Fox News in CANADA???

[tbelisle]

I just noticed Fox news on Bev!
Since when? I tought out government (CRTC) was too stuck up to allow it!

It does say however that the free preview is only until sept 1st

[JT]

Why the hell would you want to watch a news agency known for pushing the Bush administration agenda? Fox is famous for being right wing propaganda pushers.

[tbelisle]

How the hell did I know you were going to respond JT???

I want to make my own objective opinion! CNN's libeal bullshit has been forced down our throat for far too long without having the opportunity for the other side og the story.

BTW... I like bush, He's got balls.... something our politicians up here lack badly!

[Reabo]

Fox News, Fair, Balanced, & Unafraid. That is the truth.

[JT]

Fox news played a key role in the 2000 presidential appointment scam. They are not fair or balanced. Fox news has become a running joke with comedians all around the US.

[tbelisle]

Well if Cnn brought back crossfire and the like, I may just waste my time watching them again, as for their news.... it is nothing but liberal fluff.

JT... has anybody ever told you that you are a conspiracy theorist?
There comming to get you JT.... quick, get under the bed! hahaha

[skeets88]

Well if your conservative and want people to tell you what you want to hear, then Fox News is for you. I prefer whiskey as the source of my self delusion.

[JT]

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not coming to get me. :p

[tbelisle]

You never know JT...
On a serious note, what harm is there for both news agencies to be allowed to be broadcast in Canada. It is about time people here have a choice as to where they get there news.

[Reabo]

You tell em, tbelisle, get info from all sources, then make up your own mind. BTW Jt, comedians made a lot of running jokes about the Clintons too, thats what they do.

[mruk69]

Saying that Fox News is a right wing network, is a load of bollocks. At least you get both sided of the story. This is something the Clinton News Network could and never will manage.
If they broadcast something bad about the Dems its because the Democrats are fucked up, think about Howard Dean, DMC Chairman and Hilary Clinton (to run for Pres) she couldn't even leave the furniture in the whitehouse.

Also, how many times has CNN had to retract a story which they broadcasted and was found to be bullshit. I watch a lot of news but not just Fox, also BBC. One more thing Fox News has done a lot more to help find missing kids and help catch their killer or kidnappers than any of the other news channels even the networks.

Thats it, made my point and added another digit to my post count.

You have the right to make your own opinion, but be more realistic.

Peace

[slickvguy]

Isn't it amazing?

Liberals have about 10 networks. For decades, they had a stranglehold on the MSM. Finally, conservatives get a network that isn't totally dominated by liberal ideology - and the liberals just can't get over it. It's mindboggling how much complaining I hear from the left about Fox. The sad part is that the people who criticize Fox are totally oblivious to how biased their news sources are, because it matches their ideology. Thus, they cannot perceive the bias. It's like being able to hear other people's accent, but not realizing that yOU have one too! :)

I watch 'em all, and as far as the pure newcast goes (not the opinion shows, which are idiotic on ALL the networks), Fox does a fine job. Britt Hume is excellent, and so is Chris Wallace (a liberal, btw - Mike Wallace's son).

And I find it pretty sad that a network that stands out for having a *PRO-AMERICAN* slant, is an anomoly. (BTW, I'm Canadian). The liberal media is so bloody anti-American, that's why I looked for an alternative many years ago. How much of the same anti-American, whiny garbage can one stomach? And if "m *CANADIAN* and I feel that way, then it's so obvious why Fox is the success it is. The mere absence of anti-Americanism (i.e. patriotism) is why Fox is so successful.

It's not coincidence that pro-American being synonymous with Republicans versus anti-Americanism being synonymous with the Democrats has coincided with the Democrats losing an incredible amount of power over the last decade. Quite a fall, wouldnt' you say?

You'd think that maybe the left would figure this out, but instead they just keep ranting and raving their way into oblivion. I truly hope one day they get back to what they used to be - but I'm not holding my breath.

Stop slamming Fox. Look in the mirror. The problem is YOU. Keep whining about how terrorists arent' being treated well enough at Gitmo. And then wonder why mainstream America votes so overwhelmingly for the Republicans.

[t160hq]

Ummm, It's TV news. Actually thinking of any of them as an accurate information source is the equivalent of learning history from movies.

t160hq
Who watches tv news for it's entertainment value only. Since that's all they provide.

[slickvguy]

Ummm It's TV news. Actually thinking of any of them as an accurate information source is the equlivant of learning history from movies.

t160hq
Who watches tv news for it's entertainment value only. Since that's all they provide.

Well said. Info-tainment. It's all nonsense. (Hey - do you think they could give a bit more coverage to this Natalee missing girl? I think I saw a minute last night where they were actually talking about something else).

There are much better ways to get accurate, current information now that we have the Internet at our fingertips.

[indica]

CNN news broadcasters when live on the seen ask the people they are interveiwing the DUMBEST AN MOSY EMBARASSING QUESTIONS. Have a happy day

[natas2004]

CNN blows

[JT]

CNN blows

...and Fox swallows. You guys know that Rupert Murdoch, the same guy that owns NDS and DTV also owns FOX right?

[smilingjack]

Play nice children...........

And remember, every news agency with shows in different countrys have 'hosts' from that country, who are going to give that country's APPROVED VERSION" of the news with the local slant on it. Some even have Government watchers present to enforce their orders or cut the feed.

Record Fox's news or anybody else's new in several countrys (same story) and you will be suprised at the different ways a story can be told by the news.

If they did not BOW to the local governments orders on what can be said and how it can be said, they would be out of business shortly.

Since this has nothing to do with testing, I need to flip a coin for a suitable forum for it.

[Just4FunNC]

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

http://www.nra.org/results.aspx?request=John%20kerry&index=1&index=2&index=3&index=4&index=5&index=6&index=7&index=8&index=9&maxFiles=10&sort=hits

Some People JUST can't accept loseing with a LOSER. To be the MAN you got to BEAT THE MAN LMAO



Hidden Agenda
The truth behind John Kerry`s

record on your firearms rights.

by Wayne LaPierre




If you thought the eight long years of the Clinton/Gore administration`s war on firearms owners` rights were oppressive, they would pale in comparison to what John Kerry would have in store for us if he captures the White House and evicts President George W. Bush in November.

John Kerry--whose record of words and misdeeds on firearms rights has earned him a key place among the most solid "F" candidates ever rated by the National Rifle Association--is now posing as a self-styled"lifelong hunter and gun owner," a faux good old boy who says, "I believe in the Second Amendment."

But as someone who has hunted, he`s not one of us. He`s a silver-spoon Boston Brahman--an ideological blood brother to his mentor, Teddy Kennedy.

He`s married to a multi-millionaire heiress whose "favorite charity," the Tides Foundation, has pumped a small fortune into anti-gun rights schemes.

Kerry, during his 20-year stint in the U.S. Senate, has been an always reliable vote for the anti-gunners and has routinely voted with the gun-ban movement since he was elected as the junior member from Massachusetts. At the heart of the real John Kerry is an unthinking zealot who has never missed an opportunity to work to diminish our rights.

For his long history of anti-gun rights votes and positions, he consistently receives a 100-percent rating from the Brady Campaign (Handgun Control Inc.), the American Bar Association`s Special Committee on Gun Violence and from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns). All of these groups deny the existence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and some are actively using the courts in an attempt to destroy Americans` Second Amendment freedoms.

On issues directly affecting Second Amendment rights, Kerry has voted 51 of 55 times against you on the floor of the Senate. For all we`ve read lately about how enemies of the Second Amendment are shying away from the "gun control" issue in this election year, a series of votes in the U.S. Senate in March changed all that, with Kerry eagerly taking center stage.

In working to sabotage S.1805(formerly S. 659)--the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of predatory lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry--Kerry voted to extend the Clinton gun ban on semi-autos, to make now-legal private gun sales at gun shows criminal acts, and voted to support Ted Kennedy`s ammunition ban, which would have prohibited most centerfire hunting rounds.Where Kerry says he "will defend hunting rights," the accolades of "animal rights" activists tell a different story.

The Humane Society of the United States and Fund for Animals--both rabidly anti-hunting--gave John Kerry a 100 percent mark for the first session of the current Congress. They cited John Kerry as among Senators who have "compiled consistently excellent voting records on animal issues . . ." and who "have emerged as animal protection leaders . . . Kerry has cosponsored almost every piece of animal protection legislation . . . introduced on behalf of animals."

Kerry is the poster boy for a secret scheme hatched by billionaire Andrew McKelvey`s Americans for Gun Safety, (AGS) whereby anti-gun rights Democratic candidates cloak themselves in rhetorical camouflage, falsely claiming to embrace the Second Amendment and trying to con hunters into believing that their rights are somehow separate from those of other American gun owners.

Don`t take my word for it. Here`s what AGS wrote in its blueprint for "Taking Back the Second Amendment," prepared last year for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Kerry is following all the dots.

It is a battle plan for deceit that counsels anti-gun rights candidates: "The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the rhetoric they employ." (Emphasis added.) In other words, it`s not how you vote, but what you say.

So, now confiscatory firearms prohibition is called "sensible gun safety," although the abhorrent concept of the knock-in-the-middle-of-the night is just the same as it always has been.

That theme of dissembling is amplified by an accompanying DLC cover memo announcing, "The DLC and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) believe that progressives need not change their positions in order to dramatically reduce, and in some cases reverse, conservative advantages with these groups." (Emphasis added.) Groups? Try NRA.

They are talking about lying, about sleight of hand, trickery--basically outright fraud.

"Taking Back the Second Amendment" means recreating the Second Amendment; twisting its clear meaning to the same dark purpose expressed by then-President Clinton`s Solicitor General Seth Waxman who wrote in an August 2000 letter to an NRA member: "In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun."

Kerry is right in step with the AGS-DLC war-plan: "progressives need not change their positions." Simply change the "rhetoric they employ."In working to sabotage the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry, Kerry read the AGS wolf-in-sheep`s-clothing script to a tee when the issue was debated on March 4.

He told the Senate, "I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in our country" (emphasis added). This is a vital "qualifier" coming from a man who, if elected president, would be nominating federal judges and Supreme Court justices to interpret our rights.

Kerry and also-ran presidential candidate and trial lawyer John Edwards were among those who cast the deciding votes on what proved to be "poison pill" amendments to the lawsuit tort reform bill: Dianne Feinstein`s 10-year extension of the Clinton semi-auto ban and a new version of John McCain`s so-called "gun show loophole" law, which would criminalize now-legal private commerce between peaceable individuals at gun shows.

Kerry--during his national media performance on the Senate floor --broke a missing-in-action streak that saw him absent from the Senate for 65 percent of all votes in 2003 and every single vote up to that date this year. It`s stunning: Out of 20 roll-call votes in 2004, these gun ban votes were the first he cast in the Senate all year.

But he was back--flying from his "super-Tuesday" primary campaigning. Goring gun owners was apparently just too important to miss--this month`s cover says it all.

During his Senate appearance, Kerry also went out of his way to directly attack NRA members, saying, "Let`s be honest about what we are facing today." Referring to the Clinton gun ban, he said, "The opposition to this common-sense gun safety law is being driven by the powerful NRA special interest leadership and by lobbyists in Washington. I don`t believe this is the voice of responsible gun owners across America."

WITH CARBON COPY VOTING RECORDS ON GUN RIGHTS, A KERRY PRESIDENCY WOULD BE, FOR GUN OWNERS, LIKE TED KENNEDY SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE--
IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT.

Kerry`s attack on the NRA is part of a massive vilification effort led by the Brady Campaign in which he and his surrogates will try to discredit the good works and good reputation of our organization and of those who belong to it, and those who support our goals. It will be part of a race for the White House that will be a campaign of demonization on one hand, deception on the other.

That effort now includes a series of Brady Campaign ads that try to paint NRA as a hate group and try to besmirch the character of leaders like U.S. Senator Larry Craig, who superbly led the March floor fight on behalf of gun owners.

When candidate Kerry talks about his undying support for the Second Amendment, there are two words he never utters. In announcing what he says he recognizes as a "right," Kerry never utters the word "individual." And more importantly, he never repeats the all-important word of the framers--"keep." As we all know, the Second Amendment says in part, " . . . The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Keeping arms: That means ordinary men and women owning guns; possessing guns; keeping firearms for whatever peaceable reasons we might have.

You won`t find the full phrase--"the right to keep and bear arms"--anywhere on his Web site, or in Kerry`s speeches, his floor statement, his media interviews or press releases.

Kerry`s version of the Second Amendment is that Americans only have the right to bear arms. That verbal sleight of hand fits right in with what the ban-the-gun crowd wants--a future declaration by a Kerry-packed U.S. Supreme Court that the Second Amendment was never intended as an individual right, but that it merely allows the states to muster forces to serve in the National Guard.

Proof of that trickery came during Kerry`s Senate speech supporting the Clinton gun ban on semi-automatic firearms. Kerry told the Senate and the nation, "For those who want to wield those weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we welcome them."

When Kerry talks about the Second Amendment, it is with crossed fingers. And when he talks about the law-abiding men and women of the National Rifle Association, it`s easy to hear the disdain in his voice. In fact, his comparison of our organization with the vilest of criminals is shocking.

"I`ve had the courage to stand up to those who would let our communities be taken over by violence, whether it is organized crime in Boston or standing up to the extremists in the NRA who preach safety and enforcement, but practice extremism and block common sense reform."

That`s U.S. Senator John Kerry`s opener on the Americans for Gun Safety`s Web site. He is actually comparing the 4 million peaceable, law-abiding members of the National Rifle Association to a handful of Boston mobsters, drug lords and a criminal underclass. Clearly the biggest targets of Kerry`s wrath are the NRA and NRA members.

If anyone is responsible for criminal violence, however, it is those who coddle criminals. In truth, Kerry`s record on tough federal measures to deal harshly with violent criminals speaks volumes concerning his part in allowing "communities to be taken over by violence."

He has steadfastly opposed the death penalty for murderers and rapists, and traitors. In 1996, he voted "No" to legislation that would have limited death penalty appeals--appeals which mock justice for victims by stretching out death sentences into de facto life sentences for the most heartless and vicious criminals.

In 1994, he voted "No" to mandatory prison terms for criminals using firearms in the commission of crimes of violence or drug trafficking.

He voted against international drug control funds; and against increasing penalties for drug offenses.

His wimpy "give peace a chance" attitude on supporting the U.S. military seems to spill over into his support for real law enforcement.

From soft-on-criminals to hard-on-honest gun owners, Kerry continues to try to hide his real record showing where he stands on important issues. And if he thinks he`s fooling gun owners on the Second Amendment, Kerry`s attempt to pass himself off as "a lifetime hunter" is a bold play at getting the hunter vote, despite his proven record of opposition to gun owners` rights.

And the response to this "I`m a Hunter" ploy in some quarters shows just how much work NRA members have to do in the coming months. Kerry`s Iowa pheasant hunt, staged as a photo-op for willing media, brought accolades from some outdoor writers and sportsmen, despite Kerry`s longstanding gun-ban tendencies.

"Some hunters also felt an instant kinship with Kerry," wrote James A. Swan on National Review Online. "As Ryan McKinney, the Iowa farmer on whose property Kerry hunted, said, `It feels a little safer if your presidential hopeful isn`t going to go after your typical normal shotgun.`" (Emphasis added.)

But in reality, "your typical normal shotgun" is exactly what Kerry is going after. It is exactly what he is on record as wanting to ban.

He is a prime co-sponsor of S.1431, which would give a future U.S. attorney general power to ban any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun based on a design "procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency"--arms which are presumed to be "not particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

The legislation specifically instructs the attorney general that "a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

So, if the Remington 1100, or 11-87 has ever been procured by the U.S. military or by a federal law enforcement agency, it is automatically presumed to be "not particularly suitable for sporting purposes." Thisdiscounts the purposes for which honest men and women might own those arms, including hunting, as not recognized by the federal government as a "legitimate sporting purpose."

So truth is, Kerry would ban "your typical normal shotgun." But there is even more to it than that.

The precedent of what "sporting purpose" really means, in practice, was covered by the 1989 U.S. Treasury Department import ban that covered firearms the agency said, "although popular among some gun owners for collection, self-defense, combat competitions, or plinking, simply cannot be fairly characterized as sporting rifles." In the same breath, the Treasury Department said its purpose was to "preserve the sportsman`s right to sporting firearms."

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that limits the purposes for which peaceable individual Americans "keep" any arms.

Kerry`s Web site lays out several quotes from floor statements on gun control. Remarkably, the citations are not from any official journal of the United States Senate--not from the Congressional Record. Instead, it says "Floor Statements: (Via Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Web site)." Yes, Kerry`s own campaign Web site links his supporters straight to the site of a gun-ban organization to get to the meat of his beliefs on firearms rights.

The Kerry campaign wants Web surfers to go there. It wants gun-ban supporters to see his real positions on gun control--the positions that earned him the highest marks for supporting the most radical gun control schemes over the years.

On the pages of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), firearms owners can also see what Kerry`s friends would do to our Second Amendment rights if he takes the White House.

The Kerry puffery begins:

"John Kerry has voted with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence 100 percent of the time." And it brags:

"John Kerry, in 2002 received an `F` from the National Rifle Association and has a zero percent rating with Gun Owners of America."

Among the lengthy floor statements reproduced on those pages are Kerry`s remarks promising to vote for the Brady waiting period bill and taking a swipe at private firearms ownership:

". . . it is not a big deal in terms of fighting crime. It is a first step. I do not even know what kind of step, because it will not change the fact that there are more privately owned weapons in America than there are by the police, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard and Coast Guard altogether."

While John Kerry holds his nose, crosses his fingers and claims support for his version of the Second Amendment, there is no such transparent pretension on the part of the CSGV. The bio of Executive Director Josh Horwitz tells us where Kerry will go:

" . . . Horwitz had focused the organization`s efforts on closing illegal firearms markets by eliminating unregulated transfers of firearms, pursuing litigation against the gun industry . . . The illegal market strategy included implementation of firearms policies such as universal background checks, licensing, and registration."

Eliminating all unregulated transfers means criminalizing all now-legal firearms commerce between innocent, peaceable private citizens. Give a gun to a friend, go to jail.

The so-called "gun-show" loophole Kerry voted for as a killer amendment to the NRA-backed lawsuit reform bill is a step toward making criminals of any peaceable person transferring a firearm without government permission. As for lawsuits that the legislation was intended to curb, the csgv has vindictively pursued the law-abiding firearms industry in the courts, with Horwitz bluntly telling the Tampa Tribune, "There`s not a pot of gold at the end of this. There might be a bunch of bankrupt companies."

The csgv and Horwitz were deeply involved in the worst of a long series of legal actions including the most outrageous--the NAACP New York lawsuit. The suit--which ultimately lost--cost tens of millions of dollars to defend, and was bankrolled by billionaire George Soros. Soros also largely funded the Million Mom March and has funded the Brady Campaign in its efforts to demonize the NRA, and has a bigger goal--a global civil disarmament agenda.

So when Kerry broke his 100 percent streak of missing Senate votes to join his allies Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein in adding poisonous amendments designed to bring down firearm tort reform, he was saving the bleed-out-the firearms-industry agenda of his pr benefactor, the csgv, and of its billionaire sugar daddy George Soros.

In turn, Soros is pouring tens of millions of dollars into radical leftist "progressive" groups that claim to be outside the new Federal Campaign Finance Law and who are running massive sleight-of-hand stealth campaigns to defeat President George W. Bush and elect Kerry. Among the activities those Soros groups are undertaking are unrestricted broadcast attack advertising intended to defeat Bush. Of course, for groups like NRA, such advertising during pre-election blackout periods would constitute criminal acts. Ironically, this campaign finance law was enacted largely through Soros` massive funding of special interest "reform" groups pushing the anti-free speech legislation.

It is an evil circle.

Soros--whose Open Society Institute proclaimed that it had worked "to reduce the corrupting influence of very large donors to political parties and candidates"--is spending all he wants to buy the White House for John Kerry. And if he succeeds, he will attempt to buy the destruction of the Second Amendment, and to buy influence over Senate consent to Kerry nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Of course, that Supreme Court holds freedom`s very future. At stake is the control of government by zealots who have little regard for the real rights of individual Americans, and who see this next four years as an opportunity to change our system from a government of the people, by the people and for the people to a system where the people are merely servants of government.

And at the heart of that threatened change is who will fill upcoming vacancies in the United States Supreme Court. In the last year, we saw a slim 5-to-4 majority of that court deal a terrible blow to the First Amendment, declaring an obviously unconstitutional ban on political free speech to be constitutional. It was unthinkable.

Imagine if the enemies of the Second Amendment were able, through a Kerry presidency, to install their puppets on that court in the near future. That`s what we are all facing in this election. If Kerry can pack the court with people like Chuck Schumer, the Second Amendment as an individual right will be rendered null and void.


Posted: 6/1/2004














Chris Cox`s Political Report--Sen. John Edwards

Rolling Back Bill Clinton`s Anti-Gun Legacy

No Compromise





Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Misrepresent Their Bullet Registration Scheme

The 1994 Clinton Crime Bill`s Firearm Provisions

CA Attorney General Lockyer Reports Ballistic "Fingerprinting" Flawed




Gun Law Dichotomy

Illinois Senate Approves 2-Sided Gun Bill

House OKs Bill To Erase Firearms Database






Federal law requires a dealer to report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and state or local law enforcement officials any sale of more than one handgun in a five-day period to an individ... Read More




Home | About NRA-ILA | Issues | News | Current Legislation | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | Security & Privacy Policy
Copyright 2005, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

[Reabo]

Great posts, slickvguy, mruk69, & Just4FunNc. You all used logic & reason to explain why liberals are so afraid of one network that it has brought them to the point of paranoia....
And to quote JT:
[...and Fox swallows. You guys know that Rupert Murdoch, the same guy that owns NDS and DTV also owns FOX right?]
What the hell does that have to do with the discussion @ hand?

[AFineMess]

Jane, you ignorant slut ! (Dan Akroyd from SNL)

[t160hq]

Makes for fun reading but doesn’t give me anything to form an opinion on. I see a lot about what opinion Wayne LaPierre wants me to have. But little real information so I can decide for myself.

As an example I have taken one line and have a question as a gun owner and rabid supporter of the second amendment.

(By Wayne LaPierre

In working to sabotage S.1805(formerly S. 659)--the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of predatory lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry--)


Under S.1805 will I be able to sue a gun manufacturer for damages. In the event they produce a defective gun barrel that blows half my face off. Or will that be considered to be a predatory lawsuit? Even if under S.1805 it's not considered predatory will the lawyers for the manufacturer be able to use it. In order to limit the amount of damages I receive. Will I be able to get enough money to cover at least the medical expenses and the price I paid for the weapon?

The slippery slope was started with the tobacco settlement. If it's not stopped all manufacturing of products in the US will cease. Paying off the government to take away a citizens right to due process is not an answer that satisfies me. I'm not saying that the problem doesn’t exist. I'm just saying laws like S.1805 is not the best way to solve it.

In keeping with the theme of the thread. This is a perfect example of the way reporting is done now on all TV news. Fox, CNN, even Network news to a lesser extent. Instead of reporting the facts (all of them) and letting you the viewer decide. They form network opinions and report to support that view.

Let's face it guys and gals. We are lazy. That's what we want that's what we are getting. Would you watch the TV news if they made you think for yourself? TV news is now a business and not a service. They give the customer exactly what they want. That's how a business works.

As a consumer of whatever TV news you watch. They will provide you with what you are looking for. In a nutshell you want someone you respect and seems to be legitimate reinforce what you already believe to be true. It's a great ego booster but a dangerous form of self-delusion.

Who's telling the real or even the whole truth? CNN or FOX ect. None of em. They are all giving you the truth you want or already believe. After all you are the customer. You’re paying the bills. And all the best businesses give the customer what they want. Even if they don't realize they want it.

Is this rant the truth? Or is it just my opinion? If it is the truth it's one of those hard truths no one wants to hear. So I'll leave it to you. Yep gonna make you use your mind folks. Both sides start really listening to what they say on all the TV news shows. Or just your favorite ones. Don't just sop it up. Really think about what they actually said. Not what you want to believe from the way they said it.

Then decide for yourself if it's just my opinion or if a bit of truth creeped in somewhere in all that rant.

t160hq

[JT]

[url]http://www......National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Jesus just4fun. Your like a broken record. Quoting yourself over and over again; posting the same links again and again. Wayne LaPierre is the spokesman for the NRA in case you'all didn't know. I'm a pretty big supporter of the second amendment myself, but I'm no longer a member of the NRA. Got tired of them asking me for money every other day. Got tired of seeing the NRA abuse the 'non-profit' postage that drives the cost up for all the rest of us.

To answer Reabo's question, NDS, DTV and FOX are the enemy. They are all the same dude. He's the guy spearheading the effort and working so diligently against this hobby and sending out those bullshit extortion letters. If you support FOX, you support Rupert Murdoch and the extortion letter effort IMO.

[Reabo]

t160hq, I happen to own a gunshop. The one thing I can tell you about the predatory lawsuits is that they have driven my insurance rates so high, that I can barely operate my business at all. The only thing that senate bill 1805 does is protect "LAW ABIDING" businesses. If we BREAK no laws & follow the rules we cannot be sued. If any manufacturer makes a DEFECTIVE weapon THEY can be sued. So you can see no one looses their right to sue a business or manufacturer for a DEFECTIVE product. The gun industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the nation, all we are asking is if we obey those rules, don't sue us out of existence.
JT, Fox News is not my enemy.

[CenturyBreak]

Isn't it amazing?

Liberals have about 10 networks. For decades, they had a stranglehold on the MSM. Finally, conservatives get a network that isn't totally dominated by liberal ideology - and the liberals just can't get over it. It's mindboggling how much complaining I hear from the left about Fox. The sad part is that the people who criticize Fox are totally oblivious to how biased their news sources are, because it matches their ideology. Thus, they cannot perceive the bias. It's like being able to hear other people's accent, but not realizing that yOU have one too! :)

I watch 'em all, and as far as the pure newcast goes (not the opinion shows, which are idiotic on ALL the networks), Fox does a fine job. Britt Hume is excellent, and so is Chris Wallace (a liberal, btw - Mike Wallace's son).

And I find it pretty sad that a network that stands out for having a *PRO-AMERICAN* slant, is an anomoly. (BTW, I'm Canadian). The liberal media is so bloody anti-American, that's why I looked for an alternative many years ago. How much of the same anti-American, whiny garbage can one stomach? And if "m *CANADIAN* and I feel that way, then it's so obvious why Fox is the success it is. The mere absence of anti-Americanism (i.e. patriotism) is why Fox is so successful.

It's not coincidence that pro-American being synonymous with Republicans versus anti-Americanism being synonymous with the Democrats has coincided with the Democrats losing an incredible amount of power over the last decade. Quite a fall, wouldnt' you say?

You'd think that maybe the left would figure this out, but instead they just keep ranting and raving their way into oblivion. I truly hope one day they get back to what they used to be - but I'm not holding my breath.

Stop slamming Fox. Look in the mirror. The problem is YOU. Keep whining about how terrorists arent' being treated well enough at Gitmo. And then wonder why mainstream America votes so overwhelmingly for the Republicans.
That's funny... thanks, I needed a good laugh today!

Let's start at the end of your comedy monologue: America votes so overwhelmingly for the Republicans? What was Dubya's margin of victory in '00? Oh that's right, he lost that election! Wasn't much higher last year, was it? "Overwhelmingly"? Funny how you accuse liberals of believing what they want to believe, considering what you seem to be seeing, and how it fails to have much to do with reality... Well, actually more sad than funny...

Any reduction of Dem. power is due to fear-mongering by the neo-cons and the media... yes, all the mainstream media, which kow-tows to official government policy in order to not fall afoul of said government... after all,questioning policy and dissent is shouted down as unpatriotic! Funny how the neo-cons are turning the U.S. into something a little more like the Stalin-era Soviet Union each day... No, wait: that's actually more sad than funny, as well...

Any success of Fox is due to catering to the weak-minded and gullible: "We have a tough government and that government has the answers to the tough issues!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... Like running up a huge deficit from tax cuts, a misguided war, general mismanagement and fundamental cluelessness when it comes to basic economics is a good thing? Like the "schoolyard bully" approach to foreign policy is a good thing? Like being laughed at by the rest of the civilized world is a good thing?

Here's what happens: right-wing governments preach restraint and moderation, procede to f@ck up the economy, the people get fed up with things and take up their torches and pitchforks and drive the monsters out of the village... Then the conservatives look on from the other side of things and blame the new government for the mess they left behind, saying "See!!! You elected liberals (or in Canada, Liberals) and they're running a deficit! It's all their fault!!!"

See, the old cliche is true: those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. The other old cliche is also true: there's no free lunch. Neo-con economic policies don't stimulate the economy enough to eliminate deficits without external factors acting as well.

And in response to another comment in this thread, Dubya doesn't "have balls": he's the little boy who got his @$$ kicked by bullies in the schoolyard and had his emotional development halted at that point. He never grew up, and so he thinks that being a bully works. Unfortunately, all being a not-really-grown-up bully gets you is zero respect from those around you, followed being Bubba's "girlfriend" when you get sent up the river... then you get shanked... end of sad story.

[JT]

I'd like to say something about slickvguy since he seems to be hanging around a bit. While it's clear I don't agree with his politics, this man is one of the guys making huge contributions to this hobby. He wrote the VCC analyzer, the killer CMD03 for finding BD0, rom probe, and a bunch of other really, really cool tools....and he shared them all with us. Thank you slickvguy. We greatly appreciate your efforts.

[CenturyBreak]

I'd like to say something about slickvguy since he seems to be hanging around a bit. While it's clear I don't agree with his politics, this man is one of the guys making huge contributions to this hobby. He wrote the VCC analyzer, the killer CMD03 for finding BD0, rom probe, and a bunch of other really, really cool tools....and he shared them all with us. Thank you slickvguy. We greatly appreciate your efforts.
Credit where credit is due! Our gratitude, slickvguy. :D We learn and grow as individuals, and as a society, by trying the things we don't know, and experimenting with things we don't yet understand.

[Reabo]

Thanks very much slickvguy, really appreciate what you have contributed to the "testing" community.

[Just4FunNC]

Jesus just4fun. Your like a broken record. Quoting yourself over and over again; posting the same links again and again. Wayne LaPierre is the spokesman for the NRA in case you'all didn't know. I'm a pretty big supporter of the second amendment myself, but I'm no longer a member of the NRA. Got tired of them asking me for money every other day. Got tired of seeing the NRA abuse the 'non-profit' postage that drives the cost up for all the rest of us.

To answer Reabo's question, NDS, DTV and FOX are the enemy. They are all the same dude. He's the guy spearheading the effort and working so diligently against this hobby and sending out those bullshit extortion letters. If you support FOX, you support Rupert Murdoch and the extortion letter effort IMO.

I love it when LOSERS can't accept the fact they LOST

[sukh77]

The real news is on the Daily Show. Everything else is bullshit.

[JT]

Sad but true, the Daily show puts a lot of current events into perspective IMO.

[slickvguy]

I'd like to say something about slickvguy since he seems to be hanging around a bit. While it's clear I don't agree with his politics, this man is one of the guys making huge contributions to this hobby. He wrote the VCC analyzer, the killer CMD03 for finding BD0, rom probe, and a bunch of other really, really cool tools....and he shared them all with us. Thank you slickvguy. We greatly appreciate your efforts.

Thanks.

And because of all I've done, as a way of thanking me, I've been banned by more sites than anyone I know! heheh. :D (The latest addition being frickin'chicken').

I'm just misunderstood - that's all. ;)

Regarding the politics, I won't post any more on that specific subject, but I would like to say the following:

I am a rarity I believe in that I am a Canadian who absolutely LOVES America! Deeply! In fact, I love America more than my own country. Canada really is a terrific country (no country is perfect!), and I won't put up with Canada-bashing from anyone - but what America stands for is much closer to my heart than any other country. And I know that many Americans do not know this, but there are PLENTY of Canadians who feel the same way that I do. Granted, we are the minority. But we are still many millions of people. When you see our politicians, media, and liberal citizens spewing theri anti-American nonsense, please don't forget about Canadians like myself! There are 3 countries I would sacrifice my life to defend, and the USA is one of them.

As testers, I would think that many/most of us have a strong libertarian and rebellious streak in us. I am very anti-govt (except where absolutely necessary, ie.. defense), anti-authoritarian, and non-conformist. I am a rabid believer in freedom. I am a strong supporter of capitalism, as I believe free markets and free people go hand in hand. I look at each issue individually, and judge it on it's own merits. I do not like labels, as they are simple approximations at best.

I have always felt more American than Canadian, and if I could become an American, I would in a heartbeat. As a matter of fact, my grandfather was an American, and my step-mom too. I have lived for extended periods in a few different places in the USA, and visited the majority of states at one time or another. Just about everything I do has to do with America and not Canada. For example, I havent' watched Canadian TV in over 6 years (thanks to Dave and Chuck). I cancelled my subscription to my local Canadian newspaper over 10 years ago. Everything I read, view, and listen to comes from either American or International sources. The only time I am exposed to Canadian media, is when it's linked to from a US source. lol. (And it never changes. It's like Groundhog Day here - same sh*t, different day).

Thank God for the Internet! Without it, I couldn't live this way. (Or I would go broke buying all the US newspapers each day!). My main field is investments, so of course my focus for over 20 years has been on US markets and what effects them (politics, economics, etc). I am not kidding when I say that Canada is like a foreign country to me. And while it has it's good sides, and the people are very nice for the most part, it's Eurocentric nature and socialist bent has never appealed to me.

Frequently, when debating with Americans who are opposed to my positions, they hit me with "Well, you're a Canadian - what the hell do you care?". If only they knew. The short answer is that America is the giant that effects everything and everyone. As America goes, so go I (and my family, and my country). Literally. It's a starnge question coming from an American, who clearly understands the hugely important and UNIQUE role America plays in the world today.

And lastly, my heart still belongs to a blonde American girl I met many, many years ago. Alas, we got separated by time and location, and we both moved onto our futures. Southern belle! One of the greatest regrets of my life was letting her get away. Stupid, stupid, stupid!!! :(

SO I dont' care if you're a "liberal" or a "conservative" or whatever, never forget the fact that you are a citizen of the greatest country this planet has EVER seen! You should be very proud, even when you don't agree with what it is doing. There are times I am very critical of certain US policies - but that never diminishes my love for her.

[Reabo]

Thank you Slickvguy, I love your last post. I too, have a Libertarian bent. The less government the better. You are welcome to visit me anytime at my gun shop. I'll let you try out any gun of your choice. Free of charge.
BTW, the reason I got into testing, was government intervention. Because of my zip code they would not allow me to buy the locals I wished, so this was my alternative.

[JT]

Wow, an American patriot that's not even an American. Very nice post slickvguy. Makes me want to sing the star spangled banner.

Check out this thread if you havn't already Reabo.
http://www.dssftp.com/forum/t45020-gun-freak-thread.html

[Reabo]

Thanks JT, I have checked it out, lots of interesting posts there. I guess you could say I am a certified gun nut. Funny isn't it, you collect stamps or coins and your a collector, but if you collect guns your a "nut". Just doesn't seem fair, lol..........

[JT]

..... Just doesn't seem fair, lol..........

Nothin' ever is bro. Fortunately I live in a part of the world where it's pretty much expected that you have at least a couple firearms for hunting. I still got my CWP though. Mostly for buying purposes, but it's nice to have too.

[Reabo]

I too, have my permit to carry, actually I am licensed in 19 states. I carry daily, mostly because the one time you leave it behind is the one time you will need it. Its actually a lot of responsibility but I have accepted it.