Is Fox Next?

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Ok Tom, now its your turn to answer some questions, take your time, they are easy, YES/NO questions

(1) Do you think MSNBC is a biased news service?

(2) Do you think MSNBC only covers part of the story?

(3) Do you think that MSNBC uses out of context editing to prove their point?

(4) Do you think MSNBC trys to tell thier viewer what to think?

(5) Do you think MSNBC is good for America?

(6) Do you think America would be a better place without MSNBC?

(7) Do you think that MSNBC unfairly attacks rival news services?

(8) Do you think MSNBC unfairly attacks Conservative Politicions?

(9) Do thou think MSNBCwould say anything to forward their agenda?

(10) Do you think that good American Companies should advertise on MSNBC?

(11) Do you think that any positive story about Obama is a conspiracy?
 
Last edited:
Ok Tom, now its your turn to answer some questions, take your time, they are easy, YES/NO questions

(1) Do you think MSNBC is a biased news service? Y

(2) Do you think MSNBC only covers part of the story? Y

(3) Do you think that MSNBC uses out of context editing to prove their point? Y

(4) Do you think MSNBC trys to tell thier viewer what to think? Y

(5) Do you think MSNBC is good for America? Y an opposing view

(6) Do you think America would be a better place without MSNBC? N

(7) Do you think that MSNBC unfairly attacks rival news services? y

(8) Do you think MSNBC unfairly attacks Conservative Politicions? Y Sometimes

(9) Do thou think MSNBCwould say anything to forward their agenda? Y

(10) Do you think that good American Companies should advertise on MSNBC? Y

(11) Do you think that any positive story about Obama is a conspiracy?
N

Now you can make your little Fox poll.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom,

It's not necessary to play out the whole game.

You wish to watch a news service that is bias, does not tell the whole story, will say anything to prove their point and unfairly attacks liberal politicians.

You have a choice in what you watch. If you do not want to hear the truth, that's your propagative. But you need to admit that what you get is not the whole story, and do not bring it here and call it truth or news!


Tom, did you read Obamas resume?

Do you think that we would be better off under a McCain Palin administration.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Craig, Jim, since you are people who would be interested in the truth. How about looking into this. How many of the companies that have pulled their support from Fox received obama admin waivers for obama care?

As I am sure you are aware there have been nearly 3000 waivers approved for US organizations since obama care was passed by the demo controlled congress over a unanimous no vote from the Republicans.

Maybe you could post that list. You guys doing it would save all the discussion about my bias.

Howard, sorry it took so long to get back to you. But I have some great news for you! I found this today in the Huffinton Post.

***************

WASHINGTON -- Removing a potential political distraction ahead of next year's elections, the Obama administration Friday announced an early end to a health care waiver program that has come under fire from congressional Republicans.

Political considerations were "absolutely not" part of the decision, said Steve Larsen, head of a section of the Health and Human Services department that oversees President Barack Obama's health care law.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom,

Thanks for your answers.

I agree with some of your answers, but not all.

(5) I do not think that MSNBC/Fox are good for America. Biased, one sided propaganda, machines pretending to be fair and calling themselves NEWS......not good!

(6) See above

(10) I definitely do not think that "Good American Companies" should be involved with miss representing the truth and misleading a gullible population.

Tom, I'll say it one more time because it is important, a news service should present both sides of an issue, as fairly as possible then allow the viewer to decide what side best represents the truth.

When MSNBC/Fox only show one Distorted side of an issue then tell you what is right........

That's not news, only propaganda!

Joseph Goebbels only presented one distorted side of issues and then told the people what to believe. Was that Good for the world?
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
But do not take this to mean that I think these types of speech should be limited. They absolutely, positively have the right to say these things.

Just as we have the right to avoid the products of advertisers who make the dissemination of this propaganda possible.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
<TABLE class=tborder id=post340353 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_340353 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #8d8149 1px solid">Well Jim I'm pretty damn sure Obama will keep this economy running into the toilet due to the lack of his capitalistic understanding...so in a nutshell he will beat himself. Posted by Craig.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Craig, I know all the economy is not back, but take a look at this. What part of the toilet is the market going?

I have a fairly large stock market holding. Since Obama became President, I have not only made back all that I lost under BushII but now have more than at the height of the BushII bubble. Just another reason why Obama will be re-elected.


</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #8d8149 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #8d8149 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #8d8149 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #8d8149 1px solid">
user_offline.gif
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

performance%20822%20Days.png

.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Could be. But I'm having a hard time assessing where the "irrational exuberance" is coming from. Andy, any thoughts?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
TomP,

Tom, you asked several times what qualifications Obama had to be President, then you demanded to know what makes me think he was qualified to be President. Obviously Fox has led you to believe that he was un-qualified and then you implied he was only elected due to the American voters being STUPID RACISTS.

Well Tom I then posted his resume and asked for your thoughts. Did you answer, NO you did not. When Fox told you he was unqualified, in stead of just buying their propaganda, perhaps you should have looked for your self.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom, here again is President Obamas resume at the time he ran for President. He has since added many new things like Leader of the Free World, the Nobel Peace Prize and Killing Bin Laden. Tom, this appears to be a very very well qualified candidate. Pehaps once again Fox mislead you?

BARACK H. OBAMA
PO Box 8102 Office 866.675.2008
Chicago, IL 60680 Obama for America | 2012
Contact Us | Obama for America | 2012
OBJECTIVE: President of the United States of America
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I'm asking you to believe in yours."
Advocate for decisive change and action to restore the political, economic, military and social landscape and dominance of the United States
as a global leader. Well-respected for political judgment, integrity, ethical behavior, passion and commitment to America's citizens.
Twice honored by Time magazine as one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" (2005, 2007).
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:​

U.S. Senator
2005 to Present

State of Illinois,


Chicago, IL / Washington, DC

Elected to U.S. Senate to represent the citizens of the State of Illinois. Work across Democratic, Republican and Independent party

lines to develop, craft and pass legislative actions, bills and amendments to best serve the American people.







ENERGY. Active and highly visible proponent of alternative energy to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign nations.



Introduced American Fuels Act to increase domestic production of biofuels, expand manufacture of ethanol-capable

vehicles, offer tax credits to spur cellulosic fuel production and provide corporate incentives to expand green technologies.





Reintroduced Biofuels Security Act calling for 60B gallons of renewable biofuels in nation's vehicle fuel supply by 2030.



Architected Oil SENSE Act eliminating unnecessary oil industry tax breaks.



Sponsored FILL UP Act requiring oil companies with $1B+ in profits to invest a minimum of 1% in E-85 pumps (ethanol).



FOREIGN POLICY. Pioneered innovative legislative actions to protect the citizens of the U.S. and foreign nations.



One of the first legislators to recognize the dangers of potential avian influenza pandemic and secured $25M for U.S.

agencies working in Southeast Asia to combat and contain widespread disease outbreaks.





Created Darfur Peace and Accountability Act imposing sanctions for genocide and crimes against humanity.



Passed bipartisan amendment providing $13M for the Special Court of Sierra Leone to restore national justice.



Introduced Global Poverty Act, a comprehensive strategy to eliminate global poverty by 50% and achieve the Millennium

Development Goal of reducing the proportion of people worldwide who live on less than $1 per day.





HOMELAND SECURITY. Instrumental in successful passage of legislation to protect America and its citizens.



Facilitated Chemical Security and Safety Act establishing a clear set of federal safety and mitigation regulations.



Co-sponsored amendments to increase rail and transit security by $12B and extend Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.



Spearheaded development of Spent Nuclear Fuel Tracking and Accountability Act to control nuclear waste.



CRIME. Lifelong proponent of stricter criminal laws for both violent and non-violent crime.



Fought for passage of Combat Meth Act providing money to fight methamphetamine manufacture and use/abuse.



Championed laws to combat sex crimes against children, including Dru's Law (included in the larger Adam Walsh Child

Protection Act) and Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (foundation for National Sex Offender Public Registry).





Co-sponsored Violence Against Women Act providing funding for domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. Staunch advocate for passage of a host of environmental protection laws.



Co-sponsored Warming Pollution Reduction Act projected to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.



Introduced Lead-Free Toys Act requiring Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban products containing lead.



Spearheaded Lead Poisoning Reduction Act requiring non-home-based child-care facilities be lead safe within 5 years

and establishing $42.6M grant program to help local communities pay to make these facilities safe.





FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Leader of numerous initiatives to reduce government spending and abuse.



Created Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, resulting in an Internet search engine and database to

track hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.





Wrote amendment to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, PACs or political parties for whom they collect funds.



Actively supported amendment to provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.

BARACK H. OBAMA​


… 866.675.2008 Page 2

Highlights of Senatorial Committee & Committee Leadership Appointments:





Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs



Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee



Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs



Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions



Member, Environmental and Public Works Committee



Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

State Senator


1997 to 2004

State of Illinois,


Chicago, IL

Won an intensely competitive Senatorial race. Partnered with Democrats, Republicans and Independents to pass favorable

legislation (e.g., education, health care, government spending, campaign finance, law enforcement).







Provided $100+ million in tax cuts to families over 3 years through legislative changes to state tax law.



Provided permanent health care coverage to 154,000 low-income residents (including 70,000 children).



Reformed the state's notorious death penalty laws to help prevent wrongful convictions.



Honored as a Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Associate Attorney


1993 to 2002

Davis, Miner & Barnhill,


Chicago, IL



Litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination and voting rights cases.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE:​

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer




1992 to 2004

University of Chicago Law School





Taught courses in General Law, Constitutional Law and Government Affairs.

GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING EXPERIENCE:​





Planned and orchestrated grassroots effort targeting unregistered voters throughout the Chicago metro area. Resulted in

150,000 new African-American voters.




Improved living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment through work with a churchbased

group.


EDUCATION:​

J.D., Magna Cum Laude, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL,




1991

President, Harvard Law Review


(first African-American ever elected)

B.A., Political Science, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,


1983

PUBLICATIONS:​





The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Crown Publishers, 2006



Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Times Books, 1995 (reprint 2004)

************

Tom to that you can add that he convinced A majority of Americans that he would do a better job than McCain/Palin.



So Tom, you insisted that I show you his qualifications. I would appreciate a comment.​
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Gee Fox news not being fair and balanced, who would think? Why would they not cover one of the largest new stores in the world?


FNC
‘Fox News Watch’ Avoids News Corp. Scandal, Almost
By Merrill Knox on July 11, 2011 3:26 PM
Saturday’s “Fox News Watch” steered clear of one of last week’s major media stories — News Corp. shutting down UK tabloid News of the World as a result of a hacking scandal. Or did they?

On the show’s website, Fox News posts “Behind the Breaks” videos of the panel chatting during commercial breaks. In the first break, the panel — including Judith Miller, Cal Thomas and James Pinkerton — can be heard chatting about “the subject we’re not talking about today.” Thomas asked his colleagues if anyone is willing to bring up the scandal. “Sure,” Pinkerton answered jokingly. “Go ahead, Cal.” As the panel laughs, Thomas responds, “I’m not going to touch it.”
 
Well by the looks of his resume he's quallified to creat red tape and gather tax payer money....to bad he has no clue on how to unleash capitalism and get the hell out of the way....UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT..he is stumped
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Craig, I wish I could agree with you, I really do.

However, it's been my experience that "trickle-down" economics doesn't work for anyone except the wealthy. They will rant all about how the taxes deplete their working capital and they can't afford to create jobs, yet when the conservatives are in the drivers' seat and the business owners receive tax relief, I honestly don't see any more jobs than before (unless you count the low-paid laborers who clean the pools and wash/wax the boats the wealthy buy with their enhanced incomes). The wealthy just keep the increased profits for themselves, and then defend that action when they are asked where the new jobs are.

If the government DOES decide to increase taxes on the wealthy, as I firmly believe they should do, at least SOME of that tax money will "trickle down" and relieve unemployment somewhat through increased government jobs.

Face it, capitalism has an ugly side. It's all we have right now, though...and I don't see a change coming, not that I'd really think the alternative is any better. GREED is one of the 7 deadly sins, and capitalism creates it's own form of greed. For the extremely wealthy, $$ is just another form of addiction...the more they get, the more they want.

I REALLY wish I could see where your suggestion would work....but after living on the downside of "trickle-down" economics for 62 years, I have yet to see the benefits that you so glowingly predict.

Care to help me out?

Cheers from Doug!!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Craig,

You say Obama collecting taxes is the problem.

How do you explain the fact that we now pay less taxes than when the great Ronald Reagan was president.

Craig, how do explain the recent the recent record rise in the stock market?

Unless the rich folks the Republicans gave tax cuts are buying stock, not hiring employees.
 
Last edited:

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Craig,
Unless the rich folks the Republicans gave tax cuts are buying stock, not hiring employees.

Just another method of keeping the profits, Jim....rather than putting those $$ to work by creating new jobs, they are just putting them to work creating more wealth for themselves.

Sadly, I predict Craig will not see the fallacy here...keep in mind the old saying that I often repeat, "...there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see".

Cheers from Doug, amigo!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Doug,

As you well know, we will never convince the Craig, TomP, Damians of the world.......

But hopefully folks with open minds will weigh both sides and realize that Fox/msnbc news are a bunch of liars! News and truth are down their list of priorities.
 
Last edited:
Just another method of keeping the profits, Jim....rather than putting those $$ to work by creating new jobs, they are just putting them to work creating more wealth for themselves.

Sadly, I predict Craig will not see the fallacy here...keep in mind the old saying that I often repeat, "...there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see".

Cheers from Doug, amigo!

.

Published in Investing on 3 June 2011

The topic of escalating directors' pay was big on some of our boards during the week, and we had the latest share competition update too.

In these days when executive salaries and bonuses are in the news for all the wrong reasons, shouldn't we, as shareholders, be closely scrutinizing the handsome rewards that our company directors pay themselves? On Paulypilot's Pub - Share Ideas, paulypilot himself seems to think so, with his heartfelt plea…

"My main concern is still that, as with most if not all listed companies, I would question the share of the pie and nil risk/huge reward that management get.

With the news today that FTSE 100 Directors have now seen a 300% increase in pay in the past 15 years or so, and are now taking over 300 times the pay of the basic worker, this is a morally intolerable situation of blatant greed - which can only lead to an unhappier & deeply divided society."

And on the same subject, over on the Other Stuff board, ukdt seems to be in full agreement…

"The study found that while the average remuneration of bosses of companies on the FTSE 100 index rose 32% last year, the index itself increased just 9%. The report also found that over the past 12 years, some share prices had not increased, but pay deals for chief executives had quadrupled.

So. Errr last year companies return 9% directors take 32%. Over four year companies return zero growth and directors remuneration has QUADRUPLED!!! Is this accurate ? It is totally shocking if true."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top