Fox News Gives $1 Million to GOP

And funny how GOP people are trying to pump stupid ideology about Obama not being an American yet love the media that's not American-owned. How unpatriotic of them to believe a non-American owned media!

What you said makes no sense and I am now dumber for having read it. GOP is not trying to pump ideology about Obama not being American-they just published the stories. MSNBC and several others published similiar stories.

Obama is an American but the question is, is he a natural-born citizen? Fortunatly for him there are some gaps left by the constitution. If they find he is not a natutal born citizen, then I vote we ammend our constitution to allow none American born citizens to run for president and I'm nominating my buddy "The Terminator".

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
 

I suspect it's really more of an effort to distract the Americans and the world from something else. Remember Clinton's sex scandal and how they tried to distract the Americans from it by focusing on the Kosovo Crisis.

People are easily sucked into these things.

Not to mention there seems to be a class war going on like Warren Buffett said a few years ago.
 
I suspect it's really more of an effort to distract the Americans and the world from something else. Remember Clinton's sex scandal and how they tried to distract the Americans from it by focusing on the Kosovo Crisis.

People are easily sucked into these things.

Not to mention there seems to be a class war going on like Warren Buffett said a few years ago.

I totally agree. Another example is all the focus given to Katrina lately while Gulf clinics are practically overflowing now. I have said it several times before and I will say it again---the media is becoming the fourth branch of the government. Especially Fox news.
 
More like the 8th branch after CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC. But that's pretty ridiculous, no?
 
And you constantly gloat that Fox news is number one. Hmmm.

The problem is when people say Foxnews is so bad then I ask the question why do so many people watch it and why it remains to be the number 1 cable news?
 
"Dancing with the Stars" has over 20 million viewers on a regular basis. Fox News has an average of 1.5 to 3.5 million viewers.

So, I suppose "Dancing with the Stars" is by far more important to the Americans than the loud mouths on Fox News, CNN, etc.
 
"Dancing with the Stars" has over 20 million viewers on a regular basis. Fox News has an average of 1.5 to 3.5 million viewers.

So, I suppose "Dancing with the Stars" is by far more important to the Americans than the loud mouths on Fox News, CNN, etc.

And you equate "Dancing with the Stars" as part of the news media equivalent or what? If "Dancing with the Stars" gets 20 millon viewers on a regular basis then you have nothing to worry about Foxnews, right? :hmm:
 
And you equate "Dancing with the Stars" as part of the news media equivalent or what? If "Dancing with the Stars" gets 20 millon viewers on a regular basis then you have nothing to worry about Foxnews, right? :hmm:

It means people don't really put a lot of stock in the mainstream media if more people are watching shows like "Dancing with the Stars" and "American Idol" than they are watching Bill O'Reilly ranting about how Jennifer Aniston is destroying the country.
 
It means people don't really put a lot of stock in the mainstream media if more people are watching shows like "Dancing with the Stars" and "American Idol" than they are watching Bill O'Reilly ranting about how Jennifer Aniston is destroying the country.

Let's see how the rating goes and put the show "Dancing with the Stars" on every day for the next few years.

Bill O'Reilly host a commentary show which happens to be on Foxnews. There are sports, news, other commentary shows, etc that are on Foxnews.
 
Oprah's show has around 5 to 6 million viewers on average. The show airs on a daily basis. It has been on TV for 25 years.

It still shows a lot of people don't bother with the mainstream media these days.
 
Oprah's show has around 5 to 6 million viewers on average. The show airs on a daily basis. It has been on TV for 25 years.

It still shows a lot of people don't bother with the mainstream media these days.

Foxnews is on every day, 24/7. Oprah isn't. Oprah doesn't fit the news category, does it?
 
Foxnews is on every day, 24/7. Oprah isn't. Oprah doesn't fit the news category, does it?

Fox News is a channel. It averages around 3 million during prime time. Now, can you truly compare that to the averages among the big networks? Not really.

By the way, Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist, he's a commentator. Neither is Glenn Beck and many other commentators.

It's not news, it's called commentaries.

So why would you fit that into the news category when it isn't news?
 
The problem is when people say Foxnews is so bad then I ask the question why do so many people watch it and why it remains to be the number 1 cable news?
You really need an explanation? Here goes...

The so-called MSM has several outlets, while the Conservative-leaning FoxNews is all alone. It is all about the choices. Imagine you like Jif peanut butter. Imagine that only Safeway sells it, but you have to drive a few extra minutes to get there. When you want Jif, you make the drive.

FoxNews caters to a select group. They may pretend to be neutral, but judging by the rabid fan base, I find that unlikely. All of you right-leaning people would not defend it so vehemently if it was neutral. Call it what you wish, but please refrain from calling it unbiased.

Added: I wonder what the ratings would be like if they removed all but one MSM outlet. I suppose we could total the viewership for these outlets, and compare to Fox.
 
Last edited:
Fox News is a channel. It averages around 3 million during prime time. Now, can you truly compare that to the averages among the big networks? Not really.

By the way, Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist, he's a commentator. Neither is Glenn Beck and many other commentators.

It's not news, it's called commentaries.

So why would you fit that into the news category when it isn't news?
Did you not see back there where I said "host a commentary show" ? I consider it to be part of the news format since commentary shows revolve around actual news where political analyses are done. That is what political commentators do, especially on complex political issues from various news sources wheb breaking them down helps inform people better on what's going on. Other times it's a bunch of bantering.
 
You really need an explanation? Here goes...

The so-called MSM has several outlets, while the Conservative-leaning FoxNews is all alone. It is all about the choices. Imagine you like Jif peanut butter. Imagine that only Safeway sells it, but you have to drive a few extra minutes to get there. When you want Jif, you make the drive.

FoxNews caters to a select group. They may pretend to be neutral, but judging by the rabid fan base, I find that unlikely. All of you right-leaning people would not defend it so vehemently if it was neutral. Call it what you wish, but please refrain from calling it unbiased.

Added: I wonder what the ratings would be like if they removed all but one MSM outlet. I suppose we could total the viewership for these outlets, and compare to Fox.

Well, that "select group" is rather a large one in order to make Foxnews number 1. You can always choose not to watch it but apparently many people like to watch Foxnews. Now, remember, I said "Foxnews" which comprises of commentaries, weather, sports, entertainment, leisure stories, and so on.
 
Well, that "select group" is rather a large one in order to make Foxnews number 1. You can always choose not to watch it but apparently many people like to watch Foxnews. Now, remember, I said "Foxnews" which comprises of commentaries, weather, sports, entertainment, leisure stories, and so on.

Yeah, but they do a lot of editing to present slanted views. *shrugs*
 
Did you not see back there where I said "host a commentary show" ? I consider it to be part of the news format since commentary shows revolve around actual news where political analyses are done. That is what political commentators do, especially on complex political issues from various news sources wheb breaking them down helps inform people better on what's going on. Other times it's a bunch of bantering.

Ehh, it's still commentaries. People watch the news to get news, not commentaries. I don't give a fig what someone thinks of this and that.

For instance, a car crash occurred at 3:15am in the morning. Two people are reported dead. According to the local sheriff, foul play is suspected. That's news.

A car crash occurred early in the morning, these two killed in the crash are absolute idiots and deserved what they got. The so-called sheriff is a total moron and don't know what he's doing. That's commentary.

I'm more interested in the account of what happened, not what they think of it.

Commentary is not news. Sorry.
 
Back
Top