jump to last post 1-50 of 69 discussions (271 posts)

FOX Banned In Canada

  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago

    It's a proud day to be a Canadian, as they've banned one of the worst offenders in all of a totally monopolized and corrupt system of mass media, Fox "news."

    Three Cheers for Canada!!!!

    http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2011/03/0 … newscasts/

    We‘ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.– William Casey, Former Director of the C.I.A.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Its okay...we have our own FOX...Sun TV

      1. Josak profile image58
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Epic victory, I support free speech i guess but lying and hate speech no.

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh I support anyone's right to lie or say whatever - but presenting lies as "news" is different.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "but presenting lies as "news" is different."

            As apposed to what? If you're a news station and deliberately lying, you're hardly going to present your information and then say "oh by the way, this is a lie".

            1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's my opinion that most "news" is merely propaganda, but if you understand the demographics of Fox, then you understand that it's merely a tool of division.

              The USA must be conquered from within in order for the globalist to have their one world government, and FOX was a part of their program.

              Still is in the US.  I'm proud for Canadians to be seemingly a people with a better government in some regards.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The same globalists powers have influence on the Canadian government too you know. Silencing speech, whether it be lies or not, should always be vilified.

                First will go will be Fox, and it will sound reasonable because Fox are not a very good new outlet.

                Next will be Drudge Report because of its more anti-authoritarian bend and slightly inflammatory articles.

                Next will be Infowars.com because they cover some things Fox News covered (like Fox or not, they are the only wing of the MSM who will question a Dem. government). Guilt by association. Never mind that Infowars is the leading exposer of corporate and government corruption on the internet and radio - if the government does't like it, it goes.

                Finally, anybody who protests this will be labeled a supporter of liars, and those voices will have to be silenced.

                We don't have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather - we have it so we can ruffle feathers and change people's minds. It is up to us to choose who is worth listening to.

                1. 0
                  DoItForHerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't agree with you entirely. In the U.S. we cannot lie if it hurts someone; this is a crime- like yelling fire in a crowded theater. It is called libel and slander. If I said that I eat caterpillars for dinner, that would not be a crime because that statement does not hurt anyone even though it is a blatant lie. (I eat ONLY the crunchy ones.)

                  Fox is causing serious harm with its statements. It should not be above the law. I'm glad Canada banned Fox. The U.S. should be so ethical and have at least the same moral and legal standards in this case.

                  Are there grey areas? Yes. No one will be in total agreement about everything. Free speech does not mean one can say anything; there are limitations.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually no, free speech is exactly that: you are allowed to say ANYTHING.

                    Walter Block does a much better job than me at explaining why even the libeler must be defended in: 'Defending the Undefendable'

                    "The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the
                    protection of the rights of libelers and slanderers is clear—libel
                    is ruinous to reputations . . . But obviously, protecting a person’s reputation is not an absolute value. If it were, if, that is, reputations were really sacrosanct, then would have to prohibit most categories of denigration, even truthful ones. Unfavorable literary criticism, satire in movies,
                    plays, music or book reviews could not be allowed. Anything
                    which diminished any individual’s or any institution’s reputation would have to be forbidden."

                    'Serious harm' is only as serious as you make it. The individual is in the best position to decide which information is best for them, even if you disagree with it.

                    If you are talking about the obviously partisan political agenda Fox decides to spout, then that is down to your particular political prejudices, and really, nobody has any business deciding which kind of politics are put out by anyone.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "The U.S. should be so ethical and have at least the same moral and legal standards in this case."
                    We used to. There were once rules about what a news outlet could present as news, and what had to be explicitly called out as opinion. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. But the rules went away along with many rules on corporate behavior over the last 20 years or so.

                2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                  EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Now, now - common sense won't get you very far in the HubPages political forums lol

                  I have to say I am relieved that the OP is an urban legend. Like you point out, the precedent would be very, very worrying.

        2. 61
          WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why don't you point out some of those lies and hate speech for us?

          I am no FOX fan, they are a centrist Progressive news outlet after all, but they have as square a take on the issues as any other Mass Media org.

          CNN lies, MSNBC lies, they all lie... please accept the fact that they are all in the bag.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ask and sometimes you shall receive.  ...from me.  I'm positive that you could have Googled "examples of Fox News Lies" all by yourself, but here's you a couple nice links:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/2 … 27140.html


            https://www.google.com/search?ix=ica&am … +news+lies

            1. 61
              WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The huffington post is blatent Left wing propaganda.

              So that is useless.

              Also a page full of links which derive their cites and sources from the same site... mostly Huff... is a joke.

              Show mw a story that you can point to, and supply the proof that a LIE was spoken, not production errors of file footage.

              1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image59
                AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Believe what you choose.  I had a look at both the raw video source for the Joe Biden thing on another site, and the fox news story.

                They lied.  Plain and simple.

                Though I also agree that Fox is not alone in this.  News is a for-profit business.  If it gets readership and viewership, it gets printed and aired.

                No one really pays attention to retractions anyway.

                cheers

                1. 61
                  WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I did not see a Joe Biden thing... link me to it please.

                  1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image59
                    AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Follow the links in Wesman Todd Shaw's post.  You'll find it.

              2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                WHOBEYOUBE, You hide behind anonymity.  There is nothing about you in your Profile.  So how do we know anything about you and your background?

                We DO know that you are extremely Right Wing commentator in this Hub. You have a bias bordering on hatred for "Lefties" and "Commies."  You seem unable to listen to or consider the views and opinions of anyone else, so why should we take anything that you say seriously?

                How about having a discussion for a change?  Instead of an opinionated argument which gets us no where?  Have a to-and-fro of questions and answers.  Really consider each before you reply.  Have the intelligence to say to yourself: "There is something new here which I never thought of before.  I wonder if my view has been totally correct?  I might have to change my view."

                Then, and only then, you might be giving substance to the concept of free speech.

              3. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hello WBYB,

                It is interesting that you respect Fox News and you believe “they have as square a take on the issues.“

                Lies and distortions are common from Fox News. For example, examine these on the air misrepresentations by Fox News personalities:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrdfRAaS … re=related

                As you can see and hear for yourself, the lies do not come from only one Fox newscaster. Here is a lie from Hannity:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en … 172eAPdPFo

                It would appear you are buying whatever it is Fox News is selling.

              4. AngelArs profile image79
                AngelArsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Here's one. It shows MANY examples of times that fox news lied. They are completely, nonprofit and nonpartisan;

                http://www.factcheck.org/archives/searc … ;sa=Search

                Before you attempt to post another time wasting excuse of why you won’t accept them as a source, let me just say that it's pretty clear to everyone here that you DON'T want examples of fox news putting out lie and distortions. You know how to use a search engine and could find many examples of this yourself. Only an open-minded person would do that, which clearly IMO you have not displayed any trace of. You probably are associated with fox. That said, it’s clear that people are just wasting their time trying to explain the truth to you. That's fine, like an ostrich stick your head in the sand if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that fox has been caught MANY times distorting the facts of a news event. It doesn’t matter if you understand this because OPEN MINDED people are clearly sick of them, and are clearly taking steps to rid the world of fox news and their bias country by country. I know that you are not here to have a level headed fair discussion about fox news, so I wish you well and hope you enjoy your delusions, but just know that when and wherever your delusions hurt the world that my loved ones live in, that’s when I will protect them and support the actions of countries like Canada that banned such biased and distorted news organizations like fox. Take care.

            2. Repairguy47 profile image61
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this
          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "I am no FOX fan, they are a centrist Progressive news outlet after all,"

            What the...?

            What is this trend among right-wingers to label everything they don't like as left-wing?

            Freedom is slavery, war is peace. Repeat a lie often enough, and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it.

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh!!!!

        Sorry to hear that!!!

        I'd like to see some clips from that offending programme!

      3. sunforged profile image65
        sunforgedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        do you? ... thats the first line of the linked article

        "News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, was hoping to open a propaganda branch in Canada — called “Sun News TV” (or “Fox North”). "

        different Sun TV?

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's run by a conservative newspaper chain in Canada. Sun newspapers are tabloids but not owned by Murdoch as far a I know.

    2. psycheskinner profile image79
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Scroll down and you will see that the linked story was itself a lie--or at least factually incorrect.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Congratulations to the Canadians!

    4. FloraBreenRobison profile image60
      FloraBreenRobisonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is halarious! Too too funny.

    5. 0
      klarawieckposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you take Fox away, then you'll have a one-sided view (call it whatever you want, truth or not) and that means that the channel that remains will spoon-feed the public whatever they want. That's too much power if you ask me. I'm not a huge fan of Fox news, but the fact that they refuse to give them a voice is not to be celebrated. Somehow, this reminds me of Cuba. It's pretty scary!

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hardly. Canada has a licensing system for broadcasters, and one of the requirements to get the license is that you can't go around lying and calling it "news." Fox obviously doesn't satisfy that requirement, so they don't get a license to broadcast in Canada.

        You can still see Fox's US stuff in Canada if you have a satellite dish.

    6. Bendo13 profile image86
      Bendo13posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Haha that's awesome!  The only guy I like on that channel is the good old Judge, the rest are garbage

    7. Dale Hyde profile image85
      Dale Hydeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All mainstream news is "washed" and covering the truth about what is actually happening, and/or they "create" news to manipulate people to create a point of focus that detracts from the reality that is going on.  Government controls mainstream media... This is factual, and proven through documentation.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Cool!  Show us the documents, Dale!

        1. Dale Hyde profile image85
          Dale Hydeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You can do a Google search, Randy. The information is out there. If you want me to do the search for you, well, I charge research fees.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No thanks, if you had a point you would have posted a link.  I've already been on too many wild goose chases looking through right wing sites to waste my time on just your opinion.  smile

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That I can not dispute or argue with.

    8. AngelArs profile image79
      AngelArsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This IS good news!

      Now the other countries need to follow.

  2. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I wouldn't even object to anybody presenting lies as news, I just use my noggin and choose not to watch the offending station. The problem with this decision is that it sets the precedent that the ruling elite can decide what the people should watch.

    1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No I disagree.

      The ruling elite OWN all mass media already.  Fox is absurd in the way it spews outright lies as if these things were true, and that is blatant disinformation.

      Elected officials decided to get rid of Fox.  Journalism has a code, and Fox doesn't abide by it.

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately the decision has now set a precedent - any news station that offends the establishment (possibly independent news stations) can be taken away based on the fact they 'lie'. How could a governing body possibly decide what is a lie and what is not? Do you think it beyond the realm of possibility that the government might accuse a station that criticises it of lying with no evidence to back it up, and take it away anyway? That is up to the Canadian public to decide, and vote with their dollar, not the officials, elected or not.

        In order to combat corporate media like Fox one needs to support alternative independent news that has honest journalism. The mainstream media is quickly losing its foothold due to the internet - real competition beats government intervention 100% of the time. Every time government has got involved in media, it has been a disaster for freedom of speech.

        1. fpherj48 profile image79
          fpherj48posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I see no reason to import a "quote."  If you know what you said (and you SHOULD!) you know who you are.....Yes, Freedom of Speech is a wonderful priviledge (right)...however, every DECENT, HONEST, TRUE Patriot realizes that with each and every right IS a responsibility.  Degree, quality and quantity of responsibility INCREASES with the power, content, intent, alleged authority & massive media reach of the "providers" of public information (NEWS).  If one chooses to be forced-fed garbage, mis-information, twisted facts, as in SPIN...one also has that freedom/right.  What a total waste of time, energies & brain power...for, what have you learned?....what of VALUE have you gained?  NOTHING...nada, zilch...zero. You want noise? listen to some loud music.  You like Liars, manipulators and frauds? Join a Fox News fan club...their newsletters make great toilet paper.  Canada or ANY country should be very grateful to be protected from having their intelligence blatantly insulted. I insist on truth.  I demand truth and honesty...facts, confirmation, proof, evidence and re-confirmation.  What sort of individual welcomes and/or appreciates MASS bullcrap?

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And our responsibility as citizens is to educate ourselves enough to distinguish between what is truth and what is a lie. You as a citizen have a right to listen to lies if you want to, that much you agree with, but then go on to say that it must be censored? Well which is it?

            Demand honesty and truth by choosing to use services from honest and truthful sources. The mainstream media is failing precisely because it can't keep up with truthful journalism on the internet - no government intervention required.

            1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I think you do not understand the problem here.  My parents grew up believing everything said on television was true - and it's because there was some sort of integrity when they were young...but my parent's generation isn't so much online as my generation and your generation is, so they are NOT so aware that what they are being told is untrue.

              This is the problem.  It's manipulation of persons who do not know that what they are being told might not be true.

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The older generation are displaying a demand for that kind of information by the very fact that they are watching it. Who are we to decide that they can't watch it? It is their personal responsibility to decide what they should watch. They are actually perfectly capable of thinking for themselves - they were not coerced into it. They CHOSE to watch Fox.

                Now, as similarly responsible adults, it is our job to say "Hey, look Grandma, I know this stuff is entertaining, but it might not be the truth all the time, take a look at this Youtube video" etc. etc. Promote the honest journalists and eventually truth will out.

                Just look at what freedom of speech is doing already! It is ONLY the older generation that even bother to watch the mainstream media. That kind of journalism is becoming irrelevant next to the internet and individual research. No government law put that into place - just responsible, free, adults choosing to invest more time in journalism that they think is honest.

                It seems to be you who doesn't understand the danger of censoring the speech of ANYONE.

                'First they came for the communists, and I did nothing
                Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did nothing...' etc. etc.
                I'm sure you know the quote. If not, you can google it. It's a truism that if you don't protect freedom of speech for everyone, you can not honestly expect anyone to protect YOUR freedom of speech.

                Censorship, when precedented, will only benefit vested interests with the most money.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Censorship of harmful lies is bad thing to you?  Would it be okay if Faux News made up a story about you and caused you pain or problems?  Free speech, you know!  Free speech is one thing when it's true.  When it's false and may cause problems for many people and perhaps interfere with our government in a harmful way, that's something else.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the
                    protection of the rights of libelers and slanderers is clear—libel
                    is ruinous to reputations . . . But obviously, protecting a person’s reputation is not an absolute value. If it were, if, that is, reputations were really sacrosanct, then would have to prohibit most categories of denigration, even truthful ones. Unfavorable literary criticism, satire in movies,
                    plays, music or book reviews could not be allowed. Anything
                    which diminished any individual’s or any institution’s reputation would have to be forbidden."

                    I highly doubt the government could  accurately decide what is truth and what is lies since it is a vested interest in itself and represents vested interests.  Individuals and news outlets, however, do not have an enforced monopoly on our decision making, so that gives us an advantage! The best judge of what is truth and lies is the individual. Fox has the right to lie, and we have the right to point out the fact that they are lying. Then it is up to the individual to decide who is right and who is wrong. It's just kind of . . . common sense. Freedom of speech enables the best environment for truth, because no vested interest can ENFORCE any particular viewpoint on the people.

                    Fascism didn't come about because of freedom of speech, it came about because dissenters were censored. Stalin and Mao killed millions because no opposing viewpoints were allowed through the state media. Surely those dissenting opinions would be "interfering with the government in a harmful way", right?

                    On the other hand, if any of you can give me a simple solution in which the government could recognise a lie objectively WITHOUT influence from vested interests, I might be inclined to agree.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "How could a governing body possibly decide what is a lie and what is not?"

          They can check. roll

  3. Greek One profile image82
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    As long I can still watch the Iron Chefs fight on the Food Network, all is OK.

    Can't wait for 'Battle Ketchup"

  4. 0
    Arlene V. Pomaposted 4 years ago

    Hahahahahahahaha.  You're killing me, Greek One and Wesman!  And I haven't had my first cup of coffee.

  5. Mr. Happy profile image83
    Mr. Happyposted 4 years ago

    Yes, I think you nailed the point Mr. Wesman. One can say whatever they w1ish - it's our right but it is not our right to spread lies and misinformation while calling it news. Cheers

  6. 61
    WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago

    Josef Stalin:

     
    "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."

    Yes the Communists and America and European Leftists have fought this battle for 100 years... and they are winning.

    Look around you America... Maxists and Commies in the white house and America's economy in a managed decline.

    Welcome to the new world order.

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I see, this i the point o the anti fox news legislaion. I would love for you to provide evidence to me that Obama (or anyone else in the white house) is a socialist. Because I have read Marx and Engels and Trotsky and I think you are talking about things you don't understand.

      1. Josak profile image58
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        wait not just socialist but actually "commie" or Marxist.

      2. 61
        WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am positive if you read Marx and Engals and, trotsky, Antonio Gramsci and others, you would know what he is.

        I am very well aware of what, Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, and Communists are.

        All fruits of the same rotted vine.

        From Marx to Hitler, Stalin to Mussolinni... all the rotted fruit of Marxian ideology.

        And if we could read Obama's writings in college... we would see he is an ardent supporter of Marx and all his demented children.

        But those won't ever be released as long as the left holds control and he is in office.

        And I would guess since all those Canadians are fine honest folk... that they will tell Al Gore he is "persona non-grata" in Canada, also... right?

        I mean he makes millions off his lies, (ie; an inconvienent truth"... which was full of convienent lies.

        So he is banned from Canada also, correct?

        1. Josak profile image58
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AHHHH here we see the ignorance first of Hitler was a right wing fascist he despised communists (the first people to be sent to concentration camps in Nazi Germany were the communist opposition) and Mussolini even more so he ran on an anti communist platform. Don't be stupid enough to be fooled by the word socialist in the Nazi party name and don't confuse exact opposites on the political scale from left to right. Silly child. Next, no, there is nothing communist or Marxist about Obama and sometimes I wish there was. Communists believe in complete economic equality, in collectivization of agriculture, state ownership of all  industry and the elimination of private business. To be a communist you have to believe in all those things to the absolute.

          Not a single thing Obama has done indicates he wants any of those, (and no wanting to tax the rich doesn't mean  he is a communist anymore than reducing taxes means you want to get rid of them all together. If Obama is a Communist then people who want smaller government are anarchists and all the GOP nominees are fascists (except for Ron Paul who is an anarchist) just because your point of view is slightly closer to one particular extreme than the one that was recently prevailing doesn't make you an extremist in that direction  or we would live in a world of nothing but political extremists where every religious man was a religious terrorist etc etc, your point is quite ridiculous.

          1. 61
            WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do you even know what Fascism is?

            No you do not.

            As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.

            http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

            In Europe Hitler would be a right winger, as that is the Socialist right of Europe.

            In the real world he is a Socialist Fascist. Not only he but Mussolinni were ardent fans and followers of the marxist ideology. And those are just facts of history which cannot be denied.

            Read Mien Kompf and Hitler tells you himself he is a Socialist.

            he would make an excellent 20th century Liberal.

            You do not seem to understand that what the Euros call a right wing is not what Americans know of as the right-wing.

            there is no right-wing in Europe that resembles the rightwing in America... two different spectrums.

            1. Greek One profile image82
              Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ....it's like right out of Animal Farm

            2. Josak profile image58
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @Who be you. "The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." -Adolf Hitler

              Hitler hated Communists. He thought that the goal of economics should be efficiency and not equality (he believed economic equality was WRONG) and that Communists were "rabble rousers" who interfered with patriotic production.

              Communists were the very first group to qualify for sentencing to death camps, even before Jews and Gypsies. This is because Hitler thought Communism was a Jewish conspiracy to take power. He recognized that Karl Marx, the founder of Communist philosophy, had been 100% ethnically Jewish, although an Athiest, and that many Jews in Germany were Communists. Non-Jewish Communists, according to Hitler, were even worse, they were "race traitors" (Himmler quotes) who wished to share power and wealth due the Aryans with "mud-people".

              NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO please show me these "facts" to prove that Hitler or Mussolini were communists I have just given you proof that Hitler wasn't.

              “Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
              ― Benito Mussolini
              and here is evidence Mussolini hated socialists and communists (plenty more quotes from them where those came from. Please don't write anything on politics untill you have read a LOT more you are completely ignorant of the most basic political facts and definitions.
              I have given you proof of my statements, you do the same.

              1. 61
                WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Fascists hate all compitition for authoratative control.

                All... they remove all the obstacles.

                that does not negate the fact of what they where.

                What proof?

                Your opinion?

                Hitler based his collecticvism on, "Nationalism", that does not change the facts of what he was.

                "True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

                Gee that sounds like a typical hitler rant... along with this one...

                "This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."

                Can you see the Hitler in these statements? But both quotes were in fact written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author.

                But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself.

                The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:

                "Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".

                Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.

                So you need to go learn about Marx and Engals... and hitler and Mussollini.

                History speaks louder than all the Leftist propaganda together.

                And I have never said Hitler or Musollini were Communists.

                That is all you.

                And let us listen to Hitler himself on the matter of Communists:

                "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

                Another quote:

                "Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

                (Both quotes above are from Hermann Rauschning in Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940, also called The Voice of Destruction. See e.g. here.

                So again I will tell you again, Hitler was a Socialist... though there are many schools of thought in that field, and they all have their differences and infighting, they are what they are.

                1. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh Christ this is hopeless... Are you aware Karl Marx was of jewish decent and both his parents were practicing Jews.... Look I give up, please study the left to right political scale see where different parties lie on that scale and understand he difference between liberal and communist then get back to me when you know what you are talking about.

                  1. 61
                    WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Those are direct quotes from Marx, Engals, and Hitler... so you need to go read up and learn.

                    I will see you when you cease denying someone's own words.

                    Direct quotes... and you reject them.

                    That is absurd on its face.

                    and you are not debating me about them... you are debating them

                    You need to realize that the American political spectrum is NOT the same as European Political spectrum.

                    That is very simple to grasp.

            3. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this
      3. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A right winger talking through their hat?   Not possible.  They are all highly intelligent and possess encyclopedic knowledge.

        Just watch Fox and Friends to see prime examples.  So smart it's scary.

    2. secularist10 profile image91
      secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not Marxists in the White House, the Marx Brothers!

      1. 61
        WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am inclined to agree.

        It is a bad comedy in action.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There aren't any marxists in the Whitehouse.

      But some people can say anything with a straight face. You must be a heck of a poker player.

  7. Greek One profile image82
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    don't forget the red M&M..

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QfEtbuNoQ4M/TpVNP8dszPI/AAAAAAAAA4A/u4f3df29g4Y/s1600/redScare.jpg

  8. Greek One profile image82
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    ..but Obama is a black. foreign-born Muslim....

    just like Marx!

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I know right!

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Looks like a War on Diabetes

      I wish

  9. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Nothing surprising! Quality and objectivity is not part and parcel of this network! Why would Fox assume that any country will accept trash as news. Other countries have other values, fortunately!

  10. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    In South Africa they were fascists, were they socialists? No. So "whobe" stop your bullshit!

    1. 61
      WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who are you referring to?

      England?

      England has been a psuedo-Socialist nation since WWI. A Conservative in Europe is not a Conservative in the US.

      So you stop your BS.

      There are no conservatives, as an American would understand the term, in Europe.

      Not unless they moved there from here.

      But I suppose you all know more than the Authors of the Concise Encyclopia Of Economics. Fascism is Socialism with a Capitalist veneer.

      Simple as that.

  11. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 4 years ago

    So now canada is going to replace FOX with yet another comedy channel?

  12. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    You seem not to have knowledge!!!!!! I won't dirty my hands! Enough of ignorants!

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I came t the same conclusion at about the same time, some cases are just hopeless.

  13. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    So I guess nobody even cares that the original story was completely false. We just all merrily repeat an argument this forum has already seen a million times.

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nope no one really cares. The point is the opinions that are brought up if it was actually banned or not is all but irrelevant to those of us who dont live in Canada.

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can't let the facts get in the way now can we? smile

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can't let the facts get in the way now can we? smile

  14. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Why should we have these US imports in the first place...

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The FOX no longer guards the hen house in Canada?

      That is good news

      1. ausis profile image77
        ausisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Here in Australia we only get fox 8 simpsons 2.5 men etc fox sports & that's about it. so do they have an adult fox channel or something that everyone's upset about?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            Yep,but its hard to tell the difference tween that and the Simpsons

  15. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    What a day to declare yourself a proud Canadian.  Thank goodness the Canadian government gets to decide what you choose to watch!


    What a win for Freedom!  Such a victory for Liberty.  Now if the government will only tell you what to eat, read, who you can associate with and what you are allowed to say.  Canada will be a Utopian society.

    Proud I say, proud!

    I sure hope they go through all the websites in the world so the poor uneducated Canadians do not accidentally come across an untruth on the web.  Oh the horror of the thought......*shivers with fear*

    1. FloraBreenRobison profile image60
      FloraBreenRobisonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      actually Wesman is Texan, born in US and doesn't live in Canada. I find the whole idea funny in a way as I never watched it the first place. smile

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was not directing my post at anyone.  I was just making a statement what a better world we could live in if we all just succumbed to Government control.

        I mean they are Government, not human beings like the rest of the chattel!  Of course Government knows what is best for the individual.  Government is easily the most efficient and benevolent entity on the planet.

        Common knowledge, everything a Government does is the best and most educated decisions that can be made.  History bears this out, no Government has ever done anything wrong.  Wouldn't it be a better world if the individual need not make any decisions of their own. We could all just be mindless little robots entertaining ourselves the way Government tells us, cuz Government always knows best!


        Government is pretty much a deity on its own.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Reality Bytes, I have to disagree with you here. I doubt, given your responses in forums, and your hubs, that you rely on Fox News for, well, your NEWS. News should be factual, not disinformation. Don't get me wrong, Fox are not the only guilty party when it comes to spewing disinformation. But, if we turn this event on its head, instead of the gullible allowing BS to wash over them, they will have to search for news in alternative places, such as the net. That is of course, if they are really interested in world (or local and national events) When Govts start to truly censor the news on the net (I know there is talk about this) Then I will scream "Totalitarian" Until that time, removing the disinformation machine from the main stream is a positive, I think.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are correct, I not only do not believe Fox though, I think the entire global media is under control by the same elitists.  Media has become a propoganda tool used to sway the masses in to behaving in certain ways.

        I do enjoy the Freedom to make my own choices.  For a Government to tell me what I should regard as truth is well....scary.  It tells that a Government considers its citizens as imbeciles if it disrupts any choices that should be left up to the individual.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think your absolutely correct about the main stream media, and I can see where you're coming from with making choices. To be honest though, I don't think that a portion of society are imbeciles, but I think of my parents, and how gullible they were when it came to the news, they literally believed everything they were told. Not because they are, or were, imbeciles, but because they were honest and decent people. They were only educated until the age of 14 years, they didn't even know what critical thinking was, they were honest and thought people in power were, too.
          Not everyone has had the benefit of a good education, and the main stream media, shame on them, know this. So they have puked lies, for so long.. I want to see the end of that.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If a news organization is capable of "lies'.  Would it not also be possible that Government itself also holds that capability?

            What if government lied about a news organization telling lies?

            I personally want no decision of mine to be made by any entity.  Nor do I trust government to protect me from untruths.

          2. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The fault then is on the consumer for not educating themselves enough. Liberty means responsibility for yourself. Don't start blaming others for your own dumb decisions. Fox News don't force you to watch them.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's hard to take your eyes off, of a car wreck

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If you read my post (properly!) you will not that I was talking about my parents, who had a very limited education (for the most part because they were educated during the second world war) They both left school exactly one year before the war ended.  And, what's with the dumb decisions comment?? I don't watch Fox news, and who exactly was I blaming?

              1. innersmiff profile image79
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You're essentially blaming the government for not deciding what you  and/your parents should watch (the law is the same for each individual i.e. you wish to restrict your own right to watch Fox News as well as your parents). I don't want to judge anybody, but it is their responsibility to watch what they think is best, and it is everyones responsibility to educate each other.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe they could put FOX News under R rated like they did with the movie 9/11 except the 9/11 movie was far more truthful and it pretty well all came to pass.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Not everyone has had the benefit of a good education, and the main stream media, shame on them, know this. So they have puked lies, for so long.. I want to see the end of that."

                  Just in case you missed this, I've copied and pasted it for you. My criticism is directed at the media, not the government.  News should be factual, as so many people will reach conclusions based on the news that they watch. Therefore, ALL news outlets have a responsibility to present facts, not fiction, with the intention of influencing public opinion. Now, if Fox wish to continue to air complete fabrications, then they should not be allowed to  describe their content as "Fact or News" It is neither.  It should do what it says on the tin.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "..then they should not be allowed"

                    As in, Federal law should stop it?

  16. 0
    Home Girlposted 4 years ago

    The only time when I can distinguish Canadian program from US one is when they show weather. In Canada it's usually shown in C and in US in F. When I see that in Buffalo it is 67 degrees today, I know I am watching US channel. 67C would probably be too much. And I am not kidding, not at all, not me. I am  a very serious person big_smile.

  17. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    They are going to restrict the net and would have by now if they could get away with it. The problem is, people are much easier to rule if they think they are free, rather than if they know they are not. Restricting the net is people knowing they are not.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I know they would love to censor the net. Whether they censor the net or not though, KYS, I think people in your nation and mine (for the most part) know that they are not free. I don't feel free, do you? I can't help but think that getting rid of the Murdoch Emp is a positive, though.  I know, I know, they're up to something (without sounding too paranoid) but, I think the powers that be are as confused and uncertain about where the future is heading than the rest of us are, maybe?

  18. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada

    By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Reader Supported News

    01 March 11



    s America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades - against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News - fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of the Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canadian regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right-wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

    Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for >>>liberal democracy<<< and freedom

    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 … -of-canada


    make Canada a model for >>>liberal democracy<<<  MOB RULES!!

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes all Government are corrupted in degrees, yes Canada is often a friendly dictatorship yet most people are happy enough with it. If you really want to talk about the worst mod ruling the people, Let talk about the 1% controlling much of the USA Government with Fox News being a part of that gang.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        1% controls the world, the actual number is probably smaller then 1%, you do not think Canada is ruled by the same people?

        God Bless the queen and all that eh?

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have not sang God save the Queen since age 6, Quebec dose not except her as the Queen of Canada and we trade more with US than all of Europe combined.

          GW Bush announce Britain as America's Best friend , being war pal's and all because they love to blow stuff up!!!

          1. Reality Bytes profile image93
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am not that knowledgeable in Canadian history or politics so I ask this with true sincerity.  Is Canada not a British colony to this day?  If not when did Canada declare her Independence?

            If Canada is independent of Britain why is the queens image still on the currency?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and many other countries are  all part  of Commonwelth and we each have our own contitution, the queen is printed on some of their money too. The queen does not do  technically speaking or hold many powers, she doesn't use them or intervene in political matters

              1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
                SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                we really need to get rid of the GovGen (Canada)...waste of money to have someone formally represent the queen in Canada....unless of course Canada wants me to do it....i'd put a completely different spin on it...

                mornin' CP!

              2. Reality Bytes profile image93
                Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Does Canada celebrate an "Independance day"?  Free from the oversight of the British empire.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes we do, it's called Canada Day.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image61
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I think Canada would make a great hunting lease, the US should buy it and ask 1500 a rifle.

                  2. Reality Bytes profile image93
                    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you, I will do my research from there.

              3. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Although head of state, she actually has no (real) political power in the UK, either. I wish we could be rid of her.

  19. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Actually if I had any money I would feel pretty free. I know I could go anywhere at anytime if I am not on the no-fly list. 
    Without it there is not much freedom. But having no money was
    my choice. What the powers that be are most concerned with is keeping the dollar as the world's reserve currency. No telling to
    what degree of murder and mayhem they will engage to ensure this. See Iran as the current illustration. Missed you.

  20. mel22 profile image60
    mel22posted 4 years ago

    well since most people call it FAUX News anyways they could just label it as such and repost it along next to ET(Entertainment Tonight) so they can't be called out on reporting fake news as real news. It would just  be for entertainment. THe debate should be which has more real news ,FOX or ET. I'll take FOX but wow it's close.FOX is much more entertaining though. ESpecially with Megan hosting.

  21. 61
    WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago

    Not every clown on youtube or the internet is telling you the truth either, people.

    Please.

  22. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago

    oh no....what is it anyway?

  23. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

    Canada?  Don't they have a girl on their money?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not my girl, my girls I treat like queens

  24. RTalloni profile image88
    RTalloniposted 4 years ago

    The issue being "lies presented as news" and only FOX was banned?

  25. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    If fox is banned in Canada ! Then they really should declare war on Msnbc , I find it amazing that the truth is such a contagion to everyone. Yes Fox news lies! They all do .  But "let lose the dogs of P.C." when its a conservative and not a liberal thought and interpretation issue.  Please !....

  26. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    You will never see me celebrate censorship. I don't understand why some people trust the government to make decisions like this.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

  27. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Honestly people ! I can be a bit on the conservi -side but why is it that P.C. always dictates  the discription of integrety in media ?  Right left ...I don't give a damn which side we're on ...Integrity , fairness and accuracy in fact , honesty in numbers , and civility in media is of a bygone era.  We are not teens , lets eliminate the old two party rhetoric and strive for integrety!
    Is free speech truely only acceptable on the left? If Canada needs to ban Fox or anything American .....then let it . I am as ashamed by how the world looks at America as I am disappointed  by how so much of our resourses go to building a better world . There was also talk of arresting G.W. Bush .......I don't know where this idea of banning fox comes from but so be it!

  28. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Propaganda is intentional lying. American propagandists are too dumb too know they are lying with almost every breath. Canada apparently has decided that Fox lies intentionally, as a knowing willing act or intentionally dispenses propaganda.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image96
      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All of the TV news shows are crap. Fox spews lies and is loved by the conservative side, but has lost a few people for not letting the facts get in the way of their reporting, Glen Beck being one. CNN is bland, it does report what is happening, maybe with a slight liberal slant, very slight. MSNBC is considered radical left, but I love them, I think they are pretty much on the money, and the truth hurts. People won't admit to taking them seriously. And it is hard, because they poke fun at the stupid and irrational things politicians do and say. But at least they report the stuff. It is only older people who watch those news shows anyway, the minute you log on to your computer you are getting updates on whatever your areas of interest are. I don't think anyone should be censored, but admit there were times I was enraged by Fox.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        MSNBC is much more factual than Fox. They tell one side only, but basically stick to the facts. Fox stretches the truth much more.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I prefer NPR.  You know it's fair because it ticks me off just as often as it doesn't.

  29. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    News became meaningless when they (the news people) started interjecting their own opinions. They aren't there to make the news, or to mold opinions. They are there to REPORT the news. I wish they would get back to that. And that includes Glenn Beck. He's not even a reporter.

  30. jonnycomelately profile image86
    jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago

    Hollie, in support of what you have written about your parents, and their relatively low level of education:

    I would think it is the educated, clever, intelligent people who use the radio and TV for their own gain.  They are the ones who can manipulate the system, in order to convey lies, half-truths, advertising con-jobs.  Also, it is the sly, cunning, crafty politicking, from educated people, which drives governments.  So-called democratic governments are not immune from corruption.

    I suppose what most people would like to see is a sense of duty, care, responsibility brought back into public life.  You don't need to be highly educated in order to do that.  You don't need to be a christian, or any other "..ist" in order to be a fair-minded person.

    People in this Thread who are constantly trying to blame others for the problems need to sort out their own inner objectives and intentions.  Start "being the change that you want to be."

    IMHO !

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Jonnycomelately,

      My parents believed (wrongly) that governements and the media told the truth because that is what they expected from people in power, they actually believed that those who held positions of high office and the virtue of  integrity were synonymous. It was also unthinkable for them to conceive that they were being lied to.  Because, that is not how they would have behaved!!

      The liars and cheats are the ones to blame, you're right to question the inner objectives and intentions of those who would blame honest, decent people for the misdeeds of those holding the reins of power.

  31. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    NPR, Fox, Nbc,  or BBC, there are no unbiased news outlets out  there . Just the usual "dime novel" mentality of media, and the gullibility of the masses.
    Drink up folks theres coolaid for all!

  32. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    The more I think about it the more disturbed I feel. When Socialists shut down right-wingers and declare themselves judge, jury and executioners then we are in danger as citizens. I would say the same thing if a communist radio station were shut down. This is wrong and I feel supporting this action is very misguided.

    Political correctness came from the left and censorship is the final solution to ending dissent.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Gasp!  A republican from Texas taking up for Fox News?  Whodathunkit!  lol

      1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
        The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's a little deeper than that... censurship... all you have are snide remarks. You are naive to believe in government power....

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am naive?  Thank you for your opinion.  I will respect it if you didn't vote for Palin to be VP.  Otherwise, I will give it the consideration it deserves.

        2. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What's the alternative ? Local corruption, discrimination.. Libertarian lunacy.

        3. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What power should we believe in, then?

          Are you an anarchist?  Nobody should put any constraints on you?

          1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
            The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What I notice about you far left-wing types is your need to live on the edge in your arguments. I'm not an anarchist at all. Why would you even think that? Is it because you are stunned that someone could disagree with you so the only answer is that I am a far-right fringe thinker?

            We need government regulation in many areas. But a left-wing government censoring a right-wing media outlet just doesn't sit well with me. You guys are naive and yes I'm saying it again. You are trusting in absolute power to stifle commentary. Remember freedom of the press? Well yes the press is made up of humans and yes they have every flaw that you and I possess but you cannot arbitrarily decide to shut down the media. They have to stand on their own. If you wish a country like that then I invite you to check out Venezuela....

            In the end Fox has not stopped the Liberal agenda... we have a black president... gay rights are almost codified.... there is much change that has occured. People like Keith Olbermann are alive and well. There is plenty of counter-point. But don't sit here and throw anarchy at me or child pornography like Randy does. It's ridiculous. You guys are obviously hard-core left-wingers and you wish the government could come in and stop everything to which you object. Well I'm sorry... you're just wrong....

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "far-right fringe thinker"?  That's an oxymoron, ya know!  lol

              1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
                The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ha ha... you so funny... ok... right-winger... how's that? And If you think I agree with fundamentalism you've got the wrong guy... I've been put down by them too....

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Now we're getting somewhere!  smile  Perhaps if we let YOU decide what is censored or not we would be on the right path!  tongue

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image62
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously roll

            3. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I already know you are a right winger.  I'm just trying to plumb the murky depths of your thinking.

              OK, not an anarchist.  So government has its place.  Explain to me how a crippled federal government will improve your little life?

              1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
                The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You'd be wrong. If you read anything I put up you'd know it but you've made up your mind so you're not the free thinker that you believe you are....

                Who is more likely to push for censorship: a right-winger or a left-winger? Who is pushing for it now? Who is not?

                You just think politically and don't like dissent so you're fine with government power. But you think that makes me a right-winger but in fact it makes me balanced. But you are so far left that the middle looks like the right to you....

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I know how y'all hate leeberalls and how "balanced" you think you are.

                  Can't answer the question, can you? 

                  How will a crippled federal government improve your little life?

                  1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
                    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You need to understand who you are speaking to before you resort to snide remarks. I have posted a series of anti-racism poems on my FB page for MLK. You on the other hand are advocating censorship. You don't even understand what is happening in your own mind.

                    I would post the links but Mom (Randy) wouldn't like it because he's such a stickler for rules....

  33. Eaglekiwi profile image75
    Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago

    Fox isnt tolerated in many places wink as far as a credible news channel.

  34. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    I don't know where you are from but Fox is probably the most watched news in America, do they sway the news ,yes .  But to condemn fox news for telling truths that you dont like or even agree with is immature!  I am not surprised that alot of liberals want to persuade us that everyone thinks like they do , thats the cool aid factor -P.C.  Go to Canada if you want they will welcome the left jabber ,I'm sure !  If not ...you can still call yourselves American.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for allowing us this option.  We would have never thought of such a brilliant solution for dealing with propaganda.  I bet YOU never fell for Palin's little spiels!  Tell us more oh enlightened one!  lol

      1. ahorseback profile image52
        ahorsebackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Tell you more ?    The brilliance in censurship is for only your P.C. train of thought Randy!   I can enlighten you not , in such a closure of the mind!

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your thoughts on child pornography being freely dispensed to anyone wishing to see it?  Or is censure okay in this instance?  This ought to be good! lol

        2. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are correct, you can enlighten me not.  You must first be enlightened yourself before attempting to do so to others.  And your thoughts on censoring child porn?  Nastiness is nastiness whether it's child porn or news porn.  Both have ill effects on susceptible people.  Do you approve of Fox News?  smile

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Another set of bad new dodgers to Canada, NO Thank there is enough American running the boarder for our jobs now

  35. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    You're problem is that you assume a contrary opinion to your own is a sign of a Republican. I defy you to read some of my hubs and conclude that I am a Republican. If you agree with government censorship then I stand by my comment to you. I am not here to debate who lies and who doesn't because I know how Fox is... I know how Palin is... she is a joke and I have no problem stating that fact (or opinion) here and now....  I would think a true defender of freedom would be cautious in their approval of governement discretion (i.e. people who are being criticized by the people they deem to be liars) over words....

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I'm glad government censures child pornography as much as possible.  I'm sorry if you feel differently.  Where does one draw the line?

      1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
        The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Who said I feel differently. Part of the mix in child pornography are the children themselves. That is the issue there. Equating  censorship of child pornography with censorship of a news outlet is not even close.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Many who watch Faux News are as childish as they come.  They have to be to believe the network is trustworthy.  An adult Santa Claus show!

          1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
            The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't disagree with you about people who fall for the likes of Palin's rhetoric. But children are a different matter. It is not the same. Why do they have statutory rape laws even in a "consensual" situation? It's because society has deeped that human beings under 18 are not sophisticated enough to protect themselves. We are talking about adults versus children. It's not the same and you can't work your way around it.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not trying to work my around anything, SuPo.  A childish mind is a childish mind, no matter the age of the owner.  When these type minds are exposed to garbage touted as delicacies it is a recipe for disaster.  Ergo electing a Texas moron who should be charged with criminal activity for the needless death, destruction, and cost to out treasury.  Nuff sed!

              1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
                The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'l never agree that child pornography is a valid comparison.

  36. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Suburban Poet , I think its only those who suck up to the political correctness in such a ban  that would stifle free speech!   Intellectual liberal wannabees perhaps are they ?

  37. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    I didn't join Hubpages to engage in political arguments (as you can see if you read my profile). But my final word on this is that the governement is made up of human beings that possess virtually unaccountable power. If you give them the power to make discretionary decisions concerning censorship then you have given your enemies the same power because one day they will be in power and you will regret the discretion that you handed to them when your friends were in power. This works both ways....

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Respond to my post about pornography if you wish to back your previous words, SuPo.  tongue

  38. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    I don't have to be hacked to bits i order to be proven wrong. Nothing is simple. But government power is scary. You appear to believe in it to a certain degree as do I. We may part ways at various points but when the Left uses raw power to silence the Right then it becomes dangerous. And vice-versa....

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And your view on child pornography?  I know you don't relish having to say you think it should be censored, but you put yourself in this position with your previous posts berating censorship.  Don't run away without addressing my question if you are true to your words.

    2. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, right: the Right is so silenced!

      The silence comes from people waking up to realize how foolish they have been.    If Canada did ban Fox, they'd be right to do so,

  39. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    Child pornograpy is wrong. Period. That is something an adult can easily distinguish between political commentary. If you think that going to an extreme and assuming you defeated the censorship argument then you are sadly mistaken. You're not even close.

    1. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But lying and inciting people to violence or even just to influence their votes is fine?  Just so long as you pretend that it is news?

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      kids can go to the their computer :chick; on anything they want to KNOW about sex. As a kid I found naked pictures in my Dad's dresser. What's worst than two people making love, is two people killing each other, than talking about it, like on Fox News,

  40. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    You assume that those in power are operating in good faith when they declare something to be a lie and something to be inciting a riot.

    Why don't you go ahead and ban religion while you're at it.... it's a lie right?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Of course it isn't a lie!  Illiterate goat herders should be the role models for today's world.  Who needs science when anonymous authors of contradictory myths are there for the fulfillment of those who have questions they cannot accept from knowledgeable scholars.  Duh!

      1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
        The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Then ban it...

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have.  smile

    2. Pcunix profile image91
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We have separation of church and state - thats all the banning we need.

      Fox News misinforms and influences politics through its lies.  The mistake we made was allowing one man to have so much media power.

  41. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    I disagree and that's it... you guy's will take it to the micro level. I understand your need to be right. But "two people making love" is not child pornography. You put a red-herring out there. This type of political argument is typical because people are unable to remain on point. Have a great day. I'm sure you guys are good people and I understand your feelings about Fox... I don't watch it anyway.. I don't watch any news shows....

    If you question my motives then read this hub that I posted sometime back:

    <link snipped - no promotional links>

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, I don't like amateur poetry that much and I've learned enough about your reasoning abilities by conversing with you here.  The fact that you refused to man up on the censorship thing tells me the depth of your sincerity.  Good luck to you! 



      PS---By the way, self promotion is frowned upon here for a reason and is why posting a link to your...poem..is against the TOS.  I know....censorship again!lol

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who get child pornography channels? The Pope

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why not?  Who can say who sees what?  Who has the knowledge to decide?

  42. jcmayer777 profile image78
    jcmayer777posted 4 years ago

    I am not big on banning choices.  I have my own ban on news for dumb FOX, but I think people should be able to watch it if they choose.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The same for anything else then.  smile

      1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
        The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not child pornography...

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's censorship.....someone said that's a bad thing.  lol

          1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
            The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Adult content... you are playing dumb. Child pornography is a crime and is an abomination. I can't believe that is all you have as a counter-point.... surely you have more... tell me you have more....

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think you're playing SuPo.  Censorship does indeed have a place in our society, otherwise everything would be allowed everywhere.  Sure, only the pedophiles would like child porn to be allowed.  The same can be said for many harmful things. 

              Fox News aided the criminal Bush in his quest to start a war with Iraq by convincing the gullible to vote for him.  How many trillions of dollars and young people's lives were spent on what we have there now.  I had rather still be arguing with Saddam now and have all of that back.  I'm also sure the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis would feel the same. IF THEY WEREN'T DEAD!

              News porn!

            2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
              Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I thought that it was a pretty good point.

              What is and isn't a crime should be based upon moral or ethical understandings - and surely child pornography and statutory rape are crimes in the USA because everyone can see that someone is being taken advantage of in the extreme.

              No, lying and calling it "news" is not something on the same level as to rape a child.....but when you lie and call it news, and millions of persons believe the lies are truth.....it's still taking advantage of someone, and so, it's comparable to child pornography.

              Defending persons from abuse isn't censorship.

  43. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    So much power? There are media outlets everywhere. There is more information available than ever. It's not even close..... I was born in 1958... we had three channels and no internet. We had the World Book Encyclopedia.... now the range of information is far diverse. I understand the need to regulate against monopoly's (anti-trust laws) but that is not the problem here... Fox is on one channel. That's it... Yet you want that channel to be deleted....

  44. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    That's alright Randy... you have a good day...

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      CENSORED!  lol

  45. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    All I see that that almost no one else here actually read the story to the end.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps that may be true for some, but the subject of censorship is important despite the article being factual or not.

  46. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Okay everyone , just so you are all P.C. correct , Lets build a big bon- fire with only conservative news broadcasters ,  those there religious zealots can burn too , and hey lets throw in a few babies.  All to protect.....what ....you who liberally opine?.....

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why burn the babies after we've already saved them from hypocrisy?

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'll bring the marshmallow and tea

      No, I just do not like the new conservative, yet a true conservative like Ron Paul would be just right for America, …...I wish

    3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's not about that.

      I've got a ton of respect for persons like PcUnix and Randy the Snake - I like them both too much to sour my time on this website by getting into religious discussions with either.

      The late Ernest Shubb....same thing.

      While "most" of the mass media might be considered "liberal"...that's beside the point.

      Fox panders to the lowest common denominator, and deliberately spreads false information proclaimed as fact.

      Conservative views on anything are fine - but there's no reasoning with someone or something that deliberately and knowingly spreads lies as if they were facts.  I'd say that it's pretty impossible to have a productive conversation or to reach a productive conclusion when you're conversing with or getting your current events from a blatant and purposeful liar.

      Hey, if MSNBC gets busted deliberately spreading falsehoods as if they were truth - then makes that a part of their paradigm, then they should certainly be banned too.

      Censorship is not the issue.  Stating things as though they are facts while knowing that they are not facts, but lies - is entirely the issue.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said, Wesman.  Any network, no matter the political affiliation, should have certain standards they have to follow.  smile

  47. Mr. Happy profile image83
    Mr. Happyposted 4 years ago

    How about we leave the babies out? lol Just so there will be some inhabitants left when we're all done.

  48. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    No seriously guys , one of those babies might grow up to be a conservative, or Oh my No , believe in a god!.....Maybe even your child!

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There have always been dumb children.

  49. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Tell me something .....Do atheists really ever think ahead more than  a few minutes at a time. ?  Lets see ....
    "Now son , I told you to be a liberal and there you go , watching fox news again,  I mean , what am I going to do with you?".......:-}

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No they don't, but then, fundies are always a half hour behind them anyway.  smile

    2. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do they talk about Atheist on Fox, must of missed the quick clips.

  50. Mr. Happy profile image83
    Mr. Happyposted 4 years ago

    I disagree with the dumb children comment and I will refrain from saying who's really the dumb one ...

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There have always been dumb adults who were once dumb children.  yikes

 
working