labour Party under Blair had moved significantly to the Right on many economic issues prior to 1997. In any case, Murdoch identifies himself as a libertarian.[6]

Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. For example, it is believed that Murdoch tried to suppress publication of the memoirs of Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, in an attempt to curry favour with China. Patten's book was critical of the Chinese government. Whatever the motives, the book was dropped from publication by Murdoch's HarperCollins publishing company. It was only because of Patten's political influence that the story came to light and the book was published by another firm. It is speculated that Murdoch wanted to please the Chinese government because it happened around the time he was attempting to get a foothold in the Chinese market with the launch of STAR TV.

One way in which Murdoch has been accused of using his media to influence the democratic politics is in the revealing of damaging personal information about a particular political candidate. This may be illustrated by the case of Mark Oaten, a representative of the Liberal Democrat party in the United Kingdom. The Murdoch-owned "News of the World" newspaper revealed in January 2006 that Oaten had been having an ongoing homosexual affair. Since the Liberal Democrat party holds political viewpoints contrary to Murdoch's current position (specifically, the war in Iraq), some have speculated that Oaten was targeted in order to destabilize the party to which he belongs.

In a speech in New York, Rupert Murdoch said that the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said the BBC coverage of the Hurricane Katrina disaster was full of hatred of America. Mr. Murdoch is a strong critic of the BBC, which he believes has a liberal bias.

Murdoch's British media outlets generally support eurosceptic positions and generally show contempt for the European Union. Murdoch publications worldwide tend to adopt anti-French, pro-Israeli and pro-American views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favour of the war. [7] Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the Cato Institute.

On May 9, 2006, the Financial Times reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton's Senate reelection campaign. Murdoch's New York Post newspaper opposed Hillary's senate run in 2000.

On June 28, 2006 the BBC reported that Murdoch and News Corporation are flirting with idea of backing Tory leader David Cameron at the next General Election [8].

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/r/ru/rupert_murdoch.htm

There's soooo much more I've found... you know guys... there's this thing called Google... maybe you've heard of it? A little time... a little discriminatory reading... it's a good thing (trust me)

 

[Baba Ku]

Could it be...I mean just maybe...that some people see things far different than they are in reality? Many folks seem to think that organizations like Fox News are evil and are the scourge of society because they blatantly throw out spin and call it news. They see them as putting out bad info, or out and out lies. They will tell you that Fox has an agenda, and that their agenda overrides any and everything that they present.
What bothers me about these people is this....they can't give you any clear examples. Oh sure, they will run to the nearest Fox hate site on the internet to gather some ammo to argue with...but rarely do these folks have anything they can provide from personal experience mainly because they don't even watch the fucking thing. They have no idea what is really presented at Fox, yet they seem to have the nutsack to throw charges at them on an ongoing and continual basis. Let let their ill informed bias control most of their thoughts and just about anything they let slip from their pie hole.
And they will NEVER worry about any sort of divisiveness or ill feelings...simply because the find anyone and everyone that isn't of their stripe to be a lesser individual or group.

Hell, I'm bias and will be the first to admit it. I lean right and have done so since I was a little kid. And I did not come up in a right wing family...in fact my family is fairly evenly divided when it comes to political leanings.
And I too see things happening on the tube...but I actually watch news shows and commentary from a number of sources. I sure don't rely on some hatgeful website to tell me what and how to think about things. Nor do I simply take up the chant of the naysayers and finger pointers. I tend to judge things for what they are and not what others perceive them as.

You people talk about being bias to one side...have any of you watched CNN or MSNBC in the last 10 years? Or read the NYT or LA Times? If you do not see the completely bias bullshit that comes from these jewels, then I don't think you are looking. You simply have chosen sides and you will fight tooth and nail about it.

Here is the big difference...
A right winged person can articulate the position of the right. Most anyone of that stripe knows what they are about, and they can tell you just what it means to be conservative and just what their agenda is. From the most common person to the candidate running, they can all pretty much tell you what is up with their thoughts and convictions.
BUT on the other hand, most people that are left leaning can't tell you one thing about what it means to be liberal. They probably can't even explain what liberalism and socialism really mean. They probably don't even know. But they will be the first to throw stones at the opposition no matter the subject.

You know, there was a study done by a major university awhile back (UCLA). It was all about the bias that was allegedly existing in our news outlets.
Going in it was the assumption that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal would be the most biased of all. Thing was, the study showed just the opposite of what conventional wisdom would dictate. Turns out that Fox news was far less bias and provided a much more balanced look at opinion. Especially since they go out of their way to provide people from BOTH sides of an argument and not just the mouthpieces that always chime in.
Seems the study showed that the orgs that were presumed to be fair and balanced were far from it, and the majority of their commentary as well as their news reporting was blatantly one sided. Imagine that.

Here's a suggestion...
Next time you want to throw charges at a person or organization for being politically bias, GIVE SOME DAMN EXAMPLES. Back up what you provide, or back off. It's simple really.
Or is it that you are yourself bias, and could give a ripe fuck about what is right and what is not?

*Greensub,
Would what you provided support the notion that Murdoch controls the content of the media outlets under his control and ownership? -or perhaps the opposite is being validated?

 

[Greensub]

Could it be...I mean just maybe...that some people see things far different than they are in reality? Many folks seem to think that organizations like Fox News are evil and are the scourge of society because they blatantly throw out spin and call it news. They see them as putting out bad info, or out and out lies. They will tell you that Fox has an agenda, and that their agenda overrides any and everything that they present.

Yes... pretty much...

What bothers me about these people is this....they can't give you any clear examples. Oh sure, they will run to the nearest Fox hate site on the internet to gather some ammo to argue with...but rarely do these folks have anything they can provide from personal experience mainly because they don't even watch the fucking thing.

Personal experience of having read the 1000 page public option health bill (yes I read it... personally)

FOX equaled LIES, LIES, LIES

They have no idea what is really presented at Fox

watch it everyday....

yet they seem to have the nutsack to throw charges at them on an ongoing and continual basis. Let let their ill informed bias control most of their thoughts and just about anything they let slip from their pie hole.
And they will NEVER worry about any sort of divisiveness or ill feelings...simply because the find anyone and everyone that isn't of their stripe to be a lesser individual or group.

Ok... I'm sorry you feel bad

Hell, I'm bias and will be the first to admit it. I lean right and have done so since I was a little kid. And I did not come up in a right wing family...in fact my family is fairly evenly divided when it comes to political leanings.

I'm divided myself (I call myself a progressive libertarian)

And I too see things happening on the tube...but I actually watch news shows and commentary from a number of sources.

So do I...

I sure don't rely on some hatgeful website to tell me what and how to think about things. Nor do I simply take up the chant of the naysayers and finger pointers. I tend to judge things for what they are and not what others perceive them as.

let's see some proof...

You people talk about being bias to one side...have any of you watched CNN or MSNBC in the last 10 years? Or read the NYT or LA Times? If you do not see the completely bias bullshit that comes from these jewels, then I don't think you are looking. You simply have chosen sides and you will fight tooth and nail about it.

I think everything is biased... that's why I watch a wide range of sources... are you suggesting that CNN & MSNBC are biased & FOX isn't?

Here is the big difference...
A right winged person can articulate the position of the right. Most anyone of that stripe knows what they are about, and they can tell you just what it means to be conservative and just what their agenda is. From the most common person to the candidate running, they can all pretty much tell you what is up with their thoughts and convictions.

don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

BUT on the other hand, most people that are left leaning can't tell you one thing about what it means to be liberal. They probably can't even explain what liberalism and socialism really mean. They probably don't even know. But they will be the first to throw stones at the opposition no matter the subject.

I've never really noticed that personally. Someone who actually "identifies" themselves as a "liberal" usually describes it pretty well... I don't know many socialist's... but they usually are happy to explain all about it.

I have to admit the conservative argument fits into a simple explanation better... but I guess it depends on what kind of conservative.

You know, there was a study done by a major university awhile back (UCLA). It was all about the bias that was allegedly existing in our news outlets.
Going in it was the assumption that Fox News and the Wall Street Journal would be the most biased of all. Thing was, the study showed just the opposite of what conventional wisdom would dictate. Turns out that Fox news was far less bias and provided a much more balanced look at opinion. Especially since they go out of their way to provide people from BOTH sides of an argument and not just the mouthpieces that always chime in.
Seems the study showed that the orgs that were presumed to be fair and balanced were far from it, and the majority of their commentary as well as their news reporting was blatantly one sided. Imagine that.

I read that too...

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

however that study is just looking at straight news programs... not commentary programs.

If we're talking studies... haw about that recent one from the University of Maryland...

Yet another study has been released that proves that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation. So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.
In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

• 91% believe that the stimulus legislation lost jobs.
• 72% believe that the health reform law will increase the deficit.
• 72% believe that the economy is getting worse.
• 60% believe that climate change is not occurring.
• 49% believe that income taxes have gone up.
• 63% believe that the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts.
• 56% believe that Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout.
• 38% believe that most Republicans opposed TARP.
• 63% believe that Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear).

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming their viewers and they are doing it for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. They benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.
By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before they can brag about it.
The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.
This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain that they do not get away with it.
[Addendum:] The folks at OurFuture had previously addressed some of the issues above and provided documentation that effectively debunks the myths.
[Update:] Michael Clemente, Fox News senior vice president of news editorial, dismissed the study’s findings in a statement to the New York Times:

“The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”
​

Clemente obviously prefers the snarky retort to the substantive rebuttal, and clearly has no affinity for the truth. Rather than addressing the data in the study’s results, Clemente chose to viciously smear the UM student body who had nothing to do with it. And when the Times fact-checked his response they discovered that the Princeton Review actually ranks the University of Maryland among the “Best Northeastern Colleges,” and it only made it to 19th on the list of “Best Party Schools.” So even in their response Fox affirmed the conclusions in the study by continuing to misinform. At least they’re consistent.

Here's a suggestion...
Next time you want to throw charges at a person or organization for being politically bias, GIVE SOME DAMN EXAMPLES. Back up what you provide, or back off. It's simple really.
Or is it that you are yourself bias, and could give a ripe fuck about what is right and what is not?

I did... you gave an example that he supported the liberal Australian Labor Party

I showed you were wrong... he hasn't supported them since 1975 when he switched to supporting the center right Liberal Party.

Sourced and annotated to boot. Your the one trying to pass off the laughable idea that he's not biased.

His political donations are fact too...

I've been backing up what I provide... maybe you should consider it as a plan.

I'm not arguing the left doesn't have biased outlets... I'm just arguing that FOX is a conservatively biased outlet (not so difficult to understand)

If I misunderstood your stance that FOX isn't biased and Murdoch isn't a conservative (that seems to be your original argument)

By the way... you didn't post anything to refute what I posted.

 

[Greensub]

You asked for it...

MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER: Just after the Iraq invasion, the New York Times reported, "The war has illuminated anew the exceptional power in the hands of Murdoch, 72, the chairman of News Corp… In the last several months, the editorial policies of almost all his English-language news organizations have hewn very closely to Murdoch's own stridently hawkish political views, making his voice among the loudest in the Anglophone world in the international debate over the American-led war with Iraq." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now – I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly." [New York Times, 4/9/03; Guardian, 2/12/03]

 

[Greensub]

MURDOCH THE NEOCONSERVATIVE: Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard, the neoconservative journal that employed key figures who pushed for war in Iraq. As the American Journalism Review noted, the circulation of Murdoch's Weekly Standard "hovers at only around 65,000. But its voice is much louder than those numbers suggest." Editor Bill Kristol "is particularly adept at steering Washington policy debates by inserting himself and his views into the discussion." In the early weeks of the War on Terror, Kristol "shepherded a letter to President Bush, signed by 40 D.c= opinion-makers, urging a wider military engagement." [Source: AJR, 12/01]

This is too easy...

 

[Greensub]

MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]

I've got more... but I don't want to over-run the thread tonight...

but... this is who's behind the Nat Geo channel after-all.

 

[Baba Ku]

The study I cited was a unbiased study. What you are showing us is nothing but opinionated drivel.
The things that it points to showing that Fox news listeners are misinformed is a list of talking points. Take the first item...91% believe that the stimulus legislation lost jobs.
From the piece we can assume that they authors have some sort of evidence that the legislation actually created jobs. Here we are in the worst employment situation of most of our lifetimes and we are to believe that what has been done so far as created jobs and economic growth? It hasn't, and to think that it hasn't is not in conflict with the facts.

I think your little disco dance is typical, and I really have no patience to even engage such ignorant bullshit.
Debating a person like you is very exhausting...I mean, you throw out how you read the HCB, and then call LIE. Well, just what has been lied about? Give some specific examples that show that Fox has lied about it. Or that anyone has lied about it. I can show you just who HAS lied about it.
Just because you cry it out doesn't make it so. Well, not in other folks minds...perhaps that is all it takes in your world?

No, better yet...I will suspend myself from this thread.
What you've got more of is bullshit talking points, one liners, and smarmy elitist remarks.
Fuck that.

lol...you seem to think the NYT and The Guardian are credible and unbiased sources.
LOL...using opinion commentary as factual ammo, as if it were something of substance to back your side.
Opinionated drivel starts out with things like; "Murdoch the war monger", not news reporting. What do you not understand about that?

"this is so easy" see, this sort of smarmy shit don't fly with me. Fuck that.
In YOUR mind it's easy. Try citing news and facts, not drivel and commentary from like minded individuals?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Nat Geo presents...........When Fiat Dies....... an in depth look at what happens when you throw feces into the fan and it all lands back on you.

I almost hear the voice from FRONTLINE.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Folks with this mindset rarely, if ever, bring forth any facts.

FTR, you bring no facts either. You never do. It's all based on your gut instinct, nothing more... applies to everything, etc... et al.

Hell, they cry about spin and propaganda, yet that is about all they have in their repertoire.

Speculation... all you ever bring.

Always the champions of squelching free speech.

You're wrong there. The right abolished the fairness doctrine that removed the lid from the loony jar. Now we have fact based opinion and loony based opinion.

Deregulation of free speech...that is as fucking rich as it gets. Typical, but rich.
It's fucking sad actually.

It's actually the opinion that isn't fact based that's sad.

 

[ddrew]

Could it be...I mean just maybe...that some people see things far different than they are in reality? Many folks seem to think that organizations like Fox News are evil and are the scourge of society because they blatantly throw out spin and call it news. They see them as putting out bad info, or out and out lies. They will tell you that Fox has an agenda, and that their agenda overrides any and everything that they present.
What bothers me about these people is this....they can't give you any clear examples. Oh sure, they will run to the nearest Fox hate site on the internet to gather some ammo to argue with...but rarely do these folks have anything they can provide from personal experience mainly because they don't even watch the fucking thing. They have no idea what is really presented at Fox, yet they seem to have the nutsack to throw charges at them on an ongoing and continual basis. Let let their ill informed bias control most of their thoughts and just about anything they let slip from their pie hole.
And they will NEVER worry about any sort of divisiveness or ill feelings...simply because the find anyone and everyone that isn't of their stripe to be a lesser individual or group.

?

Pure hoosierdaddy, always defending the republican party, and their pet channel, fox news.

The narrowminded, judgmental, bitter and angry(just like you hoosier) republican party is why MJ is still illegal and will be for some time.

I watched the vid of G bush senior talking about how he was getting tough on drugs, not enough cops he said, we'll hire more, not enough room in the prisons, we'll build more, etc...
Everytime I see that nazi crap I want to reach through the screen and strangle him.
Then the reps all time hero, ronnie.
Saying how he has just been given evidence that MJ is the most dangerous drug in america, etc...
And his dumb bitch wife with her giant head running around saying "just say no"
And now the new face of propaganda, Natgeo

You need to wake up hoosier, both parties suck(dem/rep) but the republicans you so adore are the ones with organized programs for spreading lies, and locking people up over them.
And you just belly up to the republican koolaide bar, and drink as much as you can, and believe everything they say.
Take off the blinders you bitter old conservative, and wake up.

You think you're the only one who has it all figured out, and the rest of us are soooooo ddduuummmbbb, lmao.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

YES....absolutely 100% 3 hours of research positive.....natgeo has changed alot since news corp took over or bought it.....

You're right, thanks for bringing it up. The Wall Street Journal is a rag of itself since newscorp takeover.

Is this your idea of the adults discussing the issue?
lol....you can't be serious...
I have to admit that the substance is just about what I would expect though.

No less than you bring, all opinion.

Like I stated earlier...about all you have in your bag of tricks are talking points and rhetoric. When it comes to substance, I will bet large money that you can't bring much of anything at all.

pot meet kettle

Why don't you explain the "fairness doctrine" to us, instead of asking for the definition of a word?

You know what it is, you just disagree with the premise. It's too hard backing a party that represents the top, a band of rogues [and] purport the facts, all at the same time. So waxing the fairness doctrine gets rid of "pesky facts".

I happen to understand the whole fucking thing inside and out...now do you? I suggest if you want to bring something, you need to have something to bring. You got anything more than what you are showing us? Or can we assume that what I originally stated is pretty much spot on, and you really don't have anything of real substance?

First off, you've got nothing either. You never do, never did, ever, period.

Here's what you do bring...

An opinion, nothing more. No facts to back up anything you say because that would water down the fact KuKu said it first.

Anger when other members disagree with you. (And it happens repeatedly because you're a natural projection machine.)

Insults and you always blame the other side first.

Negative rep and the additional projection that comes along with it.

Thread closes and I always get the feeling you've cried to the mods first. At least nobody else would, we're all having too much fun picking on you. Kind of like yummy bud.

Again...try to explain the fairness doctrine to us and how it effects us...instead of bringing ignorant replies that don't amount to a sack of turds?

And you ask for more turds. Why don't you give us the KuKu version of your curiosity.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Do any of you smart people know who Rupert Murdoch really is? I think not.
He has leaned much further left in his life than right...and that is a fact.

Just remember, you bring no fact... neither smart nor smarter than. It's a catch 22. You're never wrong but you're never informative for anything other than your opinion. Since your opinion is never right in the present context...

WADDAYAGOT?

He supported the re-election campaign of Hillary Clinton, and he also supported and VOTED for Barrack Obama.

Rupert knew a Republican president was gone with Sarah Palin on the ticket. That how corporate conservatives get a leg up, they contribute to Democratic campaigns.

When he was but a young adult in Australia, he belonged to the Labour Party.

Most souls with a heart are liberal in youth. In many cases, it's age, thus conservatism that brings greed. Winston Churchill surmised as much.

But some are greedy out of the gate...

He also was a very close confidant

speculation

of Tony Blair...a leftist.

A bastion of proof, sayeth the Ku.

Some of you have your finger pointing heads stuck straight up your asses.

And your ass is riding on your shoulders.

It is apparent by the things you belch.
Do you not know how ignorant it makes you look when you throw out such charges, when in reality you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and have never researched one little bit of the topic?

Projection. Nobody cares whether you research or not. This is because you never reference anything that hasn't gone through your cerebral gi tract. We get what you regurgitate, not any facts you've yet to molest.

It makes you look pretty dumb, to be honest.
Although I do realize that if everyone in the room is a dumb, then it doesn't take much to shine in that room.

Then flick your bic, beeotch. It's 'bout all the shine ya got. That and your chrome trailer hitch.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

My point was that these folks were equating Murdoch with the right.
I was pointing out how they were making a ludicrous argument trying to tie Murdoch in with the right wing...because he owns Fox News.

The ludicrous opinion is yours.

Voting for Obama was simply another example of how Murdoch is far from a right winged individual.

Nah, you're just part and parcel... a perfect example of the corrosion that happens after the fairness doctrine was waxed by Ronnie "Had Alzheimer's By His Second Term" Raygun.

In other words - no facts but Ku can stand here and say it anyway.

I stopped wasting time on you years ago, kU. Back in the day when you were nothing more than a pestiferous member name. Lots of time wasted with facts on your ass with nothing but gut reaction crap in return. So pointing out your fluff is all that's left to manage w/o wasting the time for facts you'll ignore anyway.

And BTW...voting for Obama means you want to get your share of his stash. You want your check. Nothing more, nothing less.

You'll get it too. Your state's one of the biggest doles on the list. And don't lie, you'll cry to your reps when they try to cut the services you'll lose when reality mirrors your rhetoric.

I sure didn't vote for someone that had absolutely no resume as a leader.

Sure you did, Bush in '04.

But I have gotten my check. A mutherfucking unemployment check.
Great fucking times.
When will people wise the fuck up?

I guess you already did, you got your check kufoo. That's society's back you're riding on there, ku. And you're knocking others with...

You want your check. Nothing more, nothing less.

But I have gotten my check

When will people wise the fuck up?

That's my boy, a mutha fuckin' projection machine. And you just added to the state's tab with your checks.

You're living like a social reject hoosier, at least if you go by the rhetoric you used to espouse.. But we all really know it isn't the first time you rode the pine.