Ithink one of them was "America's Newsroom" another one was Fox News Report or something? I can't recall all of the other ones some were about the protesters of the tea parties, the majority of them were about the H(w)ealth Care System, and the insurance companies that won't be able to compete wih the governmetn (those poor insurance and finance companies who cause the internacioanl crisis anyway , booowoowooo :03:)

Health insurance companies didn't cause any "international crisis". Have a rather obvious anti-corporate sentiment?

Fox has both opinion pieces, as well as news pieces. So do the other networks. No matter which you watch, you have to discern between the two.

Though if your already biased one way or the other, your going to see an opinion portion and it will resonate with you, or infuriate you - depending on its stance in relation to your own.

That's pretty much how I see it.

I've never seen any news agency promoting (fabricating) the news they want to cast, either as endorcement to protesters, or simply by misquoting or taking deliberatly out of contest sentences only to bash someone's charachter (ok this last one it's pretty common). Also I've never seen a news channel where their anchors use their screen time to sell their books and merchandise adding "their the perfect gift and a great bargain", like that O'Reilly chap...

For me that's disgusting, and more importantly UNETHICAL, and my collegues of the radio's information department tend to agree in that.

PS: I don't have a any beef with any corporate enterprise, why would I? I just pointed out that the great majority of insurance companies are closely related to the banking entities that led to the crisis.

Really? Google "Dan Rather George Bush National Guard record"

Also note the lack of coverage on the ACORN scandal, Van Jones and the multi media character assassination of Sarah Palin.

You see Fox bias but you don't see much more blatant bias by the other networks, especially MSNBC.

Palin was suicide, not assassination :rotfl2:

So you're another one who actually believes she said she can see Russia from her house, eh?

No, the "I can't name a newspaper, magazine or Supreme Court case" bit was enough for me. :03:

Yet 57 states apparently wasn't. Odd that.

Perhaps that's because he misspoke in a split-second moment about one thing that he later corrected himself on. She had minutes to think of something related to the three things posed to her, one of which is very relevant to her job as a politician. Off the top of my head I can name Plessy v. Furgeson, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. The Board of Education, and Scopes v. Tennessee for Supreme Court cases alone. Why couldn't she?

QFT.

Stealth Hunter....

Could it be because, unlike the current President - she isn't yet another Lawyer turned politician?

Obama has his Law Degree from Harvard. I would say that to earn that he had to study a bit of law.....

As a governor, do you think you would have time to follow all the various legal proceedings going on, or in the past? Did it occur to you that Mrs. Palin's education may not have been focused on social history, which is where such topics come up? Is it possible that in the day to day duties of a governor, a specific understanding of needs of the people would outweigh the need to know what the latest item is on Court TV?

It's ok to dislike the person, or their politics. But judge them because they don't know something you do? That opens you up to alot of judgements - because we all have things we don't know.

That's why its important for any governmental leader to have good advisors - people who ROUND out their knowledge base.

Unfortunately, the current president has surrounded himself with communists, socialists and other activists instead of a varied group that can offer him ideas from a broad spectrum.

That... or she could just be an idiot. Given that this isn't one of the only majorly stupid things she's said (let alone done), I'm going with the latter. I mean seriously, not even Brown v. The Board of Education? One of the more recent and most famous Supreme Court issues that is addressed in every school across the United States from junior high as far on as mandatory history in college? I don't expect her to know every single one. But she wasn't even able to come up with a name or basic summary of one, which is disturbing given her ambitions to become vice president (and possibly president).

Agreed, but see above.

Not all, just some. At least some of the mandatory ones needed for a high school education.

Yep, as far as a college education is concerned. But we're talking national cirriculum level stuff. Schools have been required for something like 40 years have been required to teach about Brown and the Board of Education, let alone Marbury v. Madison, or for that matter Roe v. Wade.

Well to begin with, this was an interview that she was supposed to have been prepared for to begin with- not at all related to the "day to day duties of a governor".

You're ignoring, however, the other things she said- like her statement about Russia, God elects presidents- not the people, and my personal favorite: the vice president is in charge of the Senate. Among other things. The very simple matter of it is she's not intelligent enough to succeed at her own game. She can woo a crowd with a nice speech, but she lacks the intelligence and rational thought process to become what is the very substance of a great leader.
Which would be a bar-none for her. At least McCain would have been in charge if they'd won. If he died though... then god have mercy on us all...

:haha:

Before I go any further, what knowledge do you have on Socialism and Communism? Because from the looks of it, you don't understand one of the most basic things between the two SEPARATE ideologies: Communists are not Socialists, and vice versa.

That's not half as scary as the thought of Joe Biden in the Oval Office. Do you Democrats ever practice what you preach?