Check this out....

[darxbane]

Gorgon, Gorgon, Gorgon.......Clinton was in office when we were attacked.  In fact, we were attacked 3 times while he was in office (first Trade Center Bombing, African embassy, USS Cole).  Clinton himself deemed Sadamm Hussein an enemy of America.  He sent a few cruise missiles Hussein's way as well.  He also significantly weakened our military, which was just another sign to terrorists that we were becoming weak.  Also, his first two years in office, the economy was garbage.  We also forget the most important factor.  2 years after Clinton was elected, the Democratic party lost control of the House and Senate for the first time in almost 40 years. You don't think this changing of the guard had a positive impact on the next 6 years?  If you factor in the corruption that surrounded his presidency, I think long term history will see Clinton a little differently than those who were too blinded by all the shiny new toys they bought to see the truth.  You also are wrong about FEMA.  I am sure you don't remember the number of disasters that occurred while that Brown guy headed FEMA, but there were quite a few that went without a hitch.  In fact, very little is even spoken about Katrina's impact to Mississippi, which was just as hard hit.  The difference was the state of Mississippi did what was right to minimize damage, while Louisiana misused funds to pay for Levy repairs, refused to help people evacuate because the buses they had weren't comfortable enough (Mayor Nagin actually had this complaint, there were hundreds of school buses sitting there, and he wanted someone to send Coach buses), and told the Feds to stay out.  This last piece is most important.  It is illegal for the Federal Government to send any troops, including the National Guard, into a State without permission from the Governor of that state.  There is audio of the then Governor of Louisiana telling the President himself that they were all set and did not need his help.  The levys broke a couple hours later, and by then the delay in mobilizing the relief effort was destructive.  What I find most amusing is that, had Bush and FEMA ignored the law and gone into LA full bore, and the levy's had held, it would have been hell to pay, and another example of Bush going around the rules.  He probably would have also been chastised for the misuse of resources.

Now I have a question:  Please tell me a specific example of Bush working around the constition.  I hear about all these civil liberties that have been taken away from us, but don't actually know what they are.  Someone please elaborate, but be prepared to explain yourself well.

[GreenMonsta]

Good points, the national guard is actually controlled by the state. All guardsmen and women swear both to the president and to the governor of the respective state. So lets say the Pres wanted a Guard unit from LA activated and the governor didn't, then the unit would stay inactive because it is the state that funds those units and not the federal government.

[darxbane]

Right, and even more importantly, a National Guard unit from another state would need approval from the president, as well as the Governors from both the state they are going to and coming from. 

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Gorgon, Gorgon, Gorgon.......Clinton was in office when we were attacked.  In fact, we were attacked 3 times while he was in office (first Trade Center Bombing, African embassy, USS Cole).  Clinton himself deemed Sadamm Hussein an enemy of America.  He sent a few cruise missiles Hussein's way as well. etc.

A) I was talking about the attacks that were the focus of the discussion.  And, as far as I know (feel free to correct me if you can find evidence otherwise), Clinton wasn't accused of blatantly ignoring evidence of any attacks beforehand, nor was he accused of ignoring evidence skewing evidence in order to go to war.  I'm sorry, I don't see, "being attacked" and "failing to take any necessary steps to prevent an attack when information was available" as equivalent.

And yet, somehow under Clinton's rule (and this was not all, and very likely not even mostly, his doing), we still had the highest period of economic expansion.  So, I'm sure you can see how I'm willing to say, "In the beginning it might have been a slump, but he had to work with what he was given" (just as you are doing with Bush and the terrorism).  Also, I'm sure you can see how I look at Clinton handing over a country with the highest surplus in American history (at least so is what I have been told), and getting from Bush the biggest deficit in American history.

Maybe I'm not aware of all of the terrible scandals surrounding Clinton's presidency, because I was so young.  Enlighten me?

I don't have time to go into anything further right now.  I've been as busy as a horse with six legs and two heads.  I don't even know what that entails, but it's true, I swear!  Take a look at torture, wire-tapping, the USA PATROIT Act, etc.  I know, you're going to say the PATROIT Act was fine, well--I disagree.  I'm sure a solid internet search of "Bush, civil liberty repeal" will do wonders.  I don't feel like trading off civil liberties, even if it doesn't directly affect me or anybody I know, for feeling safer is a good trade.  I feel like to be a superpower, one must show itself as vigilant and in order to really be a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, one must demonstrate true love of freedom and democracy, even when it is hard to do so.  Freedom for everybody we encounter, including our prisoners.

I think what bothers me the most is that, because I disagree with Bush, people just label me as some democrat who blindly follows the democrats.  And yet, while I also challenge democrats when they get my country into trouble (like the democratic house and senate that promised some change, but has yet to do anything of importance except start to crumble into lobbyists, etc., on the topic of offshore drilling...).  Yet, most Bush supporters at this point, for whatever reason (probably because they're so outnumbered and perhaps feel surrounded, often by morons, which is often the case), don't criticize his presidency at all despite the fact that he has obviously done some harm.  Unless they agree with the points they tend to ignore, too.  Like, I haven't heard you comment at all on the multiple mentions I've made of his firings of non like minded thinkers, or a complete monotone cabinet.  Whether or not Brown had done a good job, he was completely under qualified for the job when he was hired.  Mistakes have been made, and perhaps the side that dislikes Bush wouldn't be so (from your view) overly vigorous, if the side that likes Bush wouldn't just accept everything he's done as being swell.  And then try to completely push the blame for things that happened under his presidency on the last guy.  Clinton had some blame, like I already said, but don't you think that the guy in power probably had some control over what was going on?  Or should have?

[Necroben]

And yet, somehow under Clinton's rule (and this was not all, and very likely not even mostly, his doing), we still had the highest period of economic expansion.  So, I'm sure you can see how I'm willing to say, "In the beginning it might have been a slump, but he had to work with what he was given" (just as you are doing with Bush and the terrorism).  Also, I'm sure you can see how I look at Clinton handing over a country with the highest surplus in American history (at least so is what I have been told), and getting from Bush the biggest deficit in American history.

I could be wrong, but what I remember happening is that Clinton and Congress dead-locked on the budget for several months.  Resulting in the shutdown of all non-essential government services, that is unfortunately the only time our government have shown a profit.  I not to sure on the deficit though.  All I know is that it has been a problem since the 70's.  On the other hand this book I'm reading, Founding Brothers, actually puts the date at about 1790 and that we have never paid off our debt since.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a reported federal surplus.[6][7] Based on Congressional accounting rules, at the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion. (wikipedia on Bill Clinton in the intro).

I would be willing to believe that "congressional accounting rules" count something that isn't a surplus a surplus.  It's kinda the nature of a government to be in debt to other countries and banks--I mean, it does help in the sense that when you owe people money, they're invested in you.  Which means if you get into a war or something, they're likely to take your side or stay out of it.  But there's a limit.

That being said, whatever "rules of accounting" they used are the same rules of accounting they're using now, and the deficit is amazing now.  Obviously that's what happens when you get into a war and try to rebuild a country from the ground up.  And I'm not going to get back into the argument of "was Iraq called for or not" because when it comes down to it, like I said, it's a matter of opinion.  Was the price right?  To each of us the answer is different.  But we shouldn't be using exclusive bid contracts, among other things that are just plain mistakes which are costing us lots of money to large corporations (most of whom use less than legal tax scams to not even pay the country what it owes, a difference citizens have to make up).

[darxbane]

What you are missing is that the perceived surplus was created by the weakening of our military and the artificial expansion of the economy by dot com companies that imploded at the end of 2000.  Do you think Bush somehow magically changed policies so much in just 9 months that he caused the attacks?  Or that just him becoming president caused the stock market to plummet?  If anything, a Republican president coming into office usually helps, as companies know that reduced taxes and regulation may occur.  Do you think it capable of anyone, especially someone who just barely won an election, to just come out guns blazing?  The culture of America pre 9/11 was to use diplomacy, and to only get involved in a fight if we were directly affected.  There may have been intelligence out there, but there would have been no way to pinpoint it exactly.  He would have been eviscerated if he ordered the checks and controls on flights before the attacks.  No one would have accepted them.  People barely accept them now, and all they really do is inconvenience people.   Fighting 2 wars and drastically increasing security to prevent future attack is draining, but that is not the extent of the problem.  Another major cause of deficit is unfair trade with other countries, and our inability to hold those countries to task for undercutting us.  I know Bush has made mistakes, as all Presidents have.  I think his biggest mistakes were not holding Congress accountable for continued overspending and Partisan politics.  he focused too much on National Security and not enough on fixing Government.   I am not sure what you mean by Monotone Cabinet.  If you mean just politically, then that may be true.  You will be hard pressed to find a Presidency where the Cabinet members did not closely agree with the President and stayed around for any length of time.  Colin Powell left of his own accord, so who was fired for disagreeing with Bush?  That brings me to my second criticism of Bush; his loyalty to his people.  In many ways, bush was too nice a guy when it came to his subordinates.  I happen to believe he was too forgiving at times (Rumsfeld being a PRIME example).  Finally, he didn't spend enough time pushing past Media bias and making sure his decisions were given the proper context and reasoning. 

Now, Civil Liberties.  First off, unless you are suspected of a crime (in which there is a warrant somewhere), or are receiving phone calls from the Middle East or Africa, the FBI is not monitoring your phone calls.  There are 200 Million people in America, do you really think they have time to spy on even 1 percent, even if they wanted to?  As for torture, I take the McCain stance, it should not be legal.  While I understand that it has been effective, it can also produce as much bad intelligence as good, and it gives our enemies an excuse to torture their prisoners, AKA US POW's.  So, while I may use the incredibly accurate and dependable internet to do the search you mentioned, I still want to know what Civil Liberties we have traded off in order to be more safe? 

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Every boom (.com boom, for example, or the current real-estate boom) has a crash.  You can't really blame any person for the crash (be it Bush or Clinton) in 2001--that is what happens when too many people invest in the same thing.  It happened with gold, it happened with banking, it happened with stocks, it happened with .com, it is happening with real-estate.

Clinton had a monotone cabinet too, I think, and I think it's a disgusting failure for any president to surround himself with minds just like his.  However, whatever the reason, our country was in better shape almost all of Clinton's leadership than Bush's.  Blame it on the situation if you want, but I was accused of disliking Bush simply because I like Democrats (which I maintain is untrue), but it seems like there's a lot of Clinton hate here for the opposite reason.  Like I said, he wasn't a perfect president (who was?); I think he was much better than Bush.  And a large portion of our society would agree with me.  That doesn't make me right, but it doesn't hurt my argument, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy.

Also, considering it has come out that people hired into positions (low and high) under the Bush Administration were asked about their political views and if they think Bush has been doing a good job, often looking into seeing if applicants were registered Republican, I'd say his administration has overstepped its bounds.  Somebody's political stance should be irrelevant if they are qualified for a job, and if anything, finding people who have been unhappy with your performance can lead to better leadership through useful criticism.  All presidents, neigh, all people surround themselves with those who agree with them, but Bush's administration has definitely taken it farther than I can think of it ever going, and far beyond the limit of acceptability.

A republican president may usually help, but it certainly hasn't this time.  We can't say (as far as I know) that the .com plummet was Bush's administration's fault, but the current drop certainly has at least a percentage of fault with the administration.

I don't think I am being spied on.  I think it's a crime that my leader would endorse the legality of inhibiting civil liberties.  End of story--I don't care if you've been suspected of a crime or not, without due process, no person should be stripped of any liberty.

Bush has done some alright things, too.  He's been a great president for Africa, so I hear.  But his successes are far overshadowed by his failures.

[darxbane]

I agree that bipartisanship should be practiced.  Unfortunately, that doesn't happen on either side.  The Clinton Administration was the same, as has just about every Administration in history.  You again mention the restriction of your civil liberties, but I still don't see what was restricted.  The only rights I seem to be losing are the rights to protect myself and my family, the right to freely express religious beliefs (only Christians seem to be restricted), and the right to make an honest observation about another ethnic group without being labeled a racist.  Do you know a poll taken yesterday stated that almost 40% of those polled believe that, if Obama loses the election, it will be due almost solely to racism?  That is staggering to me!  Yet there is no problem bashing McCain because he is 71?  I'm sorry if I am bitter towards the Democratic party, but I am tired of Celebutants who can't even run their own lives telling me how to vote, and I certainly can't stand the media bias.  I would have no problem if the information flow to the average person was even remotely fair and balanced, but it is not.  Ever wonder how hippocritical it is for America's leading feminist organization to hold in such high regard a man who was thrice accused of sexual harrassment and admitted to cheating on his wife?  While in the Oval office?  Now there is finally a chance for the glass ceiling to be shattered by a proven reformer, someone who has a record of standing up to her own party to do what is right, and she is being villified because she is Pro-Life?  The Feminists are even accusing her of putting her career above her family!!!!!!  Condaleeza Rice is the First Black women to be Secratary of State, and all you hear about her is that she is a puppet for the Bush Administration.  I again apologize, but I can not throw my support towards anyone endorsed by these selfish fools.

One more thing....If you really look closely, you will find that the president has little to do with the economy.  That's the best part about all of these battles and finger pointing right now.  There is little the President can do to affect the Economy.  Congress, however, can play a big part.  The deregulation bills that allowed the mortgages to occur was voted on in 1996.  In 2006, McCain proposed a bill to rein in Freddie and Fannie and it went nowhere.  Why?  It was and election year, and the Dems knew they were going to take the house and Senate back, and ther weren't going to let the Rep's take any credit.  All the President can do is make recommendations, sign good bills into law and veto bad ones.  We need to hold the Executives of the companies responsible, as well as Congress.   

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

True, the president has little to do with the economy.  But it is the president's job (which is why he has a secretary of Treasury and Commerce) to have his administration be on top of what is happening in the economic sector to provide adequate pressure on businesses and on congress (this congress has been a moderate to complete joke--yay, we raised minimum wage...good job, do you want a cookie?) to take necessary actions.  You'll note it is the president and/or his cabinet members who are now coming up with the "solutions" for the economic issues we're looking at right now.  That's because it's their job, quite literally, to stay on top of it.  The companies were TERRIBLY irresponsible because they knew they'd get bailed out, congress was not on top of things, neither was the president.  Notice I never said it was all the administration's fault, I said they have some blame. 

I don't see how a man's personal decisions affects how high of a regard I can hold him as a professional.  I don't care if he does things in his personal life that I disagree with, as long as he doesn't do anything illegal while in office, it really doesn't affect how good of a president he is.  It might affect how good of a person he is, but that's a separate issue entirely (besides, judge not or you'll be judged, if a cheating man's wife can forgive him, I don't see why I can't).

There's no law that says you can't say something stereotypical.  There isn't even a law that says you can't say something blatantly ignorant or racist.  There's no law that says you can't go out on the streets and flagrantly spew your religious beliefs to anybody who passes (no matter what they are--in fact, here at MSU we have a very zealous individual we call the Wells Hall Preaches.  He likes to go out on sunny days and yell at passing students about how they're going to Hell if they don't accept Jesus).  You can't put religious teachings into a school system everybody's kids go to for obvious reasons--other people don't want you teaching their kids your religion.  If you want to teach your kids your religion in school, there's nothing stopping you from teaching your kids at home or using a private school.  It is not the government's job to provide a place to teach religion to your kids.

There is no such thing as unbiased news.  There are plenty of sources with a liberal tilt, there are plenty of sources with a conservative tilt, and there are plenty of sources that are extremist.  And everything in between (except no tilt).  If you have a problem with the "liberal media", it is because you see the things that you disagree with more obviously than you recognize the things you agree with, or you are looking at the wrong places.

I don't see how vilifying somebody for being pro-life is worse than standing outside an abortion clinic en masse, yelling at the women who have made a very difficult choice about how they are going to Hell.  Also, it's not like Republicans don't vilify Democrats all the time, either (for example, saying a person who is a proven successful leader is inadequate to lead because he made a mistake in his personal life).

I'm tired of Democrats.  I'm tired of Republicans.  What I'm tired of MOST is Democrats who accuse Republicans of things that they do, and Republicans who do the same.  Which is, in all honesty, pretty much all of them (both parties).  Which brings us back to this article, which is a long tangent of one man doing just that.  The article linked at the beginning of this discussion is also a good example of right-wing biased media, in case you were wondering where to find some.

[darxbane]

Of course there are media outlets that are right wing; I am talking about the overall state of the Media.  If you research the 5 Major Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX), you will learn that 4 of them slant left, some significantly.  There is research that proved this.  Overall, the bias towards the left far exceeds any bias to the right.  It seems there are very few choices to get accurate information.
Also, your point on anti-abortionists had nothing to do with what I was saying.  I was pointing out the hipocrisy of those who claim to want equality, but actually only care about themselves and to hell with everyone else.  Sexual Harrassment is Illegal, which is why he spoke to a Grand Jury about it.  Perjury is also illegal, which is why he was impeached, sanctioned, and after he left office, temporarily disbarred.  He also lied right to our face several times.  How can someone's character not have weight, especially when they are leading a nation?  If you have a friend who never pays you back, to you keep loaning him money?  The only reason Hillary stayed with him is because divorcing him was bad for her political career. 

I agree that the mudslinging is garbage.  If what is stated is factual and relevant, that is OK.  But partisanship for the sake of gaining power is wrong on both sides.    I hate when records are distorted, and statements are taken out of context.  what I hate even more is when the people who are supposed to be responsible for filtering out the crap and showing the truth are instead providing assistance to one side over the other.    Why is it not front page news on every media outlet that McCain presented a bill in 2006 to try to rein in Freddie and Fannie before the housing bubble truly burst?  Why is it not front page news that Obama did not provide a vote, nor help with any legislation to help the crisis ahead of time, but is now saying he can fix it if he is elected?  Anyone can say they will change everything for the better, shouldn't it be required that we see some effort in the candidate's record?  There is no mention anywhere of any times where Obama or Biden went against his own party to support a bill they thought was best for the country.  If there were, you would hear it every day.  Obama refused to vote on over 100 bills!  How can he be a leader if he can't make up his mind?  He's supposed to be representing Millions of people from Illinois, yet they had no voice on those bills because he didn't want to make the wrong choice?  How can you believe he will do what is necessary to make these changes if he can't even choose yeah or Nay?  Palin has an 80% approval rating in Alaska.  That's huge!  She also called out her boss ( the republican governor at the time) on ethics violations.  This could have ruined her career, but she chose to do the right thing to do over the self-serving or cowardly thing.  Maybe that's what scares people the most about her.  McCain and Palin have demonstrated that they are willing to do what they promise.  Don't you want references when hiring a contractor?  Would you hire the first person you see, or would you want some references.  Maybe some examples of his or her work?  Why should politics be any different?
 

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Well, I agree a person's record should be taken into account when we're thinking about making him or her our leader.  I also think that Obama and Biden do not have great records, from what I have seen, nor does McCain, and Palin doesn't even really have a record to speak of.  Oh, she's been in politics, and you can disagree, but I don't see anything she's done as material for being president, which is really the position I weigh her up against, since McCain could keel over any day.  That being said, I'd rather have somebody who, when he or she is uninformed or neutral on a subject to not blindly take sides for the sake of being seen as a strong decision maker.  It is better to not make a decision as a senator when you do not think you have been informed to the point of having enough information to process (whether it be Obama, McCain, or anybody else, I actually respect more than most traits the ability to say "I am under informed and will withhold my opinion until I know enough to responsibly take a side").

You wanna know why it's not front page news?  Because the system is broken.  It is broken, it is wretched and it has been twisted out of shape.  That is why we have a party system (especially a two party system), that is why the media is irresponsible and doesn't tell us what we know, that is why somebody can lose an election because of how he looks on TV (starting with Nixon and working on up.  In fact, in the Nixon-Kennedy debate, those listening on the radio said Nixon won almost unanimously, but those watching on TV said the opposite), that is why a person who does not receive the popular vote can go on to win an election and reign for eight years, and that is why we are still playing into corporation's hands at our own expenses in every sector, and that is why right now our brilliant leaders have decided the best move is to take $2,000 from every household and hand it to corporations with "no bars held, no questions asked" instead of using that money to, say, provide health care for needing children or homes for those with none.

You can be upset with the system, but generally Republican candidates want to keep the system as static as possible (hence the nature of being "conservative").  Unfortunately, generally Democratic candidates don't do much to change the system.  Which brings us back to the system is broken.

Also, very few people want equality, I bet you yourself are included in this (at least at some level, and I, too, am sure that I am guilty).  People want to be equal OR GREATER THAN.  They want their issues at the forefront and they want their side to win, and equality isn't enough but it is a start.  Is it terrible?  Yes.  Does every major (and probably every minor) social movement do it in at least factions? Yes.

A great example of records being distorted which is pretty disgusting is an ad that is currently going around here that essentially says McCain will support a tax break for companies shipping jobs overseas.  Except the tax break is designed to encourage companies to bring the jobs back overseas, and Obama supports the same legislature.  Ridiculous that people can get away with that, especially since I know this add is rioting hundreds of thousands of Democrats into fevered, drooling dreams of Obama for president across the Midwest (maybe the nation, I don't know far the ad is being run).

Also, to be fair, FOX is REALLY, REALLY conservative (going so far as to put polls up about "who would be more likely to cheat at cards, Bill Clinton" or some other democrat), and it is owned by the third largest media outlet in the world with cable news programs (only outdone by the ever powerful AOL Time/Warner with CNN and Viacom with CBS and the faux news shows on Comedy Central).  But the "mother corporation," News Outlet, owns the more News-Oriented media than any other company in the world--if I'm not mistaken, which if I am recalling correctly, I am not.  These are figures I learned in early 2008, but I'm pretty sure they hold up now.

[darxbane]

I just gave you examples of Palin's record.  She has more than 6 years of executive experience.  Obama has 0 years of executive experience, 0 years of military leadership experience, and Palin has done more to show she can lead and delegate and manage than both Biden and Obama.  The simple fact is that every level of government Palin has been involved in has had tremendous success.  In just two years, Alaska has a surplus,  taxes on oil companies were increased to match current standards, the taxpayers are getting money back, and should I mention again the 80% approval rating (whoops, I just did) I can't believe you are making an excuse for his inaction.  Will that be his excuse as president too?  "I'm sorry, but I am not sure I have all the information, I'll just keep waiting for more evidence".  You also contradict yourself by having issue with the inaction by the President to prevent the current economic situation.  Maybe he didn't have enough evidence either.  I guess we should wait until things happen before we make a decision, that way we can never be wrong, and will instead always be in crisis mode.  I am quite sure that, unless he was too busy getting ready to be president to do his job, then he had the right information, but either couldn't or wouldn't make a choice.  Also, you are naive if you think McCain has less of a chance of surviving his presidency than others.  According to all the experts, he has a 95% chance of surviving his first term, and a 92% chance of surviving the second, so don't give me that garbage about him dying in office.  What "material" have you seen that says McCain's record is not good?  Fox is not, really really conservative.  In fact, it is as close to the middle as you can get.  The problem is, the others are so far left it makes Foxnews seem conservative.  Speaking of conservative, the current party systems really have nothing to do with the terminology used.  Dems are far from Liberal and Republicans are not all that conservative anymore, either.  They have the "core" values that don't change on both sides.  The true difference is in Government control.

You forgot about ABC and NBC.

I disagree about your equality statement.  There are many people, the majority in fact, who don't care much about what everyone else thinks, and are understanding of others.  You just don't hear about those people, because they don't make any noise. 

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I know that "liberals" are hardly liberal anymore, I'm using generally accepted terminology.  Republicans are, generally, more conservative than Democrats.  As such, they, generally, want to see fewer changes to the status quo.

Death of a president is an issue for Obama and Biden's ticket, too, for me.  And it would have been important for Bush and Cheney had I been voting in either of his elections.  It is ALWAYS a concern.

The nature of the presidency and the nature of being a senator are different enough that I can respect a man's right to withhold a vote as a senator as being a smart inaction, whereas the presidency is a single job, not multiple people doing the same job, with dozens of people working hand-in-hand to get something done.

If you think that fox news is middle ground, it is only because you agree with what they say.  I watch fox news about half the time, the other half I watch CNN.  I don't really like either of them.  However, just like I've never really seen more than one person on CNN agree with a republican, I've never seen ANYBODY on Fox agree with a democrat on any issue Republicans in general weren't already agreeing with them on.  No other news program that is "respectable" (snicker) has put up a poll such as the one I described, either, to my knowledge.  Also, ABC and NBC do not own cable news stations, like I said, and their mother corperations (Disney and General Electric) are NOT widely known as news media companies.  News Corperation, however, deals almost exclusively with news, and Fox is bigger than any other broadcasting station in the United States.

[darxbane]

Ha, I guess you never heard of Alan Colmes and Juan Williams?   These guys are 100% liberals, Democrats to the core, and they are permanent members of FoxNews.  Obviously you've never watched them while they are on.  You are showing your hidden bias.  You can pretend to be impartial all you want, but you are biased.  CNN, by the way, is the 2nd closest to the middle, with ABC third and NBC is in lala land (MSNBC is a total joke, which is why almost no one watches it).  It's hard to break preconceived notions, isn't it?  It's cool to not like FoxNews, because they tell it like it is, and the news portions certainly don't give republicans any breaks.  They tell the news and let you determine what you believe.  How do I know this?  Because I don't just trust what people say, I double check.  I go to the other agencies and see what they say, then I go online and look up facts.  After a while, you can see where the slants are.  Now sure, there are more editorial shows (Brit Hume, the Beltway Boys) that slant right then other stations, but that's because other stations have one or no shows that slant anyway but left.  Other than Joe Scarborough, name me one News Personality from any major network news outlet.  I suggest you check things out more closely.  Just by using an Absolute the way you did proves that you are only looking for what you want to hear, and anything outside of that is automatically wrong.  I bet you hate Bill O'Reilly too.  You should take a few minutes to read his talking points.  He hammers both sides.  If it seems like he spends a lot of time debunking falsehoods from the far left Media, it's because there is so much of it there.  Believe me, when a democrat is wrongfully smeared, he is all over putting that right too.  Just look at the defenses he made of Hillary and Obama during the primaries.