FOX stoop to new lows

FOX stoop to new lows April 6, 2015

Urghhh. This was so painful to watch. They should be had up in court for misinforming and mischaracterising. This is evil propaganda of the worst sort.

What can be done about it? It’s so depressing that such a widely watched channel can spew forth such vitriolic nonsense.

I am angry now. Thanks FOX.

"You really are a denier of truths. Anyone with an open mind can search and ..."

Abortion: The Human/Human Being Distinction
"You would need to limit that to people who actually hold deontological views and not ..."

Morality: Consequentialism and Coronavirus
"“Once people decide to actually think, they can't really help but to lose most or ..."

Pearced Off! – Doxastic Voluntarism
"To clarify IF we was living in a world created by the Christian God, it ..."

Pearced Off! – Doxastic Voluntarism

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Vandy Beth Glenn

    I can’t call this a “new” low, because I’ve heard much worse from Fox, but beginning from their assumption that “protecting atheists” automatically equals “hostility toward Christians” certainly fits their brand.

  • Peter

    Surely this is so insane it can only backfire for them??

  • Andy_Schueler

    So…. Fox News is “Fair and balanced” and Christianity is all about loving your neighbour?
    Yeah…. right.

  • epicurus

    Fox knows their viewers, and what they want to hear. From a business perspective it’s all good.

  • Geoff_Roberts

    Please explain what is factually incorrect about this commentary on Fox?

    • Seriously?

      “Where does this hostility come from in the first place towards Christians?”

      It is clearly not hostility but a protection of human rights.

      FFRF: “a group of angry atheists… a very large and powerful group of supporters and they hector governments to pass anti-Christian, anti-religious ordnances. They team up with government.”

      Notwithstanding the stuff about the IRS, since pastors are in CLEAR contravention of their tax-exempt status.

      ”So it is never just about tolerating their views, I’s about attacking other people’s views.”

      And then casting aspersions, unevidenced, about their aim.

      That’s just the opening remarks.

      • Geoff_Roberts

        This piece was commentary just like much of what is on other morning shows like “Today” or “Goodmorning America.” Obviously, this infotainment show has a conservative bias just as the other shows I mentioned have a definite Liberal bias.

        You may totally disagree (as I do) with some or all of the piece but I don’t think factually it was mostly incorrect. I think it would be fair to say many atheists have a strong dislike for Christians and vice-versa.

        What I think is at issue behind this piece is what is the proper “balance” of rights between practicing one’s freedom of religion and others who believe differently?

        • Fish

          I am an Atheist and I don’t have a strong dislike for christians. I was one once and have many christian and catholic friends. I just don’t appreciate their beliefs very much.

          • Amen.

            I dislike people, if they deserve it. And those people can be Christians.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Sure, they can be Christians, but they can also be Muslims, atheists, feminists, militant pro-lifers, militant pro-choicers, militant animal rights advocists, corporatists, liars of any stripe, and just plain assholes. I also know many Christians who are very kind and loving people, are not politically combatant, and just want to live peaceably with their neighbors.

          • Sure, that was broadly my point! ;)

          • scottie1111

            OK… but can you tell them to keep it to themselves. I don’t hate Leprechaunists or leprechauns, but I do loathe when Leprechaunists try try to shove Leprechaunism down my throat.

        • scottie1111

          What you call “liberal” in the States would be “center” on the spectrum in the British Isles and most of Europe. The right-wing in the U.S. is so far off the spectrum that they’re “not even wrong”.

    • It had in 2013 FFRF had revenues of $3,878,938 USD, with a net surplus (after expenses) of $1,715,563.

      Lakewood Church alone has annual revenues of $77 million. Osteen had 600,000 stolen from an offering!

      It has been reported that Osteen stopped taking a $200,000 salary from Lakewood Church in 2005 and that his estimated net worth is $40 million. He also lives in a $10.5 million 17,000 square foot home with six bedrooms, six bathrooms, three elevators, five fireplaces, a guest house and pool house.

      Lakewood Church takes in an incredible amount of money every week.

      Chelsea Schilling points out:

      The New York Times reported Lakewood Church – former home of the Houston Rockets – features a 16,000-seat arena, three enormous television screens, two waterfalls, enough carpeting to cover nine football fields, a café with wireless Internet access, 32 video game kiosks and a vault to hold the church offering. In March of this year, burglars reportedly stole at least $600,000 from the church safe, which was a portion of the donation from just one weekend of services.

      Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/joel-osteen-caught-financial-scandal-report-claims-hes-leveraging-church-money-making-vehicle/#KKq7pEeFQDGFyH4X.99

      • Geoff_Roberts

        I’m no fan of Joel Osteen either but it seems to me that is beside the point. Yes, Christians have a lot of money and power but atheists are starting to get a lot more attention in the media. Remember, I’m an atheist too but I believe it would behoove atheists to take a different tack than some recent efforts.

        I think using logic and rational arguments in the marketplace of ideas to get the religious to question their beliefs is a better way to change hearts and minds.

        • I get pissed off when news channels, whether on infotainment shows or the news are so utterly biased as to be lying to their viewers.

          We already know that Republicans lie more than Democrats:
          http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-more-164943.html

          that FOX News correlates with having the lowest current knowledge/are the least informed:
          http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?IR=T

          and lowest education levels:
          http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/

          In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University political scientist Jon Krosnick and visiting scholar Bo MacInnis found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.”

          In 2009, an NBC survey found “rampant misinformation” about the healthcare reform bill before Congress — derided on the right as “Obamacare.”It also found that Fox News viewers were much more likely to believe this misinformation than average members of the general public. “72% of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the healthcare plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly,” the survey found.

          By contrast, among CNN and MSNBC viewers, only 41 percent believed the illegal immigrant falsehood, 39 percent believed in the threat of a “government takeover” of healthcare (40 percentage points less), 40 percent believed the falsehood about abortion, and 30 percent believed the falsehood about “death panels” (a 45 percent difference!).

          (Also see the Kaiser Family Foundation survey for misinformation on healthcare from FOX)

          Aslo:

          “Indeed, by 2009, Hart and a team of researchers were able to perform a meta-analysis—a statistically rigorous overview of published studies on selective exposure—that pooled together 67 relevant studies, encompassing almost 8,000 individuals. As a result, he found that people overall were nearly twice as likely to consume ideologically congenial information as to consume ideologically inconvenient information—and in certain circumstances, they were even more likely than that.

          When are people most likely to seek out self-affirming information? Hart found that they’re most vulnerable to selective exposure if they have defensive goals—for instance, being highly committed to a preexisting view, and especially a view that is tied to a person’s core values. Another defensive motivation identified in Hart’s study was closed-mindedness, which makes a great deal of sense. It is probably part of the definition of being closed-minded, or dogmatic, that you prefer to consume information that agrees with what you already believe.

          So who’s closed-minded? Multiple studies have shown that political conservatives—e.g., Fox viewers–tend to have a higher need for closure. Indeed, this includes a group called right-wing authoritarians, who are increasingly prevalent in the Republican Party. This suggests they should also be more likely to select themselves into belief-affirming information streams, like Fox News or right-wing talk radio or the Drudge Report. Indeed, a number of research results support this idea.

          In a study of selective exposure during the 2000 election, for instance, Stanford University’s Shanto Iyengar and his colleagues mailed a multimedia informational CD about the two candidates—Bush and Gore—to 600 registered voters and then tracked its use by a sample of 220 of them. As a result, they found that Bush partisans chose to consume more information about Bush than about Gore—but Democrats and liberals didn’t show the same bias toward their own candidate.

          Selective exposure has also been directly tested several times in authoritarians. In one case, researchers at Stony Brook University primed more and less authoritarian subjects with thoughts of their own mortality. Afterwards, the authoritarians showed a much stronger preference than non-authoritarians for reading an article that supported their existing view on the death penalty, rather than an article presenting the opposing view or a “balanced” take on the issue. As the authors concluded: “highly authoritarian individuals, when threatened, attempt to reduce anxiety by selectively exposing themselves to attitude-validating information, which leads to ‘stronger’ opinions that are more resistant to attitude change.”

          The psychologist Robert Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba has also documented an above average amount of selective exposure in right wing authoritarians. In one case, he gave students a fake self-esteem test, in which they randomly received either above average or below average scores. Then, everyone—the receivers of both low and high scores—was given the opportunity to say whether he or she would like to read a summary of why the test was valid. The result was striking: Students who scored low on authoritarianism wanted to learn about the validity of the test regardless of how they did on it. There was virtually no difference between high and low scorers. But among the authoritarian students, there was a big gap: 73 percent of those who got high self-esteem scores wanted to read about the test’s validity, while only 47 percent of those who got low self-esteem scores did.

          Authoritarians, Altemeyer concludes, “maintain their beliefs against challenges by limiting their experiences, and surrounding themselves with sources of information that will tell them they are right.”

          The evidence on selective exposure, as well as the clear links between closed-mindedness and authoritarianism, gives good grounds for believing that this phenomenon should be more common and more powerful on the political right. Lest we leap to the conclusion that Fox News is actively misinforming its viewers most of the time—rather than enabling them through its very existence—that’s something to bear in mind.

          …In other words Fox News is both deceiver and enabler simultaneously. First, its existence creates the opportunity for conservatives to exercise their biases, by selecting into the Fox information stream, and also by imbibing Fox-style arguments and claims that can then fuel biased reasoning about politics, science, and whatever else comes up.

          But at the same time, it’s also likely that conservatives, tending to be more closed-minded and more authoritarian, have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape from the belief challenges constantly presented by the “liberal media.” Their psychological need for something affirmative is probably stronger than what’s encountered on the opposite side of the aisle—as is their revulsion towards allegedly liberal (but really centrist) media outlets.” http://www.alternet.org/media/science-fox-news-why-its-viewers-are-most-misinformed

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Jonathan, do you think MSNBC, NBC, CNN, and Politico are unbiased news sources? I monitor both left-leaning and right-leaning news sources and there is a definite bias on all of them. I believe one should always understand the point of view of the news source. As you know, people gravitate towards evidence that confirms their preconceived biases.

            You are obviously on the left as the overwhelming majority of atheists are. I lean right which often puts me at odds with many atheists. My political views are well-considered and not “reactionary” or from a defective process which many Liberals try to imply. I’m not claiming I know the “truth” and am also not beyond learning and changing my views.

            The article you cite is certainly not unbiased and many will not question their findings.

          • Sure they are biased. I don’t actually watch them (being from the UK) but FOX appears to be by some distance the worst.

            The article I cited is actually meat-analysis, looking at 6 independent studies, and then adding in some Festinger stuff.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            I will take a close look at the study but I do watch the newscasts very often we are discussing and I’m not buying the claim only Fox is biased. I see the bias of the so-called mainstream media all the time. The major networks hide behind the false claim that they are neutral and yet are quite progressive in their reporting. There is a huge bias against Fox as they have pummeled the major networks and taken away ratings share. I know it plays well among Liberals but to claim Fox viewers are dumb is a gross distortion.

          • Andy_Schueler

            The major networks hide behind the false claim that they are neutral and yet are quite progressive in their reporting.

            Wrong. It is Faux News who hides behind a pretense of neutrality – “fair and balanced” – while they actually are pretty much the least balanced source you can find. Yes other networks are biased, every news source is biased – it is a matter of degree, and Faux News is reliably the worst network.
            A good recent example: Brian Williams a) apologized and b) was suspended by NBC for six months. Billo the Clown on the other hand, despite reporting much, much more severe falsehoods, was not only not suspended by Faux News, he also never apologized but rather went into full rabid attack mode.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            I disagree with your assertion Fox News is the least balanced network. Fox does have commentary shows with a conservative bias and make no bones about. Opposed to other network commentary shows where there will be a panel of 5 pundits with a lone conservative, Fox often has an equal number of conservatives and liberals on a panel and are they given equal time to present their opposing views. The major network shows pretend to be in the middle but show a decidedly liberal bias which turns off viewers for their pretense. Major networks are losing viewers in droves as there are now alternative news media sources available. Meanwhile, Fox’s ratings have never been better.

            I monitor many different news sources and am amazed at how the major networks ignore important stories that go against their liberal bias. Major stories like a former Secretary of State completely rejecting the secured government email system and creating her own network at her home for all her classified emails and then destroying at will much of this email evidence would be earth-shattering news if it was done by Condoleeza Rice. The major networks have barely covered this scandal and instead provide “puff” pieces on Hillary and her impending presidential run. Viewers are tired of this bias in reporting and at least with Fox will see another perspective of the news.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I monitor many different news sources and am amazed at how the major networks ignore important stories that go against their liberal bias. Major stories like a former Secretary of State completely rejecting the secured government email system…

            I just fact checked this assertion of yours and it is completely wrong – I just looked for stories about this on the most liberal network I could think of (MSNBC) and there are plenty of reports about this story, random selection:
            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/unanswered-questioned-hillary-clinton-emails
            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-address-email-controversy
            http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/where-does-hillary-clinton-email-controversy-go-here

            So, the one example you do provide is inaccurate. And I would be willing to bet that for every flaw that you can find in every network other than Fox News – I can find an analogous flaw for Fox News that is much, much more severe (like Brian Williams behavior and the behavior of NBC was in literally every respect better and more professional than the behaviour of Billo the Clown and Fox News – to go back to my earlier example).

          • Geoff_Roberts

            I was comparing major network morning and evening news shows compared to Fox and how they often ignore or briefly cover stories not to their liking of their liberal bias. Check out the following article of what is all too often the case with network news shows:

            http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/after-initial-rush-media-delete-hillarys-e-mail-scandal

            The major networks are often dismissive and quickly lose interest in news stories that don’t benefit their ideology. I never said Fox is not biased as well but at least it’s providing a different perspective from the liberal mainstream media.

            MSNBC is not a major network as hardly anybody watches it. I was slso referring to what is actually broadcast on the air.

            The Brian Williams fiasco became so large that NBC had to do something about it. He lied about many things besides the helicopter story and with each lie aggrandizing himself. He went on many late night entertainment shows and doubled down on his lies after NBC told him to stop. He also lied to the NBC brass behind the scenes. There is no comparison to the Bill O’Reilly story. If more evidence comes out about O’Reilly then he should be punished as well.

          • Andy_Schueler

            The major networks are often dismissive and quickly lose interest in news stories that don’t benefit their ideology. I never said Fox is not biased as well but at least it’s providing a different perspective from the liberal mainstream media.

            So you go from “ignore important stories” to “quickly lose interest”. Don´t you realize how those are two completely different positions? Also, I mostly follow liberal news sources and every single one of them published reports that were highly critical of Hillary Clinton´s email fiasco – they didn´t quickly lose interest.
            And regarding being “dismissive” about stuff that doesn´t fit their ideology – well, there is no network worse than Faux News when it comes to that. EVERY network reported the news about the DOJ report that found no evidence for “Hands up, don´t shoot” extensively – including the very liberal ones. However, Faux News completely ignored the second DOJ report that showed that the Ferguson police department is much, much worse than anyone expected and is essentially a racist protection racket. But since Faux News does not want to offend the delicate sensibilities of its racist audience – they ignore it.

            The Brian Williams fiasco became so large that NBC had to do something about it. He lied about many things besides the helicopter story and with each lie aggrandizing himself. He went on many late night entertainment shows and doubled down on his lies after NBC told him to stop. He also lied to the NBC brass behind the scenes. There is no comparison to the Bill O’Reilly story. If more evidence comes out about O’Reilly then he should be punished as well.

            And that right here shows that you are ridiculously biased. O’Reilly has lied his ass off, he lied with the purpose of self-aggrandizement more often and more severely than Williams did. The difference is:
            1. Williams apologized while O’Reilly rabidly attacks the people that expose his lies.
            2. NBC showed integrity and suspended Williams, Fox News has no integrity and doesn´t care about Billo lying his ass off.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            I was referring to what is broadcast on the air and the time given to news stories that don’t benefit liberals on the major networks. That point is not refutable as far as I can tell as the Media Research Center does the actual data collection of time spent on various news stories. Perhaps you should check out the MRC regarding the actual data.

            Williams apologized to try to save his job as the evidence was overwhelming against him. This was after the NBC brass repeatedly told him not to do it anymore. It’s a much different situation then O’Reilly but, again, if stronger evidence comes out then he should be punished.

            You’re bashing of Fox’s integrity is something every Liberal does with vicious abandon. Yet liberals seem to have no problem with the biased major network news and will often even deny there is a bias. I have no problem saying Fox absolutely has a different perspective than network news and many viewers find that refreshing. I suppose I might be angry as well if networks I agree with lose much of their viewership to another network I strongly dislike.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I was referring to what is broadcast on the air and the time given to news stories that don’t benefit liberals on the major networks.

            If by that you mean that there is only one network that had spend most of its airtime yelling BENGHAZI!!!()!!&%!/%!!!!!!()!
            then yes, I guess this is correct.

            This was after the NBC brass repeatedly told him not to do it anymore. It’s a much different situation then O’Reilly but, again, if stronger evidence comes out then he should be punished.

            Either you are kidding here or you are completely uninformed about the issue. The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Billo lied. He lied with the purpose of self-aggrandizement and he lied more often than Williams did – there is no discussion to be had here, the evidence is overwhelming and completely unanbiguous. Fox News applies its usual double standard – it´s bad but only when others do it.

            You’re bashing of Fox’s integrity is something every Liberal does with vicious abandon. Yet liberals seem to have no problem with the biased major network news and will often even deny there is a bias.

            I showed you two examples where Fox News was objectively worse than other networks were and I maintain that for every single example of misconduct you can find, I will find an analogous and MUCH worse instance of misconduct for Fox News. The only example you could think of so far was inaccurate, so that you had to change your positon from “ignore important stories” to “quickly lose interest” – and the only actual point you seem to have is that other networks do not spend as much time on some stories as the Republican party would like it.

          • I would have to agree with Andy here, ,Geoff_Roberts, as the evidence for Bill O doing wrong many times is overwhelming.

            But also, you are ignoring the evidence that was gathered that I linked to above to show that FOX News:

            1) watchers are least educated

            2) watchers are the most uninformed

            3) rejects mainstream science the most

            4) 60% of their claims are mostly false or worse (as opposed to 46% from MSNBC) – http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/jul/01/introducing-scorecards-tv-networks/

            5) I would also check this report out to show that FOX won the award for most factually incorrect news channel: http://americablog.com/2014/07/punditfact-fox-news-wins-battle-false-cable-network.html

            It also gives you some of the examples of the “facts” they proclaimed. Well worth checking out.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            The problem, Jonathan, is you’re referring to mainly left-leaning sources in your criticism of Fox. As you know, Fox is hated by the left as it has done much damage to the prestige and viewership of the MSM. It is particularly hated by the MSM establishment which goes out of it’s way to trash Fox.

            IMHO, I don’t believe a fair analysis of Fox is done by self-described progressive sites such as Americablog and the left-leaning Politifact.

            As for as the Pew research results, I question some of the conclusions that can be drawn from the data.

            For example, unfortunately our universities have become indoctrinators for Liberal ideology instead of teaching students to think critically. Many of these students and graduates have been taught Liberalism and even Marxism is preferred while Conservatism is to be rejected. I know of many students who watch Al Jazeera of all things for their “reliable” news source. So, that explains in part why a complete Liberal partisan like Rachel Maddow might have a higher educated, younger audience.

            I also don’t believe Fox viewers are the most uninformed. Viewers often watch Fox as they want to hear and evaluate both sides of the argument. In other posts of mine I’ve shown Fox has the most balance of opposing views especially compared to MSNBC (source: Columbia Journalism Review). A much more disturbing result of the four questions asked about political awareness is only 14% could answer all four questions.

            I understand I’m attacking one of the sacred cows of Liberalism that Fox is bigoted, racist, hateful, and lies to it’s viewers. On an atheist blog I fully expect to be challenged left and right on my defense of Fox.

          • scottie1111

            “I also don’t believe Fox viewers are the most uninformed. Viewers often
            watch Fox as they want to hear and evaluate both sides of the argument.”
            Wrong and wrong…

          • Geoff_Roberts

            You continue to ignore the data of the amount time given to inconvenient stories which are critical of Liberals on the major networks. That is one of the compelling reasons why Fox even exists. Viewers know they are getting Liberal- biased news from the major networks and want a different perspective. Then you throw out the Benghazi card to distract which has little to do with the topic.

            Your “hairsplitting” of my description of how the networks ignore or quickly lose interest in these types of news stories tries to obscure the truth of the matter. You may not like what Fox covers but they cover stories that are often ignored or given little time on the networks and which are important news stories. That is one reason why their viewership is increasing. The major networks and even MSNBC can’t seem to figure out why their ratings are tanking when the evidence is staring at them in the face.

            Your categorical claim of “there is no discussion to be had here” and “the evidence is overwhelming and completely unambiguous” regarding Bill O’Reily is spoken as a true believer. Your hatred of him is quite evident and you can’t even bring yourself to call him by his real name. Perhaps I missed something but I haven’t seen overwhelming evidence nor have I seen the MSM or conservative sources call for his removal as they did for Brian Williams.

          • Andy_Schueler

            You continue to ignore the data of the amount time given to inconvenient stories which are critical of Liberals on the major networks.

            No, I do not ignore it. I fully grant you this. However, you first of all did not show that liberal networks devote too little time to such stories (instead of the alternative of Fox News devoting way too much time to them). And, most importantly, even if you are 100% right here – that doesn´t change the fact that Fox News is even worse because they do not report stories inconvenient to republicans at all. I already gave you one example for this – two DOJ reports about Ferguson, and Fox News talks about the one that is convenient for them all day long while completely ignoring the one that is inconvenient for them. Again – for every flaw that you can find for other networks, I can show you an example where Fox News does something analogous and much worse .

            Your “hairsplitting” of my description

            “ignore important stories” to “quickly lose interest” is not hairsplitting.

            You may not like what Fox covers but they cover stories that are often ignored…

            You cannot name a single example for that while I already gave you an example where Fox News does this (the two DOJ reports about Ferguson, where Fox News ignores the one that is inconvenient for their racist agenda)

            Your categorical claim of “there is no discussion to be had here” and “the evidence is overwhelming and completely unambiguous” regarding Bill O’Reily is spoken as a true believer

            Regarding his lie about the falkland war – not a single person who witnessed relevant events testified in support of Billo, while countless witnesses dispute him – including SEVEN former colleagues of his. The evidence is overwhelming, and the evidence is completely unambiguous – not a shred of evidence that supports Billo, and a mountain of evidence that demonstrates him to be a shameless liar.

            You are so ridiculously partisan that it is effectively impossible to reason with you about politics.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Apparently, one has to be extremely specific with you or you believe you can parse words and try to obscure facts. The reason the MRC exists is to point out the frequent lack of appropriate coverage of the MSM on important news stories. Often, the MRC will sadly describe what the MSM deemed newsworthy instead of reporting on important stories that are inconvenient to Democrats. So, you are incorrect on your assertion the MRC does not show how the networks spend too little time on important stories.

            Furthermore, Fox absolutely reports on stories critical of Republicans. For example, there has been frequent criticism of how poorly the Republicans handled the immigration over-reach of Obama after the election and agreed to fund this illegal action. There is also frequent criticism of how Republicans have handled their overwhelming victory at the polls this past election. I could list many more examples where Fox criticizes Republicans. You may not agree with my characterizations but the point remains that Fox DOES report on stories inconvenient to Republicans which is contrary to another one of your claims.

            Also, Fox did not completely ignore the DOJ Ferguson report as you incorrectly stated. It’s obvious you totally buy into the phony Liberal narrative of Fox’s “racist agenda”. Where is your evidence of this racist agenda?

            Please cite your “overwhelming” and “unambiguous” evidence for “Billo” (as you like to call him) lying on a much grander scale about his Falklands coverage than Williams repeated exaggerations and lies. This point is another gambit of yours anyway as Fox is a lot more than just O’Reilly. On the other hand, Williams was the face of NBC news.

            I get a kick out of Liberals who try to claim that by disagreeing with their propaganda and policies makes one “ridiculously partisan.” Of course, you’re not partisan, are you Andy?

          • Andy_Schueler

            So, you are incorrect on your assertion the MRC does not show how the networks spend too little time on important stories.

            No, I am not. The MRC is a partisan organisation, founded by a conservative activist with the explicit purpose of fighting alleged “liberal bias”. And they find liberal bias? You don´t say! That doesn´t mean that the MSM “spends too little time” – it means that it spends less time than conservative activists would like.
            Huge difference.

            Also, and more importantly, I can fully grant you that the MSM has a liberal bias. For the sake of the argument, I can even grant you that they have a very strong liberal bias and frequently spend too little time on stories that are inconvenient for liberals. And even if I did that, Fox News would still be worse than any other network because Fox News doesn´t report stories that are inconvenient for conservatives at all. Fox News is not “fair and balanced”, it is objectively much, much more biased than the MSM is.

            Furthermore, Fox absolutely reports on stories critical of Republicans. For example, there has been frequent criticism of how poorly the Republicans handled the immigration over-reach of Obama after the election and agreed to fund this illegal action.

            “Fair and balanced” indeed! “Hey guys, you should be tougher on the Negro in the White House!” How “inconvenient” for conservatives! :-D

            Seriously though – you don´t have a leg to stand on here, I can provide examples of Fox News ignoring stories that are inconvenient for conservatives and already did so, you cannot show the same thing for the MSM – all you can show is that conservative activists think the MSM spends too little time on some stories. But even if that were true,

            Also, Fox did not completely ignore the DOJ Ferguson report as you incorrectly stated.

            It didn´t? Then link to the coverage.

            It’s obvious you totally buy into the phony Liberal narrative of Fox’s “racist agenda”. Where is your evidence of this racist agenda?

            Two DOJ reports on Ferguson, one shows that the “hands up, don´t shoot” narrative was most likely false and gets reported. The other shows that the Ferguson Police Department is thoroughly racist, much worse than anyone expected – this however doesn´t get any coverage at all. Racism is systemic and pervasive in many american institutions, most obviously in the criminal justice system – and Fox News wants to keep it that way.

            Please cite your “overwhelming” and “unambiguous” evidence for “Billo” (as you like to call him) lying on a much grander scale about his Falklands coverage than Williams repeated exaggerations and lies.

            Bill O’Reilly’s claims about his 1982 Falklands War reporting have been disputed by numerous journalists who covered the events for CBS News, NBC News, and CNN, as well as an Argentine historian.
            ….
            O’Reilly’s Riot Story “Sharply Contradicted By Seven Other Journalists Who Were His Colleagues.” CNN media reporter Brian Stelter wrote that seven of O’Reilly’s former CBS News colleagues strongly disagreed with his claim that people were killed during the riot…

            I get a kick out of Liberals who try to claim that by disagreeing with their propaganda and policies makes one “ridiculously partisan.”

            Wrong. What makes you “ridiculously partisan” is your attempts to defend Fox News.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Again, you try to marginalize what the MRC actually does claiming it’s just “conservative activists” who decide the MSM spends too little time on some stories. No, the MRC simply keeps track of how much time the major networks spend on what are, arguably, important news stories and allows the viewer then to decide what news shows to watch.

            The MRC also shows what the networks report on INSTEAD of a major news story. This allows the reader to make an informed decision on which news shows to watch based on that information. If one wants Liberal bias and stories not critical of the left then watch MSNBC and the major networks. If you want a non-Liberal, right-leaning perspective then watch Fox. Viewers themselves (not conservative activists) are deciding the major networks show too much bias which is why Fox has taken away viewers from CNN and the major networks.

            For context, here is an article showing MSNBC is the most opinionated network:

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

            You continue to repeat the incorrect assertion that Fox completely ignored the DOJ report on Ferguson regarding the entire police department. Here is a link that deals directly with the story:

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/03/officials-doj-report-finds-racial-bias-in-ferguson-police/

            Here is the lead paragraph from that article:

            “The Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional
            rights of the local African-American population in the Missouri city for
            years, the Department of Justice has found in a searing report.”

            That doesn’t sound like Fox is completely ignoring this story to me.

            Here’s another article from Judge Napolitano on the DOJ report:

            http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/04/ferguson-why-justice-reports-on-wilson-police-matter-to-us-all/

            Judge Napolitano frequently appears on Fox and you can see his comments in support of BOTH DOJ reports.

            These links also diminishes your outrageous claim that Fox is racist as the links clearly show Fox DID report on the Ferguson report contrary to your claim.

            Finally, let’s look to Politifact for their opinion on the Bill O’Reilly situation. Liberals love to refer to Politifact as it is a left-leaning organization but supposed unbiased fact-checker site. However, the worst Politifact could say about O’Reilly’s Falkland comments was:

            “O’Reilly’s statement is accurate but omits important context, so we rate this claim Half True.”

            Wow. This is an example of your “overwhelming and unambiguous” evidence? “Omits important context” is supposedly on par with William’s repeated lies? You really need to get your “news” from other sources than the Daily Show and lefty blogs.

            Here is the link to the Politifact article I quoted from:

            http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/03/bill-oreilly/oreilly-i-never-said-i-was-falkland-islands/

            You are the “ridiculously partisan” one here as your outrageous claim Fox is racist and other false claims clearly show. Falsely claiming someone or an entire organization is racist is a such a destructive, desperate tactic. False racism charges makes real racists more dangerous as it makes real racism less credible.

          • It criticises actions where the Republicans over-celebrate their successes? Is this your critical analysis? That’s like being asked what your weakness is, at a job interview, and replying, “Well, I’m just too organised sometimes…”

            You have picked critical analyses which STILL make the Republicans look goo!

          • Geoff_Roberts

            You’re right…that wasn’t a good answer to the question. Here is an article written by Fox which does address the DOJ report on Ferguson which Andy claimed Fox completely ignored:

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/03/officials-doj-report-finds-racial-bias-in-ferguson-police/

            Here is the lead paragraph in that article:

            “The Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of the local African-American population in the Missouri city for years, the Department of Justice has found in a searing report.”

            This contradicts Andy’s claim that Fox won’t cover stories inconvenient to Republicans.

            Here’s another article written by Judge Naplitano who appears weekly on Fox:

            http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/04/ferguson-why-justice-reports-on-wilson-police-matter-to-us-all/

            So, I cited two articles written by Fox that might be considered by some to be inconvenient to Republicans. It also helps dispel the claim that Fox is racist and ignores stories involving racism.

            I will be responding, Jonathan, to your earlier post later on.

          • scottie1111

            “That is one of the compelling reasons why Fox even exists.”

            Yes, and that reason is a person: Rupert Murdoch.

          • Alan Duval

            “I disagree with your assertion Fox News is the least balanced network. Fox does have commentary shows with a conservative bias and make no bones about. Opposed to other network commentary shows where there will be a panel of 5 pundits with a lone conservative, Fox often has an equal number of conservatives and liberals on a panel and are they given equal time to present their opposing views.”

            So, five pundits, of which one is a lone conservative is balanced? Let’s run that up the flagpole.

            The majority of people are moderates, not conservative or liberal – unless you wish to claim something pretty unusual about the normal distribution of political views in the US.

            Conservatives tend to do well in mid-terms when the turn-out is around 40% (so they only need to be 20-25% of the population, and thus more than half of the cast votes). In the recent mid-terms Conservatives did very well, but ALL Liberal ballot measures were successful, and ALL conservative ballot measures failed – given that almost no Democrats ran on a genuinely Liberal agenda the voters voted for true Conservatives rather than faux Conservatives. Where Liberals ran as Liberals, they won.

            Liberals are more likely to do well in Presidential elections (because turnout swells to around 60%), though this is offset by the incumbent effect (around 90% of incumbents get voted in), and moderates can swing either way depending upon the current economic climate. Since the 80s the split between Democrat and Republican Leaders has been around 50%, the two wars that Bush invented skewed that (no wartime President has ever been voted out).

            Some moderates will claim to be liberal in response to excessive conservatism in government, because they lean more in the liberal direction, over all. Congress is currently majority Conservative, and engaging in some genuinely despicable politics, thereby causing many moderates to come out as liberal, if not actually progressive.

            So, Conservatives are 20-25% (1:5 – 1:4) of the population, swelling to 30/35% with Conservative leaning moderates who are, nevertheless, moderate.

            You’re complaining about supposedly Liberal-leaning news shows having one Conservative in a panel of four or five (which is demographically accurate), and applauding Fox for having a 50/50 split, which is demographically inaccurate. Furthermore, a repeated complaint about Fox is that the so-called Liberals that they have on are not Liberals at all, but individuals prepared to parrot stereotyped liberal talking points for the “true” Conservatives to demolish.

            Would you agree that Liberals tend to think about the individual, where Conservatives tend to think about society? However, Conservatives only think about society as instantiated by their own in-group, they then stereotype out-groups (African-Americans, Hispanics, the unemployed, etc.).

            Logically, one can derive a more accurate picture of society by recognising individuals than you can by using stereotypes of groups to describe individuals. This is why reality is purported to have a liberal bias, because the reality of society is made up of individuals that defy easy categorisation, it is not made up of discreet, easily distinguished groups… that is also why Conservative politics regularly fails to deal with societal problems.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Alan, you said:

            “You’re complaining about supposedly Liberal-leaning news shows having one Conservative in a panel of four or five (which is demographically accurate), and applauding Fox for having a 50/50 split, which is demographically inaccurate. Furthermore, a repeated complaint about Fox is that the so-called Liberals that they have on are not Liberals at all, but individuals prepared to parrot stereotyped liberal talking points for the “true” Conservatives to demolish.”

            So, you’re trying to assert panelists on a news show should be allocated along demographic percentages instead of ideology? Should we then have an Asian, a Black, a White, old, young, man, women, etc. on each panel to fit your concept of being “demographically accurate?” That’s an absurd view designed to justify a panel that is predominantly Liberal.

            Here’s a link to the Liberal Columbia Journalism Review on Fox’s Liberal pundits and how it compares to MSNBC’s supposed conservatives:

            http://www.cjr.org/feature/and_from_the_leftfox_news.php?page=all

            Here is an excerpt from the article:

            “Though MSNBC has a handful of moderate conservatives—namely Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough—Fox stands out for the prominence it awards its on-air naysayers, many of whom occupy regular roles on the network’s most popular shows.”

            Here’s an article summarizing the Columbia Journalism Review’s report which states Fox is more balanced than MSNBC:

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/03/03/cjr-fox-liberals

            Then you try to claim the Liberals on Fox are not “real” Liberals. Would this include “phony” Liberals such as James Carville, Dennis Kucinich, Jane Harmon, Kirsten Powers, Juan Williams, Tamara Holder, and many others which appear regularly on Fox? What is the source of these “repeated complaints” as you put it that Fox hires Liberals that are not real Liberals? Lefty blogs?

            Then you said:

            “Would you agree that Liberals tend to think about the individual, where Conservatives tend to think about society?”

            I absolutely disagree with this claim. Liberals like to divide America into different groups and then attempt to create conflict and tension between these groups. Examples of include the phony war on women, pitting the poor vs. the rich, Blacks vs. Whites, and on and on. Liberals want to govern society with centralized planning and conveniently assist favored groups that vote Democratic and punish groups that don’t fit their agenda.

            Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the individual is sovereign and is accorded the protection of the Bill of Rights prohibiting governmental over-reach. For conservatives, it is the individual that has control over his own life and property.

          • Alan Duval

            “So, you’re trying to assert panelists on a news show should be allocated along demographic percentages instead of ideology? Should we then have an Asian, a Black, a White, old, young, man, women, etc. on each panel to fit your concept of being “demographically accurate?” That’s an absurd view designed to justify a panel that is predominantly Liberal.”

            Along political demographics of ideology,not every demographic regardless of ideology. Way to build a straw man. Yu also just admitted that conservatives are predominantly white, wealthy, and male, and that’s why you don’t want demographic equality on TV (or at the ballot box).

            “Though MSNBC has a handful of moderate conservatives—namely Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough—Fox stands out for the prominence it awards its on-air naysayers, many of whom occupy regular roles on the network’s most popular shows.”

            Of course they occupy prominent and regular roles, they need strawmen and windmills to tilt at, and here’s a quote form your own link to prove it:
            “At face value, its roster of progressives supports the network’s tagline of “Fair & Balanced,” a motto liberals have always discounted as clever branding. Whether Fox is employing adversaries because public feuds fuel ratings, or because it’s in pursuit of a franker public debate, they aren’t saying. (The network declined requests to participate in this piece.)

            But the way the voice of dissent is wielded—liberals are always outnumbered, thrust into subjects that descend into brawls—often undercuts balance in favor of fireworks. It’s a version of on-air political theater that some research suggests can actually further polarise opinions. Put another way, having two conservatives and a liberal can be a more powerful force than three conservatives—a counterintuitive approach that can solidify political beliefs and quash the other side.”

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/03/03/cjr-fox-liberals

            I said: “Would you agree that Liberals tend to think about the individual, where Conservatives tend to think about society?”

            To which you said:
            “I absolutely disagree with this claim. Liberals like to divide America into different groups and then attempt to create conflict and tension between these groups.”

            No, that’s what conservatives do. Is it Liberals or Conservatives that are against gay marriage and women’s bodily autonomy?

            “Examples include the phony war on women, pitting the poor vs. the rich, Blacks vs. Whites, and on and on.”

            Except that those are all things that Conservative policy boil down to. If you don’t like it, don’t be conservative. Abortion laws disempower women, and the rich are the ones buying the elections through Citizens United. It is the rich that have pitted themselves against the poor (when they are rich and conservative, when they are rich and liberal, they set up charities instead). If you can’t see the endemic racism in everything from the recent police brutality scandals through to the study that revealed that, with identical CVs, “black names” get 50% fewer callbacks for interview, then you are absolutely as blind to reality as the jokes about the conservative worldview claim.

            “Liberals want to govern society with centralized planning…”

            I disagree. I am a liberal, and I want to devolve as much of government to local government as is possible, ideally down to the level of mayor, with only an over-arching structure, and issues of national concern managed from central government.

            “…and conveniently assist favoured groups that vote Democratic and punish groups that don’t fit their agenda.”

            If Conservatives didn’t set out to punish those groups, then Liberals wouldn’t need to assist them, so you’ve actually proved my point whilst trying to make us out out to be excessively partisan, when all we believe in is giving everyone as much chance to success as everyone else. People who are already rich don’t need that help as much as those who are poor… and that is simple, rational economics. Furthermore, the more money you put in the hands of the lower classes the stronger the economy becomes as a whole.

            “Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the individual is sovereign and is accorded the protection of the Bill of Rights prohibiting governmental over-reach.”

            Except for the fact that every Conservative that has announced a bid for presidency has said that the US needs to be run as a Christian nation, or has said that they hold strong Christian values, and that these will inform their leadership, all in direct contravention of the establishment clause, and as such the very definition of governmental overreach.

            “For conservatives, it is the individual that has control over his own life and property.”

            Except poor people have no property, and rely on good luck to even survive let alone thrive. Freedom requires the ability to manifest your plans. Without money, or the basic support that money would otherwise
            buy, you can never be free… I guess that’s beyond you.

          • scottie1111

            Xians have an industry based on Liars-for-Bejezuz (apologetics/theology publications)… you may not be an xian, but sure as rain in Scotland sound like an apologist for Faux News.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            The left’s hatred of Fox News is almost comical if it weren’t so pathetic. Fox employs many, many Liberals that help present both sides to an argument on its broadcasts.

            Is Fox News more conservative than the major networks? Absolutely. The “Nets” mostly don’t present both sides and instead rely on the lie they are unbiased.

            Just look at the ratings which will tell you how many Americans see the phony unbiased nature of the MSM.

          • scottie1111

            “Just look at the ratings…”

            Oh dear… the old argumentum ad populum fallacy. Don’t you know that krischins invoke the same fallacy to try “prove” krischianity is true?
            “A billion people believe the bejezuz was resurrected on the third day, so krishianity MUST be true.”
            Substitute (a) millions for billion, O’Reilly for bejezuz, and Faux(News) for krischianity… and the GeoffRoberts fallacy is revealed.
            The popularity of a paradigm says NOTHING of it’s veracity. Try again.
            Your lack of empathy for our millions of our star-spangled brothers & sisters is duly noted.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Why don’t you address the issue of Fox News employing many more Liberals on their network than the MSM does conservatives?

          • scottie1111

            OK, different fallacy this time: a noxious red herring.
            The so called token liberals on FauxNews are not really left on the spectrum, they’re more center-right, and they’re just there for the resident right-wingnuts to beat up on. You’ve got to be delusional for not seeing how categorically unfair & unbalanced FauxNews is… thus the liberal doses (pun unintended) of dopamine antagonists.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            You mean phony Liberals like James Carville, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Colmes, Jane Harmon, Kirsten Powers, Tamara Holder, Sally Kohn, Joe Trippi, Juan Williams, Marc Lamont-Hill, Bob Beckel, Evan Buyh and many others which appear frequently on Fox?

            Take a look at the following link in which the Coumbia Journalism Review found Fox more balanced than MSNBC and CNN.

            http://www.academia.org/columbia-credits-fox/

            Here is the lead paragraph from the article:

            “The Columbia Journalism Review, which is not known for its conservative views, published an article yesterday by Alexis Sobel Fitts that credits Fox News for giving opponents more of a voice than does MSNBC.”

            So much for your fallacious argument of token Liberals on Fox News.

          • scottie1111

            This is going nowhere dude, not going to waste anymore ATP or valuable time attempting to communicate with someone who clearly has no empathy for his fellow human beings. You’re a textbook internet Troll anyway– showing up on a site where NOBODY subscribes to your delusional worldview of republican-nuttery. You’re just as bad as a Christian who shows up on an atheist/agnostic/free-thinker’ blog and regurgitates christard claptrap. You’re just as crazy as a Christian too. Not only that, but the douchebags you vote for blatantly push a Christian agenda, which makes you complicit in furthering the Christian stranglehold on America. So long, fare thee well, adíos, and adieu… please consider therapy with a clinical psychologist and aggressive pharmacological intervention with the aid of a psychiatrist.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            You’re right on one thing…this is a waste of time. It’s no surprise you didn’t respond to the evidence I cited previously disputing your false claim of only phony liberals appearing on Fox. The conversation suddenly stops when presented with indisputable evidence contrary to your world view.

            I find it to be an unfortunate trend among many Liberals of a smug unwillingness to engage in debate with someone that can defend differing beliefs effectively. Most often there are ad hominem attacks and juvenile insults.

            It’s also ironic Liberals love to promote themselves as open-minded and tolerant when the opposite is often true. Hence, political correctness run amok.

          • scottie1111

            ↘⬇⏬

          • Geoff,

            Do you have evidence for this claim?

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Hey, Jonathan, I’m not sure exactly which claim you’re referring to.

          • scottie1111

            Liberals vs. conservatives is very much black & white thinking… it lies on a grey scale spectrum.

          • scottie1111

            So you don’t want our brethren living third-world lifestyles in our first-world country to have access to much needed healthcare? The UK has the NHS and Canada the Canada Health Act. We’re categorically cruel by not having universal health care for all our citizens especially considering how good our GDP is and how much wealth we have here.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            We have (had) the highest quality medical system in the world. If you needed the best surgeons, procedures, medications, etc. then the US was your choice (if you had one). We did have access and other issues with our medical system but that could have been fixed without going to nationalized healthcare.

            Most Americans don’t want to be told they don’t qualify for cutting-edge procedures and medicines or that part of their premium goes to pay for others more “deserving” patients. Obamacare has at its core a wealth-redistribution process that most Americans find repugnant.

            Obamacare will be repealed (or will collapse) and wil be replaced by an improved free market, competitive healthcare system as soon as Obama is retired.

          • scottie1111

            Pure claptrap… you’re just grandstanding. I work in the industry dude, only the wealthy and/or those with extremely expensive insurance get to choose their doctors and dates for surgery. There are huge gaping holes in coverage for most Americans, and most of us don’t get to get to choose our doctors… though an HMO is better than nothing. Do you have any idea how expensive pharmaceutical meds are for the uninsured? You’re definitely in need of a “heart” transplant or you might consider “grafting” a conscience from anybody in your life that has empathy for their brethren. I’ll reiterate, there’s no reason for a country like ours NOT to have universal healthcare. You claim to be an atheist, yet you display reverence and religious-type fervor as evidenced by your vociferous apologetic for Faux News. Come to Southern California and visit the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, you can genuflect at the landing gear of Air Force One and other such Reagan holy relics.

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Hey, dude, I work in the industry, too. I already said our health system needed to fix access issues and other issues but that we didn’t need to nationalize our healthcare with all its unintended consequences. You believe in centralized, bureaucratic, government solutions and I believe in free market, competitive-based solutions that provide the highest quality medical care along with increased access in different ways than Obamacare.

            You’re smug, self-righteousness is typical of the phony, leftist’s arguments of more centralized, governmental power and control which you believe will take better care of our poor and needy than more efficient and effective free market solutions.

          • scottie1111

            Free market and medicine don’t belong in the same sentence. Me thinks you need a potent first generation dopamine antagonist and an
            anticholinergic as prophylaxis for the subsequent tardive dyskinesia such neuroleptics engender.
            You said you work in the industry… in what capacity? A pharmaceutical rep, or an insurance adjustor or salesman?

          • Geoff_Roberts

            Spoken like a true big government, wealth-redistribution Leftist! Apparently, you think medical care is somehow immune from economic laws and realities. So called “universal” medical care always results, in the end, in compromised care and rationing.

            And, yes, your use of medical terms in the discussion are very impressive.

        • scottie1111

          Logic is typically lost on xians, it is extremely difficult to reason with people that unquestionably accept a talking snake, a whittled-rib-woman, and a being that sacrificed himself to himself and subsequent zombification of that virgin-born self.

      • scottie1111

        So much for the camel and needle’s eye…

    • You really are showing your biases here.

      • scottie1111

        “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”
        There’s no reasoning with an apologist.

        • Geoff_Roberts

          You mean like an apologist for the failed Liberal ideology?

          • scottie1111

            What is this? “I know you are but what am I?”
            Said my goodbyes to you already… you just keep buggering on.

    • He literally contradicts himself in two consecutive sentences: hector the government and work with them to…

      They sued the fricking IRS>

  • ThePrussian

    Aiyaiyai – well, it’s FOX. What do you expect? This is just terrible.

    The one good thing about FOX is that we got to see the Hitch make Sean Hannity cry:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4

  • Alan Duval

    “Thanks for being on fire with your faith, this morning.”

    Ah, no. The fire he was on had its epicentre in his pants.

    “…individual dignity because they’re created in the image of God’?

    So, the exact opposite of individual, then?

  • scottie1111

    It’s Faux News… not Fox news.

    • Geoff_Roberts

      Yes, I know “Faux News” plays well on the lefty blogs kind of like “MSLSD” or the “NYSlimes” or the “Washington Compost” plays on right-wing sites. If you’re going to stoop to that level then expect the same in return.

      • scottie1111

        Stoop indeed, just putting myself on the same level as FauxNews and their categorically delusional apologists. Do you have stock in News Corp?
        “…then expect the same in return.” Ooh, I’m scaaared! Bring it on Mr Heartless RightWingnut.

  • I don’t get it. It’s like saying that a non astrologer is anti-astrology. It’s not. I just choose not to believe astrological nonsense until someone can show me why I should.

  • Pingback: Fox News Is Brainwashing Viewers And Hurting The Republican Party • A Tippling Philosopher()