Jump to content

OT: Fox News to Shut Down at 11:30


Guest kumar
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Fox News to Shut Down for Routine Maintenance Monday Morning at 11:30 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/fox-news-to-shut-down-for-routine-maintenance-monday-morning-at-1130.html

 

....Fox had considered shutting down only once before, exactly four years earlier on January 20, 2009, and later regretted the decision to continue broadcasting that day: “It turned out that no Fox viewers wanted to watch TV that day. And I mean none.”....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fox News to Shut Down for Routine Maintenance Monday Morning at 11:30 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/fox-news-to-shut-down-for-routine-maintenance-monday-morning-at-1130.html

 

....Fox had considered shutting down only once before, exactly four years earlier on January 20, 2009, and later regretted the decision to continue broadcasting that day: “It turned out that no Fox viewers wanted to watch TV that day. And I mean none.”....

 

Before we all get our hopes up, the article is meant to be satirical, not serious.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fox News to Shut Down for Routine Maintenance Monday Morning at 11:30 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/fox-news-to-shut-down-for-routine-maintenance-monday-morning-at-1130.html

 

....Fox had considered shutting down only once before, exactly four years earlier on January 20, 2009, and later regretted the decision to continue broadcasting that day: “It turned out that no Fox viewers wanted to watch TV that day. And I mean none.”....

 

Before we all get our hopes up, the article is meant to be satirical, not serious.  Cheers!

 

Their reporter, April Pazzo, is on the job rather early this year.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Monday the network will broadcast a continuous photomontage of white people."

 

That is absolutely disgusting! So if someone is politically opposed or says anything contrary to the current party then he is a racist and has to be white. This leftist garbage or using race to discredit the opposition is some of the worst stuff that I have seen in politics. An extremely bad precedent which should be severely condemned. And it does not stop there. Some in the left even called Tim Scott or a recently elected black senator (and the only one), who is a conservative in South Carolina, someone who is not in support of equal rights! Allen West in Florida was also dismissed by the left.

 

In all my years working and managing various people, I have never judged anyone based on their race, faith, gender or any other visible difference. I have always given responsibilities and then judged based on their individual accomplishments. For your information, I have never seen any trend pointing to me that one group was better than any other. Meritocracy has served me well and should be the only tool used to reward and suggest improvement to any individual.

 

I am personally very disappointed by this president and the fact that he is like the last two or creating his own catastrophe down the road along with the Fed which this time around will be a fallout of government bonds and related public finances. Clinton for his part created the Internet bubble which ended up in a crash and Bush, the real estate bubble which also ended up in a crash. My disapproval has nothing to do with race, but mismanagement of public finances and the fact that interest rates and all kinds of asset prices have been manipulated now for over 25 years. This constant desire to avoid any pain at any cost has resulted in much higher costs to the poor to middle class by increasing their cost of goods significantly (housing, car, food, energy, overpriced investments). A few percentage points savings in interest rates simply does not compensate for the large increase in cost in all other facets of life with no offsetting gain in income. 

 

What Fox News is doing is one thing, but for the left media to call anyone a racist because he or she differs from current decisions is wrong. To prevent blame or opposition against any individual actions because they are part of a minority is discriminatory. It destroys meritocracy and the right of each individual to perform at their best. 

 

Cardboard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you about causality--disagreeing with the administration is not a reason to be called a racist.  I certainly disagree on a wide variety of points.  Sadly, large numbers of the Republican base, in addition to disagreeing, are either thinly or openly racist.  I don't think it's a big step for a humor article to point this out, especially given the radical distortions an entertainment channel like Fox News regularly brings to bear to its own audience.

 

"Monday the network will broadcast a continuous photomontage of white people."

 

That is absolutely disgusting! So if someone is politically opposed or says anything contrary to the current party then he is a racist and has to be white. This leftist garbage or using race to discredit the opposition is some of the worst stuff that I have seen in politics. An extremely bad precedent which should be severely condemned. And it does not stop there. Some in the left even called Tim Scott or a recently elected black senator (and the only one), who is a conservative in South Carolina, someone who is not in support of equal rights! Allen West in Florida was also dismissed by the left.

 

In all my years working and managing various people, I have never judged anyone based on their race, faith, gender or any other visible difference. I have always given responsibilities and then judged based on their individual accomplishments. For your information, I have never seen any trend pointing to me that one group was better than any other. Meritocracy has served me well and should be the only tool used to reward and suggest improvement to any individual.

 

I am personally very disappointed by this president and the fact that he is like the last two or creating his own catastrophe down the road along with the Fed which this time around will be a fallout of government bonds and related public finances. Clinton for his part created the Internet bubble which ended up in a crash and Bush, the real estate bubble which also ended up in a crash. My disapproval has nothing to do with race, but mismanagement of public finances and the fact that interest rates and all kinds of asset prices have been manipulated now for over 25 years. This constant desire to avoid any pain at any cost has resulted in much higher costs to the poor to middle class by increasing their cost of goods significantly (housing, car, food, energy, overpriced investments). A few percentage points savings in interest rates simply does not compensate for the large increase in cost in all other facets of life with no offsetting gain in income. 

 

What Fox News is doing is one thing, but for the left media to call anyone a racist because he or she differs from current decisions is wrong. To prevent blame or opposition against any individual actions because they are part of a minority is discriminatory. It destroys meritocracy and the right of each individual to perform at their best. 

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the radical distortions of MSNBC? Libel and hate goes on unchecked on that network.

 

While Fox News is hated by the left, they at least try to keep some emotion in check and reporting the news while MSNBC is all about expressing disgust for anyone aligned with the right. Fox News is also the only news network that supports the right while all other heavily gravitate towards the left except maybe CBS.

 

Personally, I don't like at all this kind of reporting. All reporting and journalism should be neutral. In school at some point, they taught me that the editorial was the place to express such thing.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All reporting and journalism should be neutral.

 

But no reporting or journalism ever is.

 

There is always a million different ways to say the same thing.  A million different ways to frame any event.  A choice of which photos to display, etc.  The way one chooses to do so is always colored by their prejudices even when they are making a conscience effort to be neutral.  Every human being is biased in ways they don't even realize consciously.  So this is a problem that is impossible to solve, yet the cable news networks have problems above and beyond this sub-conciseness bias. They are all consciously and intentionally biased in either the left or the right direction as a corporate policy.  None of them even make an attempt to be neutral.  And none of them have a libertarian/anti-government/pro-individual bias, either intentionally or otherwise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, large numbers of the Republican base, in addition to disagreeing, are either thinly or openly racist. 

 

Seriously?  Can you provide any substantive evidence of your claim? 

 

I can't provide any proof of that, but it certainly appears that way from the things they say and support.  I tend to agree more with republicans than democrats when it comes to taxes and social programs, but the racism, homophobia, hatred of foreigners/immigrants, war mongering (although Obama seems to be trying to outdo them in this regard), religious intolerance (for any religion other than extreme Jesus worship),  really gets to me.  I have nothing to go on except what I hear Republicans I know saying and their presidential candidates, etc.  Democrats are a bunch of utopian socialists with an unrealistic view of what problems government is capable of solving, but in general they are decent people not likely to look at you funny or treat you differently because you're white and your adopted son is black, or you're a gay male who is walking hand in hand down the street with the love of your life, or you're a Muslim, or you don't speak English.  Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, large numbers of the Republican base, in addition to disagreeing, are either thinly or openly racist. 

 

Seriously?  Can you provide any substantive evidence of your claim?

 

I'm sure that was a generalization, so ignore it.  Kind of like how I ignored the comment by the senate candidate who said that "women cannot get pregnant during legitimate rape because they are under too much stress."  Democrats are crazy, but there is no one more nuts than some of the guys in the Republican party.  Unfortunately, I too have no proof to back that up except for Todd Akin's existence.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, large numbers of the Republican base, in addition to disagreeing, are either thinly or openly racist. 

 

Seriously?  Can you provide any substantive evidence of your claim? 

 

I can't provide any proof of that, but it certainly appears that way from the things they say and support.  I tend to agree more with republicans than democrats when it comes to taxes and social programs, but the racism, homophobia, hatred of foreigners/immigrants, war mongering (although Obama seems to be trying to outdo them in this regard), religious intolerance (for any religion other than extreme Jesus worship),  really gets to me.  I have nothing to go on except what I hear Republicans I know saying and their presidential candidates, etc.  Democrats are a bunch of utopian socialists with an unrealistic view of what problems government is capable of solving, but in general they are decent people not likely to look at you funny or treat you differently because you're white and your adopted son is black, or you're a gay male who is walking hand in hand down the street with the love of your life, or you're a Muslim, or you don't speak English.  Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,........

 

 

You can't provide any proof so you go on to state your opinion as fact. Amazing how labeling those who don't agree with you as intolerant just highlights your intolerance. Maybe they look at you funny and treat you differently not because your white and your adopted son is black, but because your an "____", (keeping it family friendly), and you would still be one even if your adopted son was white. Easier to blame things on appearances than your own character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of these have you personally met and know or you saw on admittely spinned (looking for extremist without context) news shows?

Packer

 

I have run into all of those things personally in various people I know.  Although obviously not all republicans are racists and hate gays, or are super religious,  it's just that of the large minority of Americans who fit this description most are republicans. But when it comes to the extreme flag-worshiping and war mongering, I'm not sure I've ever met a republican who doesn't fit that mold of extreme nationalistic pride, which I find almost equally appalling.  I've been accused of "hating America" or "Blaming America first" more times than I can count when discussing the wars.  That's from republicans, the democrats are of course completely silent about the slaughter because it is now their guy ordering it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, large numbers of the Republican base, in addition to disagreeing, are either thinly or openly racist. 

 

Seriously?  Can you provide any substantive evidence of your claim? 

 

I can't provide any proof of that, but it certainly appears that way from the things they say and support.  I tend to agree more with republicans than democrats when it comes to taxes and social programs, but the racism, homophobia, hatred of foreigners/immigrants, war mongering (although Obama seems to be trying to outdo them in this regard), religious intolerance (for any religion other than extreme Jesus worship),  really gets to me.  I have nothing to go on except what I hear Republicans I know saying and their presidential candidates, etc.  Democrats are a bunch of utopian socialists with an unrealistic view of what problems government is capable of solving, but in general they are decent people not likely to look at you funny or treat you differently because you're white and your adopted son is black, or you're a gay male who is walking hand in hand down the street with the love of your life, or you're a Muslim, or you don't speak English.  Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,........

 

 

You can't provide any proof so you go on to state your opinion as fact. Amazing how labeling those who don't agree with you as intolerant just highlights your intolerance. Maybe they look at you funny and treat you differently not because your white and your adopted son is black, but because your an "____", (keeping it family friendly), and you would still be one even if your adopted son was white. Easier to blame things on appearances than your own character.

 

I admit that it is my opionion based on what I see and people I've talked with.  I'm not sure I wrote anything that wasn't "family friendly", sort of adds to my observational data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, large numbers of the Republican base, in addition to disagreeing, are either thinly or openly racist. 

 

Seriously?  Can you provide any substantive evidence of your claim? 

 

I can't provide any proof of that, but it certainly appears that way from the things they say and support.  I tend to agree more with republicans than democrats when it comes to taxes and social programs, but the racism, homophobia, hatred of foreigners/immigrants, war mongering (although Obama seems to be trying to outdo them in this regard), religious intolerance (for any religion other than extreme Jesus worship),  really gets to me.  I have nothing to go on except what I hear Republicans I know saying and their presidential candidates, etc.  Democrats are a bunch of utopian socialists with an unrealistic view of what problems government is capable of solving, but in general they are decent people not likely to look at you funny or treat you differently because you're white and your adopted son is black, or you're a gay male who is walking hand in hand down the street with the love of your life, or you're a Muslim, or you don't speak English.  Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,........

 

The third route is what I take, I disregard labels.  I have some strong personal views that neither party supports, so I don't have a strong political affiliation.  I don't look at people with political affiliations either, just as people.  Maybe some of their views are both conservative and liberal like mine.  The people I stay away from are the ones with very strong political views who view the world through a republican/democrat lens.  There is more to life than politics, and while national politics is a great party topic I've found it doesn't really solve much, and brings a lot of division.

 

I had a boss who refused to leave the city because the country was filled with inbred republicans.  A friend's wife won't leave the US because the rest of the world is so socialist they might as well be communists.  I'd hate to live like either of those, they're both prisoners to a political philosophy.  I've found great people who are both liberals and conservatives, and likewise I've found terrible people with both viewpoints as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of these have you personally met and know or you saw on admittely spinned (looking for extremist without context) news shows?

 

Packer

 

I have personally met quite a number, and I have seen plenty of ugliness firsthand.  Of course they claim that calling the president a "n*gger" doesn't make them racist. 

 

There have been so many things over time, but let's look at just one.  There is really no reasonable way to look at the old birther camp as anything but racists, or at least race-baiters.  The evidence was overwhelming, people just chose to ignore it or willfully misunderstand it.

 

This country has a long and acknowledged history of racism.  Many people thought we were turning a page in history, but it turns out that things don't happen that quickly.  It was foolish to think that these attitudes change over a few short decades; much of this is just the natural consequence of the republican party targeting the area where these feelings were and are strongest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of these have you personally met and know or you saw on admittely spinned (looking for extremist without context) news shows?

 

Packer

 

I have personally met quite a number, and I have seen plenty of ugliness firsthand.  Of course they claim that calling the president a "n*gger" doesn't make them racist. 

 

There have been so many things over time, but let's look at just one.  There is really no reasonable way to look at the old birther camp as anything but racists, or at least race-baiters.  The evidence was overwhelming, people just chose to ignore it or willfully misunderstand it.

 

This country has a long and acknowledged history of racism.  Many people thought we were turning a page in history, but it turns out that things don't happen that quickly.  It was foolish to think that these attitudes change over a few short decades; much of this is just the natural consequence of the republican party targeting the area where these feelings were and are strongest.

 

And to be completely clear, I also know a great deal of rational, totally non-racist people who identify as republican.  Until recently I counted myself in this camp.  But anything I've said should not be read as a complete "all or nothing" kind of statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, large numbers of the Republican base, in addition to disagreeing, are either thinly or openly racist. 

 

Seriously?  Can you provide any substantive evidence of your claim? 

 

I can't provide any proof of that, but it certainly appears that way from the things they say and support.  I tend to agree more with republicans than democrats when it comes to taxes and social programs, but the racism, homophobia, hatred of foreigners/immigrants, war mongering (although Obama seems to be trying to outdo them in this regard), religious intolerance (for any religion other than extreme Jesus worship),  really gets to me.  I have nothing to go on except what I hear Republicans I know saying and their presidential candidates, etc.  Democrats are a bunch of utopian socialists with an unrealistic view of what problems government is capable of solving, but in general they are decent people not likely to look at you funny or treat you differently because you're white and your adopted son is black, or you're a gay male who is walking hand in hand down the street with the love of your life, or you're a Muslim, or you don't speak English.  Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,........

 

 

You can't provide any proof so you go on to state your opinion as fact. Amazing how labeling those who don't agree with you as intolerant just highlights your intolerance. Maybe they look at you funny and treat you differently not because your white and your adopted son is black, but because your an "____", (keeping it family friendly), and you would still be one even if your adopted son was white. Easier to blame things on appearances than your own character.

 

I admit that it is my opionion based on what I see and people I've talked with.  I'm not sure I wrote anything that wasn't "family friendly", sort of adds to my observational data.

 

Shows how useless your observational data is, when there is no implication whatsoever in my post that suggested you wrote anything that wasn't family friendly. Just you applying your bias's toward those that disagree with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shows how useless your observational data is, when there is no implication whatsoever in my post that suggested you wrote anything that wasn't family friendly. Just you applying your bias's toward those that disagree with you.

 

Whoa, someone is in high dudgeon!

I too have seen what I would call casual racism personally as well as in the media. 

 

Documented:

Here: The state senator who said "slavery was a blessing".  There is no way to parse that one well; approximately  10 million African perished on the way over to the Americas.  It gets worse.  He also said  will it become "possible for black people in the United States of America to firmly establish themselves as inclusive and contributing members of society within this country?"

 

Here: From someone who should know better: Haley Barbour, former gov. of Mississippi, "I don't remember that racism was that bad."  Really, lynchings, Jim Crow, etc.

 

Here: From Jim Greer, the former chairman of the Fla. Republican Party: “Unfortunately, I found that many within the GOP have racist views...  "

 

Mr. Munger has some interesting things to say about the psychological underpinning of denial...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best lines I heard regarding gun control was by Stevie Wonder today:

 

"You guys should come with me to a gun store, and see how easy it is for me to get a gun.  It's just crazy...me with a gun!"

 

Cheers!

 

The original gun control laws in the US were passed as a direct result of the fact that whites didn't want blacks to own guns.  In Massachusetts where I lived up to about 14 months ago you still have to ask your police chief to issue you a license and he gets to use his "discretion" to decide if you are an "appropriate person" (read: white).  I find it disgusting that even in a liberal state such as Massachusetts these old clearly racist laws are still on the books and supported whole heatedly by the so-called progressive liberals (the white ones anyway). 

 

Oh wait a minute... or are you suggesting that we discriminate against the blind?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Stevie Wonder could not get a gun to defend himself. Have you ever seen Bloodsport?  ;D

 

I did not think that this thread would turn into gun control, but some seem to like the topic. Anyway, IMO, this gun control debate has two parts:

 

1- Significantly reduce the access to semi-automatic, large magazines weapons or the typical weapons used in mass shootings.

2- Reducing the death rate by guns in the U.S. which comes largely from hand guns during various altercations such as domestic violence and crimes.

 

So addressing Newtown via gun control should be done mainly by reducing the access to military style weapons and IMO, the NRA should not have that much of an issue with it. Although, as I have mentioned previously, we have serious control over these weapons in Quebec and still had many mass shootings with these. Some dismissed that fact, but other incidents have happened worldwide, so it is more than just a statistical outlier. So, it is a step forward, but not an all inclusive solution.

 

Regarding hand guns, they could also be used for mass shootings since many of them are semi-automatic. However, the problem using these for mass shooters is the lack of a large magazine and their imprecision. I don't think that they create either the kind of power trip that these idiots seek when they go on a rampage with a machine gun style weapon. Moreover, if you start preventing the access to regular hand guns, then you get right into the #2 amendment which makes it near impossible to pass into law IMO.

 

So sure, removing the access to hand guns would likely reduce the death rate in the U.S. by a lot. At the same time, I do feel compassion for guys like Ericopoly and rkbabang who carry such weapon to defend themselves against criminals and are unlikely to ever fire it on a human being. It becomes very hard to decide who should have one and who shouldn't. A much broader solution would be to find a solution to make U.S. cities much safer. Reducing the poverty and unemployment rate in the inner cities would certainly reduce crime significantly and would be much more moral than just going after hand guns.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why Stevie Wonder could not get a gun to defend himself. Have you ever seen Bloodsport?  ;D

 

I did not think that this thread would turn into gun control, but some seem to like the topic. Anyway, IMO, this gun control debate has two parts:

 

1- Significantly reduce the access to semi-automatic, large magazines weapons or the typical weapons used in mass shootings.

2- Reducing the death rate by guns in the U.S. which comes largely from hand guns during various altercations such as domestic violence and crimes.

 

So addressing Newtown via gun control should be done mainly by reducing the access to military style weapons and IMO, the NRA should not have that much of an issue with it. Although, as I have mentioned previously, we have serious control over these weapons in Quebec and still had many mass shootings with these. Some dismissed that fact, but other incidents have happened worldwide, so it is more than just a statistical outlier. So, it is a step forward, but not an all inclusive solution.

 

Regarding hand guns, they could also be used for mass shootings since many of them are semi-automatic. However, the problem using these for mass shooters is the lack of a large magazine and their imprecision. I don't think that they create either the kind of power trip that these idiots seek when they go on a rampage with a machine gun style weapon. Moreover, if you start preventing the access to regular hand guns, then you get right into the #2 amendment which makes it near impossible to pass into law IMO.

 

So sure, removing the access to hand guns would likely reduce the death rate in the U.S. by a lot. At the same time, I do feel compassion for guys like Ericopoly and rkbabang who carry such weapon to defend themselves against criminals and are unlikely to ever fire it on a human being. It becomes very hard to decide who should have one and who shouldn't. A much broader solution would be to find a solution to make U.S. cities much safer. Reducing the poverty and unemployment rate in the inner cities would certainly reduce crime significantly and would be much more moral than just going after hand guns.

 

Cardboard

 

There is also a large cultural component to violence.  Many people like to point to homicide statistics between the US and the UK and make a correlation between the current gun laws and the current homicide rates forgetting that correlation doesn't equal causation.  What you find if you look at the statistics over time is that 1) the UK always had a much much lower homicide rate than the US even back when neither country had any gun laws to speak of.  And 2) the UK's rate is much higher today than earlier in the last century when it had no gun laws to speak of.  You could take that data and conclude that all else being equal gun laws increase violence.  Statistics can be used to prove just about anything as the IE vs homicide rate chart shows.  Again correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

http://i.imgur.com/47D7zGq.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...