On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:21:45 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 8:55:28 PM UTC-5,
wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:35:47 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 5:57:30 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <edit>
> > > >
> > > > ugharollo, you seem to know quite a bit about Fox News. Watch it much? (I don't.)
> > >
> > > I just know what thoughtful Republican leaders say: "Fox News is hurting the >Republican Party, according to a study conducted by a top official in the >first Bush administration."
> >
> > "Republican" is not exactly synonymous with conservative, a subtle point that obviously eludes you.
> >
> > There are probably about 100 million conservatives of voting age in the US, most of whom do not watch Fox news in any case, so the article in your link is irrelevant.
>
>
> Oh-Kay. 100 million conservatives is about right, and I'm one of them, a >proud capitalist who built a multi-million dollar company from scratch with >help from other capitalists and our friendly local banker.
>That does not mean
>that I buy into the Bircher philosophy, rather I'm more of a teddy Roosevelt >and Eisenhower conservative, both of who warned against unbridled corporate >power which would destroy capitalism.
Being a "capitalist" doesn't automatically make one a conservative, and you certainly aren't a conservative. Your business is likely flying under the radar and so avoids the controversies that liberals like to stir up wrt capitalism.
>I think my link is relevant since thoughtful conservatives are beginning to >see problems with the screetching right wing echo chamber that is Fox. Lies >told on Fox will come back to haunt them.
Your link isn't relevant, because it assumes that Fox News is actually having much effect.
> > The lamestream media is heavily biased toward the "left" and tends to ignore important news and developments unless absolutely necessary.
>
> Mainstream media is owned by real capitalists who have several goals, one to >present the news, second one to stay in business by making a profit. They're >doing well enough.
Irrelevant.
>They are not in business to please the likes of you, so that makes them >liberal in your mind.
They seem to be primarily for entertainment, while not being particularly entertaining.
>I'm not sure what "news" they may be ignoring, perhaps you can find it in the >supermarket rags like the Inquirer?
Ha. Ha. As far as objectivity and accuracy goes the Inquirer probably isn't much worse than the lamestream media.
> By the way, liberal democracy is what we wished for decades would occur in >China, but alas they will continue their right wing dictatorship probably for >the forseeable future.
It would be better if China were to respect human rights and freedom, things which neither "liberal democracies" nor dictatorships do very well.
>They do intend to become the dominant nation state in the world and fully >expect to eclipse the USA, which is really unfortunate.
If that happens, you can blame liberals in the US for it.
> But enough of trying to educate you.
You might trying educating yourself, before presuming to think you should educate anyone else.