Wow... that sounds horrible... I would have loved to know... well really anything about it.

Seems strange to me when your clearly pushing an agenda the way RT pretty much always is that they wouldn't produce the evidence they surely had to have to even run a story like this... right?.... right?

Civil forfeiture is a VERY real thing, but this kind of click-bait 'journalism' does nothing to help.

@ulysses1904 I wouldn't hold your breath. I find RT news makes Fox look truly fair and balanced.

Yes, let's hear the anti-vaxer, evolution-denying, flat-Earther perspective to be "fair and balanced".

Good plan. How's that working out for America?

OK, since again you are going to continue to comment to and about me after asking me to ignore you (so I can't read your lies to reply to them), I logged out, read them, and now I'll comment back.

BULLSHIT! You had a shit fit for days when I downvoted a video you posted and it went to the bottom of 'new and upcoming videos', and you cried censorship over and over and claimed it had been removed because you couldn't find your own video. You complained to dag and lucky repeatedly, and tried to have me banned for erasing your video (which never happened, you were just too lazy or incapable to look for it, and continued complaining for days after multiple people pointed out you were 100% wrong and showed you where your video was).

No single political opinion is solicited here, so even the suggestion that those matching yours might be sought out by the admins to make it 'fair and balanced' for you shows a clear lack of understanding of the site and the world in general. At least you understand it won't happen.

As to your specious claim (based on a fox new poll or nothing at all?) that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, it's ridiculous, and easily contradicted with actual facts....for instance, the 2015 Gallup poll said "PRINCETON, N.J. -- Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999."...so even SELF identified liberals match self identified conservatives, if you go by actual political leanings on issues, there's no contest, 'liberals' outweigh 'conservatives' 3-1 (+-).
"Liberals" as you and the rest of the far right define them are clearly the majority view in America. Actual statistics follow:
Those in favor of reproductive choice >50%, anti choice<44%. 78% of Americans want Citizens United overturned. 70% of Americans don't want Social Security cut, 65% want it expanded. The same goes for wanting more financial regulations on banks and wall street, taxing the extremely rich at higher rates, adopting true single payer health care, doing public projects and works, having a standing army (yes, that's a liberal idea...as the army is a socialist program), etc. Those consistently holding "conservative" viewpoints across the board are an extremely small minority, contrary to how many people self identify.
"Conservatives" may hold a majority there in the Fox bubble, but in the real world they are a minority, consistently ridiculed for their total lack of knowledge about the things they complain about and for basing their backwards stances on 'truthiness' rather than fact, especially by those in other countries.

Now, once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll ask you kindly to "ignore" me just like you asked me to ignore you. It's pretty infantile to ask someone to ignore you so you can continue to publicly talk crap about and contradict them without fear that they'll respond...and I find that methodology typical of 'conservatives' that refuse to live by the rules they angrily insist everyone else must live by.
You really don't want me focusing on you in anger, which will happen if I'm forced to un-ignore you and re-engage because you can't quit me. Just stop and quit it, or no complaints when I re-engage with vigor and vitriol.

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

You are mistaken.

This is not just Genji, it's most people around here. You want to nail yourself to a cross and think you're being singled out because of who you are, not what you say, be my guest, but you're fooling no one. Particularly since anyone can go back through your history of posts (I pity the fool) and see for themselves...

You want the respect you believe your public service demands, then do it better than the rest and stand up against the people making you and your profession look bad. Coming here and spewing bile everytime someone posts a video about cops doing bad things doesn't make you seem fair and balanced, it makes you seem complicit...

Top 10! OH yeah!


Look as us Libs being Fair and Balanced!

Listening to both sides of the debate!

Now can you please stop whining like a victim when bad cops do bad things?

GREAT!

Real Time with Bill Maher: Love's Fair and Balanced Desire has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Conservative edition *related=http://videosift.com/video/Real-Time-with-Bill-Maher-Loves-Fair-and-Balanced-Desire

2 religious leaders - fair and balanced.

*promote the fairness and balance of Faux News.

This is why I hate Cenk. Way to be "fair and balanced." How about the Capital Gains rate they are talking about hiking?

I love how none of them even seem puzzled by his comments about saying such things on Fox. Surely if they were fair and balanced they'd be asking him "What do you mean? We don't have any agenda at all"

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bamdrew:
This is MSNBC. MSNBC is the New York Times of networks... informative, accurate, and often very well presented, but with a left-wing opinion page. They don't pretend otherwise, unlike 'fair and balanced' Fox News. If you want the middle ground watch PBS or CNN (or BBC in the UK or ABC in Australia); the only bias on these networks is the unavoidable bias of choosing which stories to showcase (about international policy, about the environment, etc. can appear 'biased' but cover a topic of journalistic interest).
>> ^My_design:
Boy these guys are clearly routing for Obama ...


The New York Times is definitely not Left Wing. For instance they report WITH GUSTO the atrocities of others but not of the United States. The New York Times only appears Left because it reports some things that the US does wrong around the world, where as other papers around the planet report much much more. We are insulated from these things so things appear Left when they are actually very much Right and in support of the State.


Yogi!