Ask FOX viewers if WMD's were found in Iraq. Or if Iraq was involved in 9/11. Or if Osama Bin Laden is dead. Or if Obama is a Muslim. Or if Obama was born in the U.S. Or if Ronald Reagan increased taxes more times then he decreased them. List the Presidents who increased the national debt by percentage. Ask them who created TARP. Ask them how much bailout money Bush authorized has been repaid. Ask them how much of the money Bush authorized is even REQUIRED to be repaid.
@greg91ification Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
THE MORE YOU KNOW, the LESS LIKELY YOU ARE TO PASS THIS BOGUS TEST.. So, saying that Fox viewers did not get the right answer is at least somewhat a support that they are either too poorly informed, or EQUALLY LIKELY they are TOO WELL INFORMED to pass the test. You are right, the test is absolute DRECK.
Your videos are generally excellent, and this one is a KILLER. It seems actually having stayed awake in ACTUAL ECON classes has served you well. Now I do not feel quite as alone as I did prior to finding your videos on You Tube.
From a B.S. in Business Admin who enjoyed his Econ classes.
you can get any results you want on a poll just by doing all your polling at Georgetown and Berkley universities. According to polls there, the only thing wrong with the obama administration, is that they oppose the the occupiers.
I think that indoctrination can exist at both ends of the spectrum, however after watching a lot of Fox News myself, I don't think the phrase ''fair and balanced'' fits it at all.
Of course, MSNBC is no better, however Fox News is merely propaganda for an audience who already hold prejudices and opinions, and just like to be reassured that they are 'right'. Just as MSNBC does with liberals.
Fox News is almost entirely devoid of unbiased content. Sorry, but Fox News is sickening dogma.
Democrats: Lets create 2,000 jobs in the Green Industry with light bulb legislation the bans regular light bulbs, no matter if it kills 36,000 jobs. Not to mention those "green" light bulbs could cause problems in enclosed light fixtures. So..where am I misinformed?
I don't think most Americans have a clue what's going on with their own economy so these esoteric questions are neither here nor there. What about the more black or white questions like whether scientists agree on the cause of global warming and whether Obama was born in the US? I've seen enough of Fox news to know that if you concur with their message, you are completely uninformed. This video is therefore absolutely pointless.
@Nixmix24 That's right, it's an opinion, just like yours, meaningless or otherwise. So, I guess your 'attack' means you're a Fox news fan... I can only offer you some friendly advice, try watching a non-commercial news source, like Democracy Now or The Real News Network. Perhaps a different perspective will help you in life, particularly with your attitude.
@urcritic You base your assumption that I don't watch anything but Fox News on what exactly? The fact that I called you out for totally dismissing facts with your opinion? Makes complete sense.
p.s. I don't watch Fox News. I don't even have cable.
Funny how these groups never said anything about the lies about Sarah Palin made up by and perpetuated by the Leftist press. Seems those lies are okay, but Fox News viewers are misinformed.
Paying an actress to impersonate a Presidential candidate & say stupid things - and moving "Saturday Night Live" to Thursday evening prime-time isn't news?
This is laughable.He shows what IDIOTS he thinks FOX viewers are. I'll make this idiot an offer. I'll bet $100,000 (and yes, I have it), against him kissing my ass on a cable TV show, that I can show him 7 clips of persons FOX news identifies as staff on the FOX news website insinuating there is evidence Obama was not born in the U.S. Of course he used the spineless qualifier "affirmatively". He can kiss my ass on The Daily Show, since they are the ones who have the 7 clips BACK TO BACK.
It's really not hard to point fingers on which groups of people are stupid. All you have to do is gather an average annual income value for each group. Of course, my general assumption is that smart people are rarely poor, and stupid people are rarely rich. In fact, I challenge you, Lee Doren, to randomly ask the Wall Street Occupiers on which news station do they watch. Ask about 20 of them. Then go and ask 20 of small business owners/managers/doctors.
If the CBO is wrong than that can explain why Obama's stimilus didn't work as it was meant to. As it was the stimilus helped the economy bottem out and not get any worse. And it was reported the information he did have wasn't recent. If the CBO supplied accurate information than the stimilus might have been strong enough to do what it was intended to.
Excellent refutation of the U. Maryland study. The issue I found most concerning was that I have been woefully ignorant of the degree to which the CBO, our ostensibly neutral government analysis, is completely unreliable. Are they incompetent, or deliberately misleading? At root, isn't the real problem that the government CAN be so manipulated, and that it DOES enact so many special interest advantages across the spectrum? We need and amendment truly limiting the size and scope of government.
LOL total libturd propaganda. FOX is still No.1 in the ratings for the past 10 years. sure is funny to see how they try and defeat Fox, but get kicked in the ass every time. LOL priceless.
Do some research type: OUT FOXED and or "Fox Bias" in yahoo / google and learn the truth about Fox News! Not only are they bias beyond comprehension but they're constantly LYING / DISTORTING the FACTS to support their own ultra-conservative agenda. They're disgusting to say the least.
Fox News viewers have been proven to be the MOST uninformed vs. any other network by FAR! Fox doesn't report the FACTS.
So you're upset because the study didn't cherry pick the specific studies you wanted it to? Because I can tell you (you actually really only have to read the newspaper business section of a non-partisan newsaper everyday for months to learn this) that most economists support stimulus packages. In fact history itself is on team stimulus with the great deprression and WW2. And of course the common sense route of how bailling out banks, means the thousands of workers have jobs at that bank.
@rpottage Nailed it friend. It reminds me of people who claim that fascism is left-wing because some random crackpot book says that Hitler liked free Healthcare. Nevermind the militarism, anti-homosexual tendencies, religious ferver and family values platform.
Actually, Hitler fervently hated Christianity and sought to rid the authority of the Church just as it had been done in Russia; gays were not a particular target by the Nazis, they were even overrepresented among the Nazi ranks, you can read all about it in "The Pink Swastika"; and I don't know enough about Nazis and their crusade for "family values" to comment, so I'll leave it at that.
@Alexshrugged92 We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration.
@ToddAldrich Dude, this is the same bullshit people use every time. Let's say the 3rd Reich weren't Christians, you want to know who was? That's right, every last Nazi that ever took up a weapon. Got Mitt Uns, do you know what this means? I suggest you at least Google it. It was right wing (they were more interested in protecting a single party rather than every party) and it was largely religious. Their first ally? The Pope. Thanks for playing you only know talking points.
@SocialDissimulation Yep those Lutherans really were close with the Catholics. Talk about only knowing talking points.Have you ever thought about the meaning of something Germany was quite famous for? Goering developed it to perfection - something called propaganda. That was the extend that the 3rd Reich was "christian".The German people were Christians but they were DUPED by a leftist that excelled at theater, was a good orator and one that perfected propaganda.Just like OWS & the left today.
@ToddAldrich They were Christians but they were duped -- the calling cry of every man who has no argument that can possibly save his positions. They were loving Christians who felt enormous affection for their nation, Jesus Christ and their families. This does not mean that they were not religious, this just means they were religious and carried out atrocities, using their religion as a catalyst to justify it. Enjoy delusion, son.
@ToddAldrich Are you seriously trying to assert, after conceding that they were duped Christians, that the majority are secular? This is the -exact- same thing I hear from the Muslims. "Oh, no, no no, they're not Muslims! Muslims would never do this!" The irony is breathtaking. Got Mitt Uns. Look it up, please. Gott Mit Uns. Look it up. Gott Mit Uns. Gott mit uns (meaning God with us) is a phrase commonly associated with the German military from the German Empire to the end of the Third Reich.
@SocialDissimulation My mother's maiden name is Volk - I don't have to look up the term - I SPEAK German. That phrase was propaganda designed to win support for the efforts of the Reich.
The bulk of Germans then were no more religious than the bulk of Americans now - perhaps less so. The vast majority of Americans only pay lip service to the idea of religion and they abandon it whenever it is inconvenient to them.
@ToddAldrich Man you are CLUELESS and grasping at straws. America is one of -the most religious parts of the world-, our rates amongst the Western countries are the highest. Granted, atheism (thankfully) is taking root here at a very fast pace but very few western countries waste their time with abortion and gay marriage. They were -very- religious, they were not duped, they believed in the superiority of the German people and used God as justification just as the Jews did.
@SocialDissimulation Talk about clueless! There is a HUGE difference between saying you believe in God, and actually practicing and following the teachings of the faith.
I don't deny they believed in their superiority OR that they used God as justification - but that is NOT the same as being very religious and actually following it's teachings. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
@ToddAldrich "OR that they used God as a justification", this is where I have to just chuckle and be on my way. If you're really naive enough to believe that an entire nation was faking its Christianity to dupe the rest of the world, then you will literally believe anything right-wing think tanks throw out there. While Wikipedia is often times bashed, they have an excellent discussion page. I strongly suggest you look up fascism and go from there. Good day to you.
@SocialDissimulation Morons like you simply cannot deal with what was actually said - why did you need to say "believe the whole nation was faking"??? That is not even close to what I said.
Of course that is because your arguments are based on an entirely false premise and misinformation.
@SocialDissimulation Militarism is not a right wing tenet. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - ALL left wingers were VERY militaristic.So STFU on that B.S. The Nazi's were also deep into the Occult - not really very religious at all - in fact they were HOSTILE to religion. In addition they also advocated Maximum & Minimum wages, they controlled prices AND profits, they controlled what was produced and how much and who produced it. ALL of them are LEFT wing ideas and stem from the LEFTIST tenet of STATISM.
@Todd Plenty of people consider Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to be very right wing. The typical distinction between the two is the 'collective' vs. the 'individual'. If a supranatural force is binding together a totalitarian regime then it is right wing. "We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement."
@rpottage You don't have a fricking clue. "stimulus" helped to turn what would have been a short recession into what we now know as the Great Depression. Before Hoover tried to "stimulate" the economy - we had already reduced unemployment from double digits down to roughly 6%. Taxes, regulations and "stimulus" all helped to create and to extend the economic hardships for a decade.
@ToddAldrich Not even close. The Great Depression was so bad because it shattered the world economy. Doing nothing would not have solved the economy because nobody had money to buy things. Hoover started right away and unemployment hit 25%. Roosevelt went further with the NRA until it was struck down.
And the Great Depression only ended when the worlds largest ever stimulus package was implemented; WW2. Keynesian, Social Democratic, and planned economies rose because of the great depression.
@rpottage THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN are "GREAT DEPRESSION" if Hoover had not interfered. As I said. Unemployment had already been cut from near double digits to roughly 6% in a 6 month period of time. THAT is simply a FACT. THE recession was OVER ------- UNTIL Hoover "stimulated" the economy and instituted tax increases. THAT triggered the depression.
@ToddAldrich Those aren't facts at all. Hoover was in office when the crash happened; and unemployment hit right away. He was FAR LESS socialistic than his successor. He tried to get the banks to volunteer in the NCC, would not give money to the people and would not run a deficit for welfare programs. He forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of immigrants. He didn't increase taxes in 1932, when unemployment was at 22.9% (Darby). It was FDR and WW2 that stimulated the economy; and it worked.
@rpottage I ACKNOWLEDGED that Hoover was in office AND that unemployment hit right away, but what your liberal masters forgot to tell you is that in by June of 1930 unemployment had fallen to 6.3% - the recession was essentially OVER - but then Hoover went and did a LIBERAL, socialistic thing - he raised taxes and he MASSIVELY increased spending - from 16.4 % of GNP to 21.5%. THAT is when the bottom fell out and we quickly went from things getting better fast to things getting worse fast.
@rpottage Hoover was accused of heading us down the path to socialism by the FDR campaign. Of course FDR then went ahead and doubled down on the spending by copying many of Hoover's programs and expanding on them. This did not do a THING to slow unemployment and it STAYED above 20% --- UNTIL the SCOTUS ruled that many of the New Deal programs were unconstitutional. Then a funny thing happened, as the new deal programs were forced to shut down, the economy began to recover.
@rpottage In 1935, when the court began forcing the shutdown of the New Deal spending and anti-business programs, we suddenly see a recovery beginning - unemployment begins to fall - all the way to 12.3% in May of 1937, then FDR devised NEW programs that once again destroyed the recovery. As the provisions of the Wagner Act came on board, the top rate was raised to 79% and the "undistributed profits tax" took effect, the economy once again plunged - and Unemployment rose above 20%.
@rpottage THOSE are the FACTS, and we are doing the SAME THING now, that turned was would have been a short recession, into what we now know as the Great Depression.
@ToddAldrich No, they're not. I pointed out the facts. You're referring to before the Great Depression. Not only did I provide the facts, I used a reputable source who is considered conservative in his numbers.
Hoover was a republican who was not a huge fan of stimulus spending, and only raised taxes near the end of his term when the great depression was at the worst, and still kept them below where they were when his first treasure secretary lowered them.
@rpottage Oh for Christ's sake! Buy a clue will you! I don't dispute your ONE fact - but the TIMING of that little fact is EVERYTHING.The commonly accepted beginning of the Depression is Oct. 29th 1929 - and it set off a VERY rapidly deteriorating recession - UE went from just over 3% before the stock market crash to near double digits that December. EXACTLY as I said. ALSO - as I said, after that shock, the economy began to recover quickly -so much so that UE was down to 6.3% by May 1930.
@rpottage In 1930, however, Hoover increased taxes and spending MASSIVELY - Ever hear of Smoot-Hawley? Spending went from a surplus in 1929 to more than DOUBLE federal receipts in '32.
whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Yet despite the massive assistance programs (which FDR copied) and other government interference, the Depression got worse. As a matter of FACT, Spending peaked in 1934 - and we STILL had 20% PLUS unemployment rates. (cont)
@rpottage Then in 1935 things changed. Spending was cut, and the courts began to throw out much of the New Deal. Curious thing, as spending slowed and as Govt assistance programs were ended, things got BETTER - By May of '37 UE had fallen to 12.3%. But FDR couldn't help himself and raised taxes again - and shortly after this tax increase (and as the effect of the Wagner act began) unemployment began to rise - reaching once again into the 20% range.
@ToddAldrich 1935 was the 2nd new deal; and his opponents opposition to it handed FDR a landslide election. The New deal was what lowered the unemployment. The New Deal's leading up to 1937 are what cut unemployment. Then they ended and it rose again with global issues.
And in WW2, the largest stimulus package ever, it dropped to 1.9%
So yes, as I said: the Great depression proves that stimulus (WW2) works.
@rpottage If the New Deal Programs were what lowered unemployment, why did unemployment RISE when it was enacted and then ONLY fall when they were ruled unconstitutional??? And THEN why did unemployment rise AGAIN when FDR initiated MORE new-deal type programs???
YOU need to go look at the time line instead of merely relying on the liberal talking points. WWII helped lower the unemployment rate by ELIMINATING workers from the workplace. Sheese! THINK before you type.
@ToddAldrich They didn't. Unemployment exploded, and the New Deals reduced them; and only a few were considered unconstitutional (most weren't)
You REALLY shouldn't be commenting on timeline when you thought Hoover was the one responsible for all this until I pointed out you have no idea what you're talking about.
Heck, you think rising unemployment in 38 is because of new deal programs that ended in 37. You're off by a year.
@rpottage Can you read???? Are you retarded? Let me type V E R Y S L O W L Y so even YOU can understand.
You pointed out NOTHING to me. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.I STILL think Hoover was the originator of the massive spending and tax increases that turned what would have been a short recession into the Depression. After Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley and instituted massive assistance programs, and after FDR continued and expanded on them, unemployment REMAINED above 20%. THAT IS A FACT
@rpottage It is a FACT that as the SCOTUS outlawed many of the programs and AS spending was cut, the economy began to recover - and CONTINUED to recover until FDR raised taxes began MORE programs.
YOU said "you think rising unemployment in 38 is because of new deal programs that ended in 37. You're off by a year"
Which is not even CLOSE to what I said. Learn to read before you comment.
@ToddAldrich They declared SOME unconstitutional but many remained in effect. And the New Deals were up to 1937, when unemployment was lowering. 1938 it shot up, which was after the new deal ended; and spending decreased. Unemployment hit its lowest when spending was it's highest, WW2.
I know what you said; and I know that you refuse to acknowledge the effects of WW2 on unemployment because it proves you wrong, even though my original statement was about WW2 being the ultimate stimulus package.
@ToddAldrich You didn't say ANYTHING to me about WW2. I brought up WW2 ending the great depression, and you attacked Hoover.
And saying we sent the workforce overseas doesn't even address my point that WW2 was the biggest stimulus package ever, and was what ultimately got us out of the great depression.
@rpottage My WWII comment was in RESPONSE to your statement that the "stimulus" of WWII ended the Depression. It was NOT the government spending - it was the fact that we had a great % of the workforce overseas and therefore not counted in the UE here at home. Our recovery was not so much due to govt. spending as the fact that the allies were BUYING products from us. I criticized Hoover because if he had not raised taxes and spending - we never would have had a depression in the first place.
@ToddAldrich That workforce was working. The world got out of the great depression by putting their people to work fighting and working in war factories.
See, here's the real problem. I'm talking from a global historical point of view. You're talking from an America only point of view. You acknowledge that other countries buying products got the U.S. out of the Great Depression, but neglect the fact that their spending was stimulus due to the war.
@rpottage THEIR spending - CUSTOMERS. Not our government - which when IT spends money it MUST first TAKE it OUT of the economy. There is a HUGE difference. By YOUR definition EVERYTHING is "stimulus" - yet that is NOT what people are normally referring to when they talk about the "stimulus".
@ToddAldrich Stimulus is government spending. That's what it is. Spending extra money on a war is just as much a stimulus as spending that same money to put the same amount of people to work building a modern day tower of babel.
And Bastiat's parable has nothing to do with stimulus. It assumes the same amount of money would be spent without war on other things. This is not the case with Stimulus, nor with WW2. Increased money was spent, that increased money helped the economy.
@rpottage Bastiat's parable has EVERYTHING to do with the war and with funds TAKEN from one PRODUCTIVE use and instead used to repair damage. The net effect is a NEGATIVE.
As with most govt. spending, there is no net gain. That money that was spent by the government would have been BETTER invested in the private sector. As I said earlier, if there had been no increase in taxes and no increase in government assistance type programs, there never would have been a Depression in the first place.
@ToddAldrich Which is not what we're talking about. WW2 INCREASED spending. The parable is about allocation of continuous spending, it has nothing to do with increased spending.
They weren't putting that money in the private sector. It would have been better had they done that (that's stimulus by the way) but they weren't.
And aside from being wrong; it doesn't matter about preventing the great depression. We're talking about how the Stimulus ended it.
@rpottage Go read the damned principle, it is about the MIS allocation of resources to unproductive means instead of productive means.
THE STIMULUS CAUSED the depression and you have a VERY poor definition of stimulus - in other words you are simply redefining the term because you were proven wrong.
@ToddAldrich I've read it. YOU need to read what I've written. Mis-allocation requires the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF SPENDING. This is not what happened. WW2 INCREASED spending.
The stimulus did not cause the great depression. The stock Market Crash did, and I've already provided sources on the REAL unemployment figures, not your made up figures (Cite it or drop it)
Stimulus: 1. Something causing or regarded as causing a response.
@rpottage The stock market crashed in late 1929 and unemployment rose to nearly double digits by Dec. of that year.THEN the economy corrected ITSELF - as it ALWAYS DOES -- IF LEFT ALONE.By June of 1930 unemployment had fallen to just over 6%. Massive tax increases and massive government spending started in 1930, ROBBED $ from the private sector and we then crashed into the Depression.As I said before, if stimulus helped why did things get worse after it was in place.
@ToddAldrich The economy DIDN't fix itself. 1929- 3.2%
1930 - 8.7%
1931 - 15.73%
1932 - 22.9%
It didn't go down at all. It kept getting higher. In case you don't realize, banks that fail don't fail in a second. The Great Recession of 2008 is still putting banks/companies out of business and hurting places like Greece.
The reason it kept getting worse was because lack of regulation let the Stock Market Crash destroy the economy, and in the coming years 11000 banks as well. But that takes time.
It's funny. People claim WW2 "stimulated" the economy.. then the very same people say what's destroying our economy now is "two unfunded wars" (as opposed to all those "funded wars" I suppose)
Personally, I think IF WW2 "stimulated" the economy - it was due to females joining the work force (employing our reserve capacity). After WW2 Europe was destroyed, USA industry was geared up 4 war + untouched, & there was NO foreign industrial competition (Mex, China, Japan, etc) = Boom
@mredstriumph can you imagine the possibilites if we wouldve used the ww2 fund (2.88b) to pay for schools, tuition, housing for the poor, etc? much better investment and return imo.
2011 - Federal spending 3 Trillion 627 Billion - minus - 2011 military spending (703Bn) = 2.924 Trillion
Add total State revenue 1.184 Trillion + Total Local gov revenue 1.166 Trillion [for simplicity ignore state / local debt (i.e.- bonds) BOTH of which exceed these totals]
Cost of stopping Hitler is estimated at $288 Bn (estimated ~ $5 Tn in 2007 dollars). Say we saved $ & gave Hitler Europe so we could spent it over the last 67 years.. $5 Tn / 67 years = $74.6 Bn additional 2007 dollars to be added to the $5,274 Bn the US gov spends on non-defense spending today..
Now we're spending $5,274 Bn + $74.6 Bn = $5,349 Bn / year
or
$5,349 Bn / 82 Mn families = $65,227 per family per year
Under your plan every family + $909.83 and gets Hitler. hmm
Now that "reserve" female productive capacity is squandered by the "war" on poverty & whatever industrial advantage we had has been chased off our shores by unions, regulations, & "hate the rich" / "hate management" tax-everything-that-moves politics.
Ironic that what is making every one of our competitors strong = Mexico, China, Japan, Canada is almost in all cases the ghosts of the formerly exiled United States businesses (as opposed to foreign domestically produced competition)
@howtheworldworks i agree with you with the fact that this study is boguys, but fox news have admitted misinformation before rendering this "news" pointless.
The whole paradigm of debate about media is wrong because it centers around ideology. Corporate media does not have an ideological agenda- it has audience agenda. Fox News airs what it does to target a demographic of consumers. So does MSNBC. Their clients are advertisers that pay them for the product, which is the audience. Accusations of ideological bias actually help big media, because it reinforces the bias of the audience- that is, the consumers, who tune in to what they want to hear.
Ok, I got so far as your opening animation. How World The Works? If you're going to be judging people on credibility, it helps to not shoot yourself in the foot by butchering the English language. If you can't even get that right, why should I trust your "research"?
@uberrrich yes. my comrades and i have been infiltrating the american education system since 1945. it is a conspiracy. for mother russia!
god-damn moron. communism is an alternative way of thinking. it has no agenda.
perhaps those who follow it do, but who honestly cares. its not a threat, and never will be. even if everyone goes communist, they are the same people. in the same countries. following the same laws as before.
@uberrrich so did capitalist countries, and socialist, and basically every popular political view.
i mean hell, you americans don't exactly have a clean track record, do you? but i don't associate the american system with the brutal genocide of the native americans, do i?
@uberrrich lenin? he was, believe it or not, a fairly good communist Bolshevik (at least compared to his successors and predecessors). Imagine if country A were to become involved with a political system country B didn't like. then A becomes considered a threat to B because of its recent reform. B and A eventually ally themselves after disputes and fighting, and the political system disappears. now, people from B are claiming the system is secretly controlling them. which is which country?
@uberrrich listen to yourself! would you consider yourself racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.?
well, claiming a system would be in control of your country would be like saying the women of the world are preparing to rise up and overthrow mankind!
@Fefedefefessle CLASSIC! ever failbrain resorts calling a logical person racist, sexist, or homophobic, but you got SO desperate you went for all three at once! ha ha win!
@uberrrich context. I did not. I pointed out that a rational person would not be these things, but that what you're proposing is just as stupid! maybe if you said that PEOPLE wanted to impose communism on your country, you'd just be another conspiracy guy. but suggesting that a system can implement itself is as absurd as saying women have a collective agenda to overthrow mankind.
@Fefedefefessle lol yeah that's what i said, communism is taking with out any person behind it. Kinda like when violence descends on a low income neighborhood. DERP
@uberrrich people have to be behind something for it to work.
and that is not what you said. you ignorantly assumed that, in an effort to make myself feel better, i called you racist, sexist and homophobic.
You also did not say this an a previous post. now, please understand that communism itself is JUST A SYSTEM. even when it was still rattling around inside Marx's brain, it was just a system. it has no statement of intent. those who follow it might, but that's a different question.
@uberrrich irrelevant mis-use of a system. educate YOURSELF on Bhutanese nomads. communists that DON'T try to kill people. in fact, they are a very friendly bunch. you just bring up incidents of communism being used poorly, because they are more famous.
@uberrrich ugh. sure.... i'm defending communism. you're merely a fool who can't look past his own little sphere, and see knowledge. come, please. join us in an intelligent society. or forever live an idiot, stereotyping systems, and insulting due to a lack of comprehension.
Seems to me.. the American system didn't exist until 1776. Further, I was taught as a child that "In 1472, Columbus sailed the oceans blue". 1776 - 1472 = 304 years. Hmmm... I think maybe you're RIGHT not to associate that with the "american" system.
Perhaps u don't associate the american system with the brutal genocide of the native americans because the MAJORITY of that process was done by BRITISH CITIZENS, along with a little help from the Italians, French, & the Spanish?
@mredstriumph i'm not throwing stones, here. merely pointing things out. and i don't mind that my country has a bloody past, as i am not my countries history. i fell no more inclined towards genocide because of that history.
I think it odd that "communists" (who aren't a threat) never just go off on their own to central plan, collectivise, and distribute their OWN work & property. IF their system worked so tremendously, they'd make all the rest of us green with envy, & we'd be falling all over ourselves trying to get ourselves in VOLUNTARILY to participate in the "sharing". Heck, IF IT WORKED, they'd need walls & guns to keep us out!
But no. Commies build walls to keep slaves in. Please exp?
@mredstriumph That was merely a poorly executed idea, that was run by a paranoid dictator.
also, almost all of eastern Europe willingly joined the soviets because they were offered greater monetary gains then they would get with us. The Berlin wall was made by Stalin due to his immense paranoia that if west Berlin looked better than his side, all of Germany would become western. it was not in the communist manifest. "everything must be shared equally, oh, and you gotta build a giant wall."
As one of Ukrainian descent whose great grandparent fled the Holodomor, I can tell you communism is a catastrophic idea very excellently executed. I'd also add that Lenin / Stalin had every right to be "paranoid" as they slaughtered 30,000,000 Ukrainians and Lithuanians and were running death camps based on social class (middle class specifically / "kulaks") 12 years before Hitler even considered his "final solution', but then Stalin didn't lose a war, & theres the difference
@mredstriumph your history only makes you more likely to be biased against a system that you have only known as oppressive. should i not tell you that even before marx, many societies have existed with a communist structure, and have not brutally slaughtered innocents? and Stalin was paranoid, so he killed people. he had a mental deficiency.
"against a system that you have only known as oppressive"
I don't think o the word "oppressive", I use the term "Compulsory" which leads to it.
I've seen that the communist concept has actually been employed since the Tower of Babble, & that God himself rebuked it. It also hasn't escaped my notice that the victims have so consistently been Jews & Christians notably due to their productiveness & focus on INDIVIDUAL accountability +suspicion of those who'd make utopia on Earth
"national socialism" became bad, but "world socialism" was just "poorly executed". But each was based on the same work of the same left wing German philosophers - Marx, Engles, Nietzsche, Freud mixed with a few intellectual gems thought up by Marat, Machiavelli, Sanger, and the hapless Darwin.
Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jung Il, Castro, Bulgaria, Romania, Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc also implemented the same idea & each committed unspeakable acts unlike anything in their history - strange..
Its almost like when you permit yourself cart-blanche right to the life, liberty, & property of others (for greater good), & impose those things with secret police, prisons, jails, & firing squads.. it's almost like you end up hurting them.
Almost as if help & harm were disproportional.. like there are so many MORE ways to harm people than there are to HELP them, & that harm is so much greater than the meager "help" you can provide.. that maybe they should be left alone? Weird.
"The guy's manifesto also contained very scathing, very violent feelings and comments regarding basically every single Christian in the world."
Not true, I have already pointed out that he is Christian, but he contains very favorable feelings toward them. This is a lie and if you don't back it up with facts then it's just conjecture. Moral. Don't watch Fox.
@trademark6 Umm, if "conservative bias" means logic... okay. MSNBC reports appeal only to people's emotions. They're unbelievably biased and they continuously invite people who agree with them on so they can agree for ten minutes that Republicans are crazy racists and fag haters without any real evidence.
You don't need evidence. You just need to look at the reaction from republicans to Chris Christie's appointment or a Muslim judge to know how far right these people have gone. Rick Perry's christian rally that excludes everyone. Fox news daily haranguing go Gay Rights laws. It's pretty clear that your description is dead on.
You overlook that MSNBC are also relentless vulgarians who employ the most salacious homophobic name calling.
They constantly bear FALSE witness vs. conservatives - compulsively accusing THEM of lurid homosexual acts - sodomy, "cock sucking", "teabagging" - which they themselves not only routinely practice in their personal lives w strangers, publicly esteem as noble, & yearn to share with your children.
Wiki "Young Turk" & "Armenian Genocide" sometime. What fun programming
Trademark.. I don't think you realize that you need to distinguish between the Fox Editorials (Hannity, Beck, Napolitano, etc) & Fox News.
Beck, Hannity, etc are OPINION SHOWS, just like Maddow, Lieberman, Matthews, etc on MSNBC. These ALL have "giant biases" & none of them hide it.
Fox NEWS - meaning the NEWS PROGRAMMING - is ** NOT ** an editorial, & is in no way "more" biased then CNN, MSNBC, or ABC - who each have a palpable Left Wing slant - which u like so don't question
Lmao. "Created or saved" Wow? The most misinformed persons in the world are the American people. They're fed with lies from their liberal media. Not fox news. Lol.
I'm sorry I don't really understand the point of this hilariously long video. Are you defending fox news or are you defended people who watch fox news regularly? You really can't defend either, Fox news is so far from actually being news and is full of opinions (from the anchors and hosts), and is painfully republican. Whether this study was incorrectly handled or executed is pretty irrelevant in the big picture because of the modus operandi of Fox news, which is very far from actual news.
@SickBritKid They are exceptions, but it's easy to ignore that since the rest of the Fox news is pretty laughable. Also when looking at the history of Roger Ailes (chairman of fox news) it's easy to see that the core of the station is rather rotten. They wont really ever come close to PBS Newshour or BBC World News when it comes to actually delivering facts without any distractions.
@SickBritKid Maybe (probably has something to do with the constant assault by republican politicians to cut funding from public television and radio (corporation for public broadcasting), Bill O'Reilly is too extreme in his ideology and opinions, is interesting for a bit, get annoying quickly... watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#at=89
You're ignoring the entire point he was making: That the tides and the moon are why he believes in God, that the universe we live in couldn't possible have just been born from happenstance and chance, that there was a single creator who crafted it much like an artist crafts a work of art.
O'Reilly, like many other Christians including myself, believe in Theistic Evolution.
@SickBritKid Just because nature and the universe seems amazing and vast because our minds have a hard time comprehending it, does not suggest anything about it's origins. We just simply don't know and that's all there is to it, we cannot assume anything. Suggesting God is behind it all is irresponsible, since there is absolutely no proof.
O'Reilly said Drunk Women get pregnant and that the tides go in and out explains global warming. Yeah, he's believable. The worst was when he said the Norway Christian fundamentalist was not Christian even thought he wrote a 500 page manifesto on christian fundamentalism.
Ask FOX viewers if WMD's were found in Iraq. Or if Iraq was involved in 9/11. Or if Osama Bin Laden is dead. Or if Obama is a Muslim. Or if Obama was born in the U.S. Or if Ronald Reagan increased taxes more times then he decreased them. List the Presidents who increased the national debt by percentage. Ask them who created TARP. Ask them how much bailout money Bush authorized has been repaid. Ask them how much of the money Bush authorized is even REQUIRED to be repaid.
DDanny1 19 hours ago
I just read a survey that came to the conclusion that most surveyors are misinformed.
Smullet90 4 days ago
good vid
greg91ification 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
This has been flagged as spam show
@greg91ification Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 week ago
now this is some good stuff
creamyfilling102 1 week ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
More spending reduces debt - yup, now I got it!
BTW, great video!
mrct1118 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
It seems there is a theme going on here:
THE MORE YOU KNOW, the LESS LIKELY YOU ARE TO PASS THIS BOGUS TEST.. So, saying that Fox viewers did not get the right answer is at least somewhat a support that they are either too poorly informed, or EQUALLY LIKELY they are TOO WELL INFORMED to pass the test. You are right, the test is absolute DRECK.
crtune 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
Your videos are generally excellent, and this one is a KILLER. It seems actually having stayed awake in ACTUAL ECON classes has served you well. Now I do not feel quite as alone as I did prior to finding your videos on You Tube.
From a B.S. in Business Admin who enjoyed his Econ classes.
crtune 2 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
It's funny how you get your information from sides just as corrupt as the ones you're having a go at.
HobbsO 3 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
you can get any results you want on a poll just by doing all your polling at Georgetown and Berkley universities. According to polls there, the only thing wrong with the obama administration, is that they oppose the the occupiers.
halloranedward 3 weeks ago
I think that indoctrination can exist at both ends of the spectrum, however after watching a lot of Fox News myself, I don't think the phrase ''fair and balanced'' fits it at all.
Of course, MSNBC is no better, however Fox News is merely propaganda for an audience who already hold prejudices and opinions, and just like to be reassured that they are 'right'. Just as MSNBC does with liberals.
Fox News is almost entirely devoid of unbiased content. Sorry, but Fox News is sickening dogma.
ec123456789able 3 weeks ago
I love fox news, stop lying, they are the best, and the women are hot!
mrkillerdeath20 3 weeks ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
Democrats: Lets create 2,000 jobs in the Green Industry with light bulb legislation the bans regular light bulbs, no matter if it kills 36,000 jobs. Not to mention those "green" light bulbs could cause problems in enclosed light fixtures. So..where am I misinformed?
zookeeper220 1 month ago
How can you dislike this video? 754 people are obviously brainwashed idiots.
AustrianEconomistsRu 1 month ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
I don't think most Americans have a clue what's going on with their own economy so these esoteric questions are neither here nor there. What about the more black or white questions like whether scientists agree on the cause of global warming and whether Obama was born in the US? I've seen enough of Fox news to know that if you concur with their message, you are completely uninformed. This video is therefore absolutely pointless.
urcritic 1 month ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
@urcritic This is all based on your meaningless opinion. Run along.
Nixmix24 2 days ago
@Nixmix24 That's right, it's an opinion, just like yours, meaningless or otherwise. So, I guess your 'attack' means you're a Fox news fan... I can only offer you some friendly advice, try watching a non-commercial news source, like Democracy Now or The Real News Network. Perhaps a different perspective will help you in life, particularly with your attitude.
urcritic 5 hours ago
@urcritic You base your assumption that I don't watch anything but Fox News on what exactly? The fact that I called you out for totally dismissing facts with your opinion? Makes complete sense.
p.s. I don't watch Fox News. I don't even have cable.
Nixmix24 4 hours ago
500 bill*
Everett345 1 month ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
the stimulus also cut like 500 milli in taxes, obviously creating jobs
Everett345 1 month ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
Fox News viewers watch Glen Beck and Bill O Reilly. That's enough evidence to say Fox News Viewers are misinformed and brainwashed.
lunabrian 1 month ago
Funny how these groups never said anything about the lies about Sarah Palin made up by and perpetuated by the Leftist press. Seems those lies are okay, but Fox News viewers are misinformed.
NoGuff 1 month ago
@NoGuff
Wait.. what are you saying?
Paying an actress to impersonate a Presidential candidate & say stupid things - and moving "Saturday Night Live" to Thursday evening prime-time isn't news?
Screw u buddy. That's fair - AND - balanced.
youtube -DOT- com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
mredstriumph 1 month ago
Comment removed
ItNice26 2 months ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
This is laughable.He shows what IDIOTS he thinks FOX viewers are. I'll make this idiot an offer. I'll bet $100,000 (and yes, I have it), against him kissing my ass on a cable TV show, that I can show him 7 clips of persons FOX news identifies as staff on the FOX news website insinuating there is evidence Obama was not born in the U.S. Of course he used the spineless qualifier "affirmatively". He can kiss my ass on The Daily Show, since they are the ones who have the 7 clips BACK TO BACK.
DDanny1 2 months ago
@DDanny1 So your killer strategy for proving him wrong is to change the subject entirely and not address any of the arguments he made.
Grade A liberal debate tactics!
JoshManYT 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's really not hard to point fingers on which groups of people are stupid. All you have to do is gather an average annual income value for each group. Of course, my general assumption is that smart people are rarely poor, and stupid people are rarely rich. In fact, I challenge you, Lee Doren, to randomly ask the Wall Street Occupiers on which news station do they watch. Ask about 20 of them. Then go and ask 20 of small business owners/managers/doctors.
kokocipher 2 months ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
Comment removed
kokocipher 2 months ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
CBO... Chicken Bacon and Oinions. So good. I love that burger.
RMLLcrazy 2 months ago in playlist Top Videos HowTheWorldWorks
If the CBO is wrong than that can explain why Obama's stimilus didn't work as it was meant to. As it was the stimilus helped the economy bottem out and not get any worse. And it was reported the information he did have wasn't recent. If the CBO supplied accurate information than the stimilus might have been strong enough to do what it was intended to.
up2driveacct 2 months ago
girgle girgle girgle he slallows rupert murdoch whole
winchesteranacom 2 months ago
Can't believe this is STILL going around. Just posted this rebuttal on a friend's post on FB. He's a good guy but mis-informed himself.
Thanks again Lee.
mcoop221 3 months ago
nice responce to the paper.. but fox news viewers are still dumber than say those who watch the BBC, CNN or CSPAN..
ask bill oreily or limbugh.. only on fox.
islamconstitution 3 months ago
Um, if you sit down and watch Fox News, it's pretty obvious that it's questionable. Just on a common sense level. Go see for yourself. lol
MsDaifan 3 months ago
Excellent refutation of the U. Maryland study. The issue I found most concerning was that I have been woefully ignorant of the degree to which the CBO, our ostensibly neutral government analysis, is completely unreliable. Are they incompetent, or deliberately misleading? At root, isn't the real problem that the government CAN be so manipulated, and that it DOES enact so many special interest advantages across the spectrum? We need and amendment truly limiting the size and scope of government.
jepkratz 3 months ago
LOL! Over 712 Fox viewers seen this Video!
Mystery207 3 months ago
LOL total libturd propaganda. FOX is still No.1 in the ratings for the past 10 years. sure is funny to see how they try and defeat Fox, but get kicked in the ass every time. LOL priceless.
usaeagle1776 3 months ago
@HowTheWorldWorks you're using "percent" wrong. An increase from 9.7% to 10.4% is either a ~7.2% or a 0.7 percentage points increase.
saginata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fox News is a JOKE plain and simple.
Do some research type: OUT FOXED and or "Fox Bias" in yahoo / google and learn the truth about Fox News! Not only are they bias beyond comprehension but they're constantly LYING / DISTORTING the FACTS to support their own ultra-conservative agenda. They're disgusting to say the least.
Fox News viewers have been proven to be the MOST uninformed vs. any other network by FAR! Fox doesn't report the FACTS.
mrcardio9r 4 months ago
So you're upset because the study didn't cherry pick the specific studies you wanted it to? Because I can tell you (you actually really only have to read the newspaper business section of a non-partisan newsaper everyday for months to learn this) that most economists support stimulus packages. In fact history itself is on team stimulus with the great deprression and WW2. And of course the common sense route of how bailling out banks, means the thousands of workers have jobs at that bank.
rpottage 4 months ago
@rpottage Nailed it friend. It reminds me of people who claim that fascism is left-wing because some random crackpot book says that Hitler liked free Healthcare. Nevermind the militarism, anti-homosexual tendencies, religious ferver and family values platform.
SocialDissimulation 4 months ago
@SocialDissimulation
Actually, Hitler fervently hated Christianity and sought to rid the authority of the Church just as it had been done in Russia; gays were not a particular target by the Nazis, they were even overrepresented among the Nazi ranks, you can read all about it in "The Pink Swastika"; and I don't know enough about Nazis and their crusade for "family values" to comment, so I'll leave it at that.
Alexshrugged92 4 months ago
@Alexshrugged92 We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration.
SocialDissimulation 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation The 3rd Reich USED religion - they were not right wing NOR were they religious. THey were Occultists.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich Dude, this is the same bullshit people use every time. Let's say the 3rd Reich weren't Christians, you want to know who was? That's right, every last Nazi that ever took up a weapon. Got Mitt Uns, do you know what this means? I suggest you at least Google it. It was right wing (they were more interested in protecting a single party rather than every party) and it was largely religious. Their first ally? The Pope. Thanks for playing you only know talking points.
SocialDissimulation 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Yep those Lutherans really were close with the Catholics. Talk about only knowing talking points.Have you ever thought about the meaning of something Germany was quite famous for? Goering developed it to perfection - something called propaganda. That was the extend that the 3rd Reich was "christian".The German people were Christians but they were DUPED by a leftist that excelled at theater, was a good orator and one that perfected propaganda.Just like OWS & the left today.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich They were Christians but they were duped -- the calling cry of every man who has no argument that can possibly save his positions. They were loving Christians who felt enormous affection for their nation, Jesus Christ and their families. This does not mean that they were not religious, this just means they were religious and carried out atrocities, using their religion as a catalyst to justify it. Enjoy delusion, son.
SocialDissimulation 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Sorry son - the majority were NOT that religious - YOU are the one claiming that. I simply acknowledged that some were.
You liberals like to create all sorts of straw men, why is that are your arguments not strong enough on their own?
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich Are you seriously trying to assert, after conceding that they were duped Christians, that the majority are secular? This is the -exact- same thing I hear from the Muslims. "Oh, no, no no, they're not Muslims! Muslims would never do this!" The irony is breathtaking. Got Mitt Uns. Look it up, please. Gott Mit Uns. Look it up. Gott Mit Uns. Gott mit uns (meaning God with us) is a phrase commonly associated with the German military from the German Empire to the end of the Third Reich.
SocialDissimulation 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation My mother's maiden name is Volk - I don't have to look up the term - I SPEAK German. That phrase was propaganda designed to win support for the efforts of the Reich.
The bulk of Germans then were no more religious than the bulk of Americans now - perhaps less so. The vast majority of Americans only pay lip service to the idea of religion and they abandon it whenever it is inconvenient to them.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich Man you are CLUELESS and grasping at straws. America is one of -the most religious parts of the world-, our rates amongst the Western countries are the highest. Granted, atheism (thankfully) is taking root here at a very fast pace but very few western countries waste their time with abortion and gay marriage. They were -very- religious, they were not duped, they believed in the superiority of the German people and used God as justification just as the Jews did.
SocialDissimulation 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Talk about clueless! There is a HUGE difference between saying you believe in God, and actually practicing and following the teachings of the faith.
I don't deny they believed in their superiority OR that they used God as justification - but that is NOT the same as being very religious and actually following it's teachings. Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich "OR that they used God as a justification", this is where I have to just chuckle and be on my way. If you're really naive enough to believe that an entire nation was faking its Christianity to dupe the rest of the world, then you will literally believe anything right-wing think tanks throw out there. While Wikipedia is often times bashed, they have an excellent discussion page. I strongly suggest you look up fascism and go from there. Good day to you.
SocialDissimulation 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Morons like you simply cannot deal with what was actually said - why did you need to say "believe the whole nation was faking"??? That is not even close to what I said.
Of course that is because your arguments are based on an entirely false premise and misinformation.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation Militarism is not a right wing tenet. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - ALL left wingers were VERY militaristic.So STFU on that B.S. The Nazi's were also deep into the Occult - not really very religious at all - in fact they were HOSTILE to religion. In addition they also advocated Maximum & Minimum wages, they controlled prices AND profits, they controlled what was produced and how much and who produced it. ALL of them are LEFT wing ideas and stem from the LEFTIST tenet of STATISM.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@Todd Plenty of people consider Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to be very right wing. The typical distinction between the two is the 'collective' vs. the 'individual'. If a supranatural force is binding together a totalitarian regime then it is right wing. "We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement."
SocialDissimulation 3 months ago
@SocialDissimulation And those "plenty" of people are MORONS.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage You don't have a fricking clue. "stimulus" helped to turn what would have been a short recession into what we now know as the Great Depression. Before Hoover tried to "stimulate" the economy - we had already reduced unemployment from double digits down to roughly 6%. Taxes, regulations and "stimulus" all helped to create and to extend the economic hardships for a decade.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich Not even close. The Great Depression was so bad because it shattered the world economy. Doing nothing would not have solved the economy because nobody had money to buy things. Hoover started right away and unemployment hit 25%. Roosevelt went further with the NRA until it was struck down.
And the Great Depression only ended when the worlds largest ever stimulus package was implemented; WW2. Keynesian, Social Democratic, and planned economies rose because of the great depression.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN are "GREAT DEPRESSION" if Hoover had not interfered. As I said. Unemployment had already been cut from near double digits to roughly 6% in a 6 month period of time. THAT is simply a FACT. THE recession was OVER ------- UNTIL Hoover "stimulated" the economy and instituted tax increases. THAT triggered the depression.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich Those aren't facts at all. Hoover was in office when the crash happened; and unemployment hit right away. He was FAR LESS socialistic than his successor. He tried to get the banks to volunteer in the NCC, would not give money to the people and would not run a deficit for welfare programs. He forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of immigrants. He didn't increase taxes in 1932, when unemployment was at 22.9% (Darby). It was FDR and WW2 that stimulated the economy; and it worked.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage I ACKNOWLEDGED that Hoover was in office AND that unemployment hit right away, but what your liberal masters forgot to tell you is that in by June of 1930 unemployment had fallen to 6.3% - the recession was essentially OVER - but then Hoover went and did a LIBERAL, socialistic thing - he raised taxes and he MASSIVELY increased spending - from 16.4 % of GNP to 21.5%. THAT is when the bottom fell out and we quickly went from things getting better fast to things getting worse fast.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage Hoover was accused of heading us down the path to socialism by the FDR campaign. Of course FDR then went ahead and doubled down on the spending by copying many of Hoover's programs and expanding on them. This did not do a THING to slow unemployment and it STAYED above 20% --- UNTIL the SCOTUS ruled that many of the New Deal programs were unconstitutional. Then a funny thing happened, as the new deal programs were forced to shut down, the economy began to recover.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage In 1935, when the court began forcing the shutdown of the New Deal spending and anti-business programs, we suddenly see a recovery beginning - unemployment begins to fall - all the way to 12.3% in May of 1937, then FDR devised NEW programs that once again destroyed the recovery. As the provisions of the Wagner Act came on board, the top rate was raised to 79% and the "undistributed profits tax" took effect, the economy once again plunged - and Unemployment rose above 20%.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage THOSE are the FACTS, and we are doing the SAME THING now, that turned was would have been a short recession, into what we now know as the Great Depression.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich No, they're not. I pointed out the facts. You're referring to before the Great Depression. Not only did I provide the facts, I used a reputable source who is considered conservative in his numbers.
Hoover was a republican who was not a huge fan of stimulus spending, and only raised taxes near the end of his term when the great depression was at the worst, and still kept them below where they were when his first treasure secretary lowered them.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage Oh for Christ's sake! Buy a clue will you! I don't dispute your ONE fact - but the TIMING of that little fact is EVERYTHING.The commonly accepted beginning of the Depression is Oct. 29th 1929 - and it set off a VERY rapidly deteriorating recession - UE went from just over 3% before the stock market crash to near double digits that December. EXACTLY as I said. ALSO - as I said, after that shock, the economy began to recover quickly -so much so that UE was down to 6.3% by May 1930.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage In 1930, however, Hoover increased taxes and spending MASSIVELY - Ever hear of Smoot-Hawley? Spending went from a surplus in 1929 to more than DOUBLE federal receipts in '32.
whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Yet despite the massive assistance programs (which FDR copied) and other government interference, the Depression got worse. As a matter of FACT, Spending peaked in 1934 - and we STILL had 20% PLUS unemployment rates. (cont)
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage Then in 1935 things changed. Spending was cut, and the courts began to throw out much of the New Deal. Curious thing, as spending slowed and as Govt assistance programs were ended, things got BETTER - By May of '37 UE had fallen to 12.3%. But FDR couldn't help himself and raised taxes again - and shortly after this tax increase (and as the effect of the Wagner act began) unemployment began to rise - reaching once again into the 20% range.
Tell me what facts I have wrong.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich 1935 was the 2nd new deal; and his opponents opposition to it handed FDR a landslide election. The New deal was what lowered the unemployment. The New Deal's leading up to 1937 are what cut unemployment. Then they ended and it rose again with global issues.
And in WW2, the largest stimulus package ever, it dropped to 1.9%
So yes, as I said: the Great depression proves that stimulus (WW2) works.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage If the New Deal Programs were what lowered unemployment, why did unemployment RISE when it was enacted and then ONLY fall when they were ruled unconstitutional??? And THEN why did unemployment rise AGAIN when FDR initiated MORE new-deal type programs???
YOU need to go look at the time line instead of merely relying on the liberal talking points. WWII helped lower the unemployment rate by ELIMINATING workers from the workplace. Sheese! THINK before you type.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich They didn't. Unemployment exploded, and the New Deals reduced them; and only a few were considered unconstitutional (most weren't)
You REALLY shouldn't be commenting on timeline when you thought Hoover was the one responsible for all this until I pointed out you have no idea what you're talking about.
Heck, you think rising unemployment in 38 is because of new deal programs that ended in 37. You're off by a year.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage Can you read???? Are you retarded? Let me type V E R Y S L O W L Y so even YOU can understand.
You pointed out NOTHING to me. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.I STILL think Hoover was the originator of the massive spending and tax increases that turned what would have been a short recession into the Depression. After Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley and instituted massive assistance programs, and after FDR continued and expanded on them, unemployment REMAINED above 20%. THAT IS A FACT
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage It is a FACT that as the SCOTUS outlawed many of the programs and AS spending was cut, the economy began to recover - and CONTINUED to recover until FDR raised taxes began MORE programs.
YOU said "you think rising unemployment in 38 is because of new deal programs that ended in 37. You're off by a year"
Which is not even CLOSE to what I said. Learn to read before you comment.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich They declared SOME unconstitutional but many remained in effect. And the New Deals were up to 1937, when unemployment was lowering. 1938 it shot up, which was after the new deal ended; and spending decreased. Unemployment hit its lowest when spending was it's highest, WW2.
I know what you said; and I know that you refuse to acknowledge the effects of WW2 on unemployment because it proves you wrong, even though my original statement was about WW2 being the ultimate stimulus package.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage Go back and read my post - because you OBVIOUSLY did not. I said WWII lowered unemployment because we sent the workforce overseas.
Quit lying about what I said.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich You didn't say ANYTHING to me about WW2. I brought up WW2 ending the great depression, and you attacked Hoover.
And saying we sent the workforce overseas doesn't even address my point that WW2 was the biggest stimulus package ever, and was what ultimately got us out of the great depression.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage My WWII comment was in RESPONSE to your statement that the "stimulus" of WWII ended the Depression. It was NOT the government spending - it was the fact that we had a great % of the workforce overseas and therefore not counted in the UE here at home. Our recovery was not so much due to govt. spending as the fact that the allies were BUYING products from us. I criticized Hoover because if he had not raised taxes and spending - we never would have had a depression in the first place.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich That workforce was working. The world got out of the great depression by putting their people to work fighting and working in war factories.
See, here's the real problem. I'm talking from a global historical point of view. You're talking from an America only point of view. You acknowledge that other countries buying products got the U.S. out of the Great Depression, but neglect the fact that their spending was stimulus due to the war.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage THEIR spending - CUSTOMERS. Not our government - which when IT spends money it MUST first TAKE it OUT of the economy. There is a HUGE difference. By YOUR definition EVERYTHING is "stimulus" - yet that is NOT what people are normally referring to when they talk about the "stimulus".
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage As for war helping the economy - I would suggest you read Bastiat's parable of the broken window.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich Stimulus is government spending. That's what it is. Spending extra money on a war is just as much a stimulus as spending that same money to put the same amount of people to work building a modern day tower of babel.
And Bastiat's parable has nothing to do with stimulus. It assumes the same amount of money would be spent without war on other things. This is not the case with Stimulus, nor with WW2. Increased money was spent, that increased money helped the economy.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage Bastiat's parable has EVERYTHING to do with the war and with funds TAKEN from one PRODUCTIVE use and instead used to repair damage. The net effect is a NEGATIVE.
As with most govt. spending, there is no net gain. That money that was spent by the government would have been BETTER invested in the private sector. As I said earlier, if there had been no increase in taxes and no increase in government assistance type programs, there never would have been a Depression in the first place.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich Which is not what we're talking about. WW2 INCREASED spending. The parable is about allocation of continuous spending, it has nothing to do with increased spending.
They weren't putting that money in the private sector. It would have been better had they done that (that's stimulus by the way) but they weren't.
And aside from being wrong; it doesn't matter about preventing the great depression. We're talking about how the Stimulus ended it.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage Go read the damned principle, it is about the MIS allocation of resources to unproductive means instead of productive means.
THE STIMULUS CAUSED the depression and you have a VERY poor definition of stimulus - in other words you are simply redefining the term because you were proven wrong.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich I've read it. YOU need to read what I've written. Mis-allocation requires the EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF SPENDING. This is not what happened. WW2 INCREASED spending.
The stimulus did not cause the great depression. The stock Market Crash did, and I've already provided sources on the REAL unemployment figures, not your made up figures (Cite it or drop it)
Stimulus: 1. Something causing or regarded as causing a response.
I.E.; WW2 stimulated the economy.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage The stock market crashed in late 1929 and unemployment rose to nearly double digits by Dec. of that year.THEN the economy corrected ITSELF - as it ALWAYS DOES -- IF LEFT ALONE.By June of 1930 unemployment had fallen to just over 6%. Massive tax increases and massive government spending started in 1930, ROBBED $ from the private sector and we then crashed into the Depression.As I said before, if stimulus helped why did things get worse after it was in place.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@ToddAldrich The economy DIDN't fix itself. 1929- 3.2%
1930 - 8.7%
1931 - 15.73%
1932 - 22.9%
It didn't go down at all. It kept getting higher. In case you don't realize, banks that fail don't fail in a second. The Great Recession of 2008 is still putting banks/companies out of business and hurting places like Greece.
The reason it kept getting worse was because lack of regulation let the Stock Market Crash destroy the economy, and in the coming years 11000 banks as well. But that takes time.
rpottage 3 months ago
@rpottage Go look at the monthly figures. It did indeed go down, UNTIL (as I said) taxes were raised and stimulus was put in place.
Your inability to comprehend and accept basic facts does not change the truth.
ToddAldrich 3 months ago
@rpottage
It's funny. People claim WW2 "stimulated" the economy.. then the very same people say what's destroying our economy now is "two unfunded wars" (as opposed to all those "funded wars" I suppose)
Personally, I think IF WW2 "stimulated" the economy - it was due to females joining the work force (employing our reserve capacity). After WW2 Europe was destroyed, USA industry was geared up 4 war + untouched, & there was NO foreign industrial competition (Mex, China, Japan, etc) = Boom
mredstriumph 3 months ago
@mredstriumph can you imagine the possibilites if we wouldve used the ww2 fund (2.88b) to pay for schools, tuition, housing for the poor, etc? much better investment and return imo.
jaybeze14 1 month ago
@jaybeze14
Well lets think on this.. shall we?
2011 - Federal spending 3 Trillion 627 Billion - minus - 2011 military spending (703Bn) = 2.924 Trillion
Add total State revenue 1.184 Trillion + Total Local gov revenue 1.166 Trillion [for simplicity ignore state / local debt (i.e.- bonds) BOTH of which exceed these totals]
2.924 Tn + 1.184 Tn + 1.166 Tn = $5,274,000,000,000 (+ bonds)
Divide by 82 Mn American families = $64,317 spent per family per year
mredstriumph 1 month ago
@mredstriumph
Cost of stopping Hitler is estimated at $288 Bn (estimated ~ $5 Tn in 2007 dollars). Say we saved $ & gave Hitler Europe so we could spent it over the last 67 years.. $5 Tn / 67 years = $74.6 Bn additional 2007 dollars to be added to the $5,274 Bn the US gov spends on non-defense spending today..
Now we're spending $5,274 Bn + $74.6 Bn = $5,349 Bn / year
or
$5,349 Bn / 82 Mn families = $65,227 per family per year
Under your plan every family + $909.83 and gets Hitler. hmm
mredstriumph 1 month ago
@jaybeze14
By the way, since our government is spending $65,227 per family per year, couldn't we ALL just retire and not have to go to school?
It's a pretty good trade off for having to drive a Volkswagen.. think about it. ;-)
Zoom zoom..
mredstriumph 1 month ago
@rpottage
Now that "reserve" female productive capacity is squandered by the "war" on poverty & whatever industrial advantage we had has been chased off our shores by unions, regulations, & "hate the rich" / "hate management" tax-everything-that-moves politics.
Ironic that what is making every one of our competitors strong = Mexico, China, Japan, Canada is almost in all cases the ghosts of the formerly exiled United States businesses (as opposed to foreign domestically produced competition)
mredstriumph 3 months ago
thats why you should only watch the daily show and or the colbert report
YepX 4 months ago
@howtheworldworks i agree with you with the fact that this study is boguys, but fox news have admitted misinformation before rendering this "news" pointless.
msbrandonking 5 months ago
The whole paradigm of debate about media is wrong because it centers around ideology. Corporate media does not have an ideological agenda- it has audience agenda. Fox News airs what it does to target a demographic of consumers. So does MSNBC. Their clients are advertisers that pay them for the product, which is the audience. Accusations of ideological bias actually help big media, because it reinforces the bias of the audience- that is, the consumers, who tune in to what they want to hear.
thementalenvironment 5 months ago
Why are there so many dislikes?
Msnbc and CNN suck just as bad.
theyeti101101 5 months ago
I find your intense evidence and examples really agreeable.
:)
ELilyF 5 months ago
@ELilyF I agree.
mile0chicken 5 months ago
WOW look at all the dislikes!! LOL libtards!
uberrrich 5 months ago
Ok, I got so far as your opening animation. How World The Works? If you're going to be judging people on credibility, it helps to not shoot yourself in the foot by butchering the English language. If you can't even get that right, why should I trust your "research"?
AchronTimeless 5 months ago
as an Englishman i can't tell you how happy i am to see an american who gives news, as actual news.
Fox? CNN? fools. you need to take over american media. it needs to grow up, and get a hell of alot smarter.
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle not gonna happen, we are taught by the communists what to think, just like you Europeans.
uberrrich 5 months ago
@uberrrich wha? communist? are you joking? because if not you should probably be living in the cold war...
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle wake up
uberrrich 5 months ago
@uberrrich yes. my comrades and i have been infiltrating the american education system since 1945. it is a conspiracy. for mother russia!
god-damn moron. communism is an alternative way of thinking. it has no agenda.
perhaps those who follow it do, but who honestly cares. its not a threat, and never will be. even if everyone goes communist, they are the same people. in the same countries. following the same laws as before.
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle orly? communist countries didn't kill millions of innocent people? amazing.
uberrrich 5 months ago
@uberrrich so did capitalist countries, and socialist, and basically every popular political view.
i mean hell, you americans don't exactly have a clean track record, do you? but i don't associate the american system with the brutal genocide of the native americans, do i?
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle i'd compare the united state's numbers to Mao, Stalin, or Lenin any day.
uberrrich 5 months ago
@uberrrich lenin? he was, believe it or not, a fairly good communist Bolshevik (at least compared to his successors and predecessors). Imagine if country A were to become involved with a political system country B didn't like. then A becomes considered a threat to B because of its recent reform. B and A eventually ally themselves after disputes and fighting, and the political system disappears. now, people from B are claiming the system is secretly controlling them. which is which country?
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle yeah yeah, if only we could have good communists in charge, then everything will be great.
uberrrich 4 months ago
@uberrrich listen to yourself! would you consider yourself racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.?
well, claiming a system would be in control of your country would be like saying the women of the world are preparing to rise up and overthrow mankind!
Fefedefefessle 4 months ago
@Fefedefefessle CLASSIC! ever failbrain resorts calling a logical person racist, sexist, or homophobic, but you got SO desperate you went for all three at once! ha ha win!
uberrrich 4 months ago
@uberrrich context. I did not. I pointed out that a rational person would not be these things, but that what you're proposing is just as stupid! maybe if you said that PEOPLE wanted to impose communism on your country, you'd just be another conspiracy guy. but suggesting that a system can implement itself is as absurd as saying women have a collective agenda to overthrow mankind.
Fefedefefessle 4 months ago
@Fefedefefessle lol yeah that's what i said, communism is taking with out any person behind it. Kinda like when violence descends on a low income neighborhood. DERP
uberrrich 4 months ago
@uberrrich people have to be behind something for it to work.
and that is not what you said. you ignorantly assumed that, in an effort to make myself feel better, i called you racist, sexist and homophobic.
You also did not say this an a previous post. now, please understand that communism itself is JUST A SYSTEM. even when it was still rattling around inside Marx's brain, it was just a system. it has no statement of intent. those who follow it might, but that's a different question.
Fefedefefessle 4 months ago
@Fefedefefessle Educate yourself on the frankfurt school, the weather underground, SDS, and the american communist party platform.
uberrrich 4 months ago
@uberrrich irrelevant mis-use of a system. educate YOURSELF on Bhutanese nomads. communists that DON'T try to kill people. in fact, they are a very friendly bunch. you just bring up incidents of communism being used poorly, because they are more famous.
Fefedefefessle 4 months ago
@Fefedefefessle lolz resting my case with you defending communism
uberrrich 4 months ago
@uberrrich ugh. sure.... i'm defending communism. you're merely a fool who can't look past his own little sphere, and see knowledge. come, please. join us in an intelligent society. or forever live an idiot, stereotyping systems, and insulting due to a lack of comprehension.
Fefedefefessle 4 months ago
@Fefedefefessle
Seems to me.. the American system didn't exist until 1776. Further, I was taught as a child that "In 1472, Columbus sailed the oceans blue". 1776 - 1472 = 304 years. Hmmm... I think maybe you're RIGHT not to associate that with the "american" system.
Perhaps u don't associate the american system with the brutal genocide of the native americans because the MAJORITY of that process was done by BRITISH CITIZENS, along with a little help from the Italians, French, & the Spanish?
mredstriumph 5 months ago
@mredstriumph i'm not throwing stones, here. merely pointing things out. and i don't mind that my country has a bloody past, as i am not my countries history. i fell no more inclined towards genocide because of that history.
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle
(I mean, since we're throwing stones and all...)
mredstriumph 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thank you for proving my point about the education system flawlessly
uberrrich 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fefedefefessle whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? I can't believe anyone would write this.
0HippyHunter0 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle
I think it odd that "communists" (who aren't a threat) never just go off on their own to central plan, collectivise, and distribute their OWN work & property. IF their system worked so tremendously, they'd make all the rest of us green with envy, & we'd be falling all over ourselves trying to get ourselves in VOLUNTARILY to participate in the "sharing". Heck, IF IT WORKED, they'd need walls & guns to keep us out!
But no. Commies build walls to keep slaves in. Please exp?
mredstriumph 5 months ago
@mredstriumph That was merely a poorly executed idea, that was run by a paranoid dictator.
also, almost all of eastern Europe willingly joined the soviets because they were offered greater monetary gains then they would get with us. The Berlin wall was made by Stalin due to his immense paranoia that if west Berlin looked better than his side, all of Germany would become western. it was not in the communist manifest. "everything must be shared equally, oh, and you gotta build a giant wall."
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle
As one of Ukrainian descent whose great grandparent fled the Holodomor, I can tell you communism is a catastrophic idea very excellently executed. I'd also add that Lenin / Stalin had every right to be "paranoid" as they slaughtered 30,000,000 Ukrainians and Lithuanians and were running death camps based on social class (middle class specifically / "kulaks") 12 years before Hitler even considered his "final solution', but then Stalin didn't lose a war, & theres the difference
mredstriumph 5 months ago
@mredstriumph your history only makes you more likely to be biased against a system that you have only known as oppressive. should i not tell you that even before marx, many societies have existed with a communist structure, and have not brutally slaughtered innocents? and Stalin was paranoid, so he killed people. he had a mental deficiency.
Fefedefefessle 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle
"against a system that you have only known as oppressive"
I don't think o the word "oppressive", I use the term "Compulsory" which leads to it.
I've seen that the communist concept has actually been employed since the Tower of Babble, & that God himself rebuked it. It also hasn't escaped my notice that the victims have so consistently been Jews & Christians notably due to their productiveness & focus on INDIVIDUAL accountability +suspicion of those who'd make utopia on Earth
mredstriumph 5 months ago
@Fefedefefessle
"national socialism" became bad, but "world socialism" was just "poorly executed". But each was based on the same work of the same left wing German philosophers - Marx, Engles, Nietzsche, Freud mixed with a few intellectual gems thought up by Marat, Machiavelli, Sanger, and the hapless Darwin.
Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jung Il, Castro, Bulgaria, Romania, Ethiopia, Vietnam, etc also implemented the same idea & each committed unspeakable acts unlike anything in their history - strange..
mredstriumph 5 months ago
@mredstriumph
Its almost like when you permit yourself cart-blanche right to the life, liberty, & property of others (for greater good), & impose those things with secret police, prisons, jails, & firing squads.. it's almost like you end up hurting them.
Almost as if help & harm were disproportional.. like there are so many MORE ways to harm people than there are to HELP them, & that harm is so much greater than the meager "help" you can provide.. that maybe they should be left alone? Weird.
mredstriumph 5 months ago
Paul Ryan made Obama look like a fool in that healthcare talk.
TheReviewer777 6 months ago
the hunger games is among us
chasayyadeadhomie 6 months ago
@chasayyadeadhomie no
IKillBabyKittensLOL 5 months ago
"The guy's manifesto also contained very scathing, very violent feelings and comments regarding basically every single Christian in the world."
Not true, I have already pointed out that he is Christian, but he contains very favorable feelings toward them. This is a lie and if you don't back it up with facts then it's just conjecture. Moral. Don't watch Fox.
TheTruth006 6 months ago
the media except for fox news has a slight liberal bias... fox news has a giant conservative bias.
trademark6 7 months ago
@trademark6 Umm, if "conservative bias" means logic... okay. MSNBC reports appeal only to people's emotions. They're unbelievably biased and they continuously invite people who agree with them on so they can agree for ten minutes that Republicans are crazy racists and fag haters without any real evidence.
hotfudgemoney 7 months ago
@hotfudgemoney
You don't need evidence. You just need to look at the reaction from republicans to Chris Christie's appointment or a Muslim judge to know how far right these people have gone. Rick Perry's christian rally that excludes everyone. Fox news daily haranguing go Gay Rights laws. It's pretty clear that your description is dead on.
TheTruth006 6 months ago
@hotfudgemoney
You overlook that MSNBC are also relentless vulgarians who employ the most salacious homophobic name calling.
They constantly bear FALSE witness vs. conservatives - compulsively accusing THEM of lurid homosexual acts - sodomy, "cock sucking", "teabagging" - which they themselves not only routinely practice in their personal lives w strangers, publicly esteem as noble, & yearn to share with your children.
Wiki "Young Turk" & "Armenian Genocide" sometime. What fun programming
mredstriumph 5 months ago
@trademark6
Trademark.. I don't think you realize that you need to distinguish between the Fox Editorials (Hannity, Beck, Napolitano, etc) & Fox News.
Beck, Hannity, etc are OPINION SHOWS, just like Maddow, Lieberman, Matthews, etc on MSNBC. These ALL have "giant biases" & none of them hide it.
Fox NEWS - meaning the NEWS PROGRAMMING - is ** NOT ** an editorial, & is in no way "more" biased then CNN, MSNBC, or ABC - who each have a palpable Left Wing slant - which u like so don't question
mredstriumph 5 months ago
666 dislikes
david52875 7 months ago
Comment removed
banquo60615 7 months ago
Lmao. "Created or saved" Wow? The most misinformed persons in the world are the American people. They're fed with lies from their liberal media. Not fox news. Lol.
Nebraska2155 7 months ago
@Nebraska2155 Your butthurt is music to my ears.
AdmiralBunBuN 7 months ago
@AdmiralBunBuN Actually, I am not a homosexual. My butt does not hurt. Thanks.
Nebraska2155 7 months ago
@Nebraska2155 Liberals are giving you major butthurt bro, I'm sorry to hear that. The first step is acceptance.
AdmiralBunBuN 7 months ago
I'm sorry I don't really understand the point of this hilariously long video. Are you defending fox news or are you defended people who watch fox news regularly? You really can't defend either, Fox news is so far from actually being news and is full of opinions (from the anchors and hosts), and is painfully republican. Whether this study was incorrectly handled or executed is pretty irrelevant in the big picture because of the modus operandi of Fox news, which is very far from actual news.
AdmiralBunBuN 7 months ago
@AdmiralBunBuN
And yet their hard news(Bret Baier, Shepard Smith) is some of the most acclaimed on the airwaves..
SickBritKid 7 months ago
@SickBritKid They are exceptions, but it's easy to ignore that since the rest of the Fox news is pretty laughable. Also when looking at the history of Roger Ailes (chairman of fox news) it's easy to see that the core of the station is rather rotten. They wont really ever come close to PBS Newshour or BBC World News when it comes to actually delivering facts without any distractions.
AdmiralBunBuN 7 months ago
@AdmiralBunBuN
PBS is left-leaning and there are still great pundits on FNC. Bill O'Reilly, for instance...
SickBritKid 7 months ago
@SickBritKid Maybe (probably has something to do with the constant assault by republican politicians to cut funding from public television and radio (corporation for public broadcasting), Bill O'Reilly is too extreme in his ideology and opinions, is interesting for a bit, get annoying quickly... watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M&feature=player_embedded#at=89
AdmiralBunBuN 7 months ago
@AdmiralBunBuN
Too extreme? O'Reilly's a very moderate guy, hell he plays Devil's Advocate when there's a panel of only conservatives on his show...
SickBritKid 7 months ago
@SickBritKid I'm sorry, I can't take someone who asks, "where did the moon come from?" with a straight face, seriously. (see link)
AdmiralBunBuN 7 months ago
@AdmiralBunBuN
You're ignoring the entire point he was making: That the tides and the moon are why he believes in God, that the universe we live in couldn't possible have just been born from happenstance and chance, that there was a single creator who crafted it much like an artist crafts a work of art.
O'Reilly, like many other Christians including myself, believe in Theistic Evolution.
SickBritKid 7 months ago
@SickBritKid Just because nature and the universe seems amazing and vast because our minds have a hard time comprehending it, does not suggest anything about it's origins. We just simply don't know and that's all there is to it, we cannot assume anything. Suggesting God is behind it all is irresponsible, since there is absolutely no proof.
AdmiralBunBuN 7 months ago
@AdmiralBunBuN
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Just because you can't feel God's touch upon this world doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
SickBritKid 7 months ago
@SickBritKid
O'Reilly said Drunk Women get pregnant and that the tides go in and out explains global warming. Yeah, he's believable. The worst was when he said the Norway Christian fundamentalist was not Christian even thought he wrote a 500 page manifesto on christian fundamentalism.
TheTruth006 6 months ago
@TheTruth006
Yeah, and the guy, in his OWN WORDS, said that he was NOTHING CLOSE to a Christian.
Do your fuckin' research, libtard.
SickBritKid 6 months ago
@SickBritKid
That's why he said in the manifesto he rams against "multiculturalism, Cultural Marxism, and Muslim