Thread: The Fox News Deception

FOX is horrible.

Fox's Carlson: The Constitution Is Too Old To Deal With Terrorists (VIDEO)

In Gretchen Carlson's mind, the Constitution maybe just a little too outdated to enable the government to deal with terrorists.

On Fox & Friends this morning, the co-host made that statement during a discussion centering on last night's House passage of the extension of the Patriot Act's provisions. And after Fox judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explained how the controversial provisions work, Carlson chimed in with a perspective that would make a civil liberties advocate cringe.

"Well back in the 17 and 1800's, we didn't have this thing on the war on terror, where we have to get to the bottom of things quickly," said Carlson. "And if we wait, people argue, to go to a judge, then sometimes that terrorist could do a dirty deed."

Napolitano strongly disagreed.

"That is not a serious argument, and I tell you why, because judges sit 24/7," he said. "The person speaking to you used to issue search warrants in my gym shorts in my living room at 3:00 in the morning when police need them. One of my friends in Washington, a federal judge, issued a search warrant from a motorcycle at 4:00 on a Saturday afternoon."

"This argument about speed does not justify violating the Constitution."

Watch the video below:

Beck: "Don't Do A Google Search" Because "Google Is Pretty Deeply In Bed With The Government"

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Beck: "Don't Do A Google Search" Because "Google Is Pretty Deeply In Bed With The Government"

watching and or listing to Glen Beck is equivalent to getting a lobotomy....

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Please watch the entire segment and comment:

Fox has been caught so many times manipulating voice and data for political coverage, they don't even make statements anymore when they get busted...

All the news channels are a joke.

I like Robin meade in the morning. Its just news.

I don't know how anyone could take FOX or MSNBC seriously.

Does anyone really think there is a clean media source out there? c'mon. they follow the money just like every other industry. All the fuckers are dirty in media.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

Does anyone really think there is a clean media source out there? c'mon. they follow the money just like every other industry. All the fuckers are dirty in media.

Some do take it to the extreme, I do really think that the FOX slaves are scarier.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

Does anyone really think there is a clean media source out there? c'mon. they follow the money just like every other industry. All the fuckers are dirty in media.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

Does anyone really think there is a clean media source out there? c'mon. they follow the money just like every other industry. All the fuckers are dirty in media.

Some international media can be more objective, although as humans there is always a form of bias.

But the American journalists I follow, I am still circumspect.

Originally Posted by ROID

All the news channels are a joke.

I turned those channels off in 2004 and stopped watching TV, and I hope others do the same. It's simply not a good way to get information.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Some international media can be more objective, although as humans there is always a form of bias.

But the American journalists I follow, I am still circumspect.

B.S. there isn't an international media source out there that is any better than the local stuff we have here. To think that is kind of ignorant in my mind

I wish the FCC would levy heavy, heavy fines for shit like this. They fine a network over a "wardrobe malfunction", but allow something like this to happen which is much more destructive.

How about 5 million dollars per infraction for passing something off as "news" that is blatantly false. Opinion shows would be excluded, because of course they are opinion and "entertainment" shows rather than news.

And no one thanks your supreme court for that one, again....

It helps to have the supreme court in your pocket..!


Supreme Court rolls back campaign cash limits - Politics - Supreme Court - msnbc.com

Originally Posted by danzik17

I wish the FCC would levy heavy, heavy fines for shit like this. They fine a network over a "wardrobe malfunction", but allow something like this to happen which is much more destructive.

How about 5 million dollars per infraction for passing something off as "news" that is blatantly false. Opinion shows would be excluded, because of course they are opinion and "entertainment" shows rather than news.

all news is opinion and entertainment based

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Beck: "Don't Do A Google Search" Because "Google Is Pretty Deeply In Bed With The Government"

Google is bed with the USG...they just don't realize it, lol

Originally Posted by bio-chem

B.S. there isn't an international media source out there that is any better than the local stuff we have here. To think that is kind of ignorant in my mind

I never said the International media was better.

And I also do not think that.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

I never said the International media was better.

And I also do not think that.

so more objective doesn't mean better?

Originally Posted by bio-chem

B.S. there isn't an international media source out there that is any better than the local stuff we have here. To think that is kind of ignorant in my mind

Of course it's better. I mean, just look...it's international. It's better in the same way that the UN is better than the United States of America.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

all news is opinion and entertainment based

I understand - that's why I prefaced my post with "I wish" rather than "The FCC should".

It's an unrealistic wish, but I think we would be better off as a nation if it came true. Too many people on both sides base their opinions off of faulty logic and factually incorrect information supposedly sourced from "news" organizations.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

so more objective doesn't mean better?

The statement I made was "can be more objective."

Again, I did not imply "better."

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Hitler would have loved her.

This is why I don't watch the news. Except John Stewart.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

B.S. there isn't an international media source out there that is any better than the local stuff we have here. To think that is kind of ignorant in my mind

You're goddamn right, I buy American. That includes bullshit as well.

Originally Posted by danzik17

I wish the FCC would levy heavy, heavy fines for shit like this. They fine a network over a "wardrobe malfunction", but allow something like this to happen which is much more destructive.

How about 5 million dollars per infraction for passing something off as "news" that is blatantly false. Opinion shows would be excluded, because of course they are opinion and "entertainment" shows rather than news.

Very good point.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

so more objective doesn't mean better?

Re-read my post.

The statement I made (to repeat again) is:

The international media can be more objective.


One reason: less partisanship and often no partisanship. The International Herald Tribune is one example.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Re-read my post.

The statement I made (to repeat again) is:

The international media can be more objective.


One reason: less partisanship and often no partisanship. The International Herald Tribune is one example.

you responded twice, to the same post, the same way?

and it really seems like you are splitting hairs with your distinction.