Oh sweet zombie fucking Geebus, the golden Trump sneakers that while not even in production yet have sold out have red soles.
Red fucking soles.
Surprise, Louie Vuitton has an international patent and trademark on red soled shoes. Every penny Trump made from the sneaker deal and more are going to go to LV, they are sharks when it comes to defending their trademarks, and they, unlike Trump, win in courts around the world.

Still waiting ребенок.

Bonus- two devastating new billion dollar lawsuits brought against Fox and the Murdoch family in Delaware by pension fund investors from multiple states for intentional mismanagement by Murdoch and the board.
This on top of the $2.7 BILLION suit by Smartmatic.
Fox is just the big fish, they’re going after all the extreme right propaganda channels for knowingly spreading lies as “news corporations”, which would obviously hurt their brands and stock values. That’s a crime, btw. Say goodbye to the Pravda clones.

Holy shit, the insane racist insults Trump aimed at his own black voters…first insisting black voters love him for being indicted, because being indicted for crimes is a black thing, love him for his mug shot because black people celebrate criminality, and love him for his sneakers because all black people lose their minds over fancy sneakers. You likely don’t see the racist tropes all these statements are based on.
“The lights are so bright I can’t see too many people, I can only see the black ones.” (Doesn’t even realize he’s saying there aren’t many black people in his crowd or that he’s being overtly racist)

non-news, corporate bobble-head shills

>> ^bareboards2:

Fox Network, no cable required, channel 13 in Seattle.
Yes, it plays on FX, the channel that requires you to pay.
It ALSO will be playing on Fox Channel, the regular network channel, that you don't have to pay for.

>> ^vaire2ube:
FX (TV channel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FX
FX (standing for Fox extended, suggesting "effects") is the name of a number of related pay television channels owned by News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group.
>> ^RhesusMonk:
Not Fox Channel, FX Channel. Waaaay different.

different enough if you dont count being the same company sure


It's been scheduled on our local FOX channel for the last week--it's never played though. Whenever I tune in to see it they always put something else on.

Fox Network, no cable required, channel 13 in Seattle.

Yes, it plays on FX, the channel that requires you to pay.

It ALSO will be playing on Fox Channel, the regular network channel, that you don't have to pay for.


>> ^vaire2ube:

FX (TV channel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FX
FX (standing for Fox extended, suggesting "effects") is the name of a number of related pay television channels owned by News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group.
>> ^RhesusMonk:
Not Fox Channel, FX Channel. Waaaay different.


different enough if you dont count being the same company sure

FX (TV channel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FX
FX (standing for Fox extended, suggesting "effects") is the name of a number of related pay television channels owned by News Corporation's Fox Entertainment Group.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

Not Fox Channel, FX Channel. Waaaay different.



different enough if you dont count being the same company sure

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MrFisk:
>> ^marbles:
Central planning of news! Is Fox the only one?
Six Major Corporations Own the Mainstream Media
Mainstream news brought to you by bankers and corporate kingpins.

While true that those corporations control 80 percent of the U.S. media only Fox News Corporation was designed specifically as a political mouthpiece.

So being a mouthpiece for the state isn't political? The only reason FoxNews fits smoothly into one half of left/right political structure is because they have been pretty consistent with their bias since their inception. MSNBC tries to play the antagonist role to Fox News a lot and the rest are usually more subtle and inconsistent. They can take turns flaunting their bias where Fox is the sole opponent by default. But the bottom line is it's all unintellectual lazy journalism. What more can you expect with centrally planned news coverage?


What, exactly, do you mean by "mouthpiece of the state" and "centrally planned news coverage?"

I'll generally agree with Jon Stewart that the media is often too lazy and sensationalistic. The fact of the matter is the media are a business and Fox News has become the most profitable television medium. Sure, MSNBC seems to be trying to mimic Fox News' success, from a liberal standpoint, by increasing subjective opinion by sacrificing objective news coverage. But you can't seriously mean that "the rest are usually more subtle and inconsistent" and that that suggests some sort of ulterior bias in favor of the Democratic party.

>> ^MrFisk:

>> ^marbles:
Central planning of news! Is Fox the only one?
Six Major Corporations Own the Mainstream Media
Mainstream news brought to you by bankers and corporate kingpins.

While true that those corporations control 80 percent of the U.S. media only Fox News Corporation was designed specifically as a political mouthpiece.


So being a mouthpiece for the state isn't political? The only reason FoxNews fits smoothly into one half of left/right political structure is because they have been pretty consistent with their bias since their inception. MSNBC tries to play the antagonist role to Fox News a lot and the rest are usually more subtle and inconsistent. They can take turns flaunting their bias where Fox is the sole opponent by default. But the bottom line is it's all unintellectual lazy journalism. What more can you expect with centrally planned news coverage?

>> ^marbles:

Central planning of news! Is Fox the only one?
Six Major Corporations Own the Mainstream Media
Mainstream news brought to you by bankers and corporate kingpins.


While true that those corporations control 80 percent of the U.S. media only Fox News Corporation was designed specifically as a political mouthpiece.

>> ^NetRunner:

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?
If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?
It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.
Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?
What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"
As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

"If you asked everyone...?


It's a loaded question. Of course, most people are going to respond that they don't want to be lied to. The problem is, it's not a lie if the person lying to you agrees with you. That's just affirmation.

Let's say there is a magical room that "everyone" can sit in. On the left side of this room there is serious debate being honestly reported and covered by good journalists over the fiscal solvency of social security. On the right side of the room is a Bugs Bunny cartoon (or a Jerry Springer episode, a Lady Gaga video, an Alex Jones bit .. ie. anything else). In which direction do you think most of "everyone" is looking?

Most people honestly don't give a shit, they are struggling with their own lives and a quick escape is what they're after. When it's time for news, they don't want honesty, they want the comfort of a voice that confirms their own beliefs. I don't think Hannity viewers (for example) are making a choice between "comforting lies" and "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?", I think they are comforted by lies because it confirms the easily digestible "truths" they already hold and they're either unwilling or unable to invest more time or intelligence to understand the complexity of reality further.

McCain/Palin got around 46% of the vote in 2008. That means 46% of people were comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin having the nuclear launch codes of the U.S. arsenal if McCain died (a real possibility considering his age). Don't overestimate people.

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?

It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.

Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?

What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"

As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

>> ^burdturgler:

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?
You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.
Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

Yah,
The Jim Henson Company, which was purchased by the Henson family in July 2003 from the German media company EM.TV then turned around and sold it to Disney in 2004 (including all Muppet assets, including the Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo and Animal characters, the Muppet film and television library, and all associated copyrights and trademarks, as well as all the Bear in the Big Blue House characters, television library, copyrights and trademarks) but retained all other assets of the company including Jim Henson's Creature Shop and ownership and rights to all other characters and entertainment properties in The Jim Henson Company's extensive film and television library, including Fraggle Rock, Farscape, Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Storyteller, The Hoobs, and various other properties.

Here's the story: http://www.muppetcentral.com/news/2004/021704.shtml
Also this: http://corporate.disney.go.com/news/corporate/2004/2004_0217_kermit.html
>> ^alizarin:

Disney bought the Muppets? Might as well have been Phillip Morris.

"There's going to be divine assistance"

People who think magically scare the shit out of me.

This vid didn't get a lot of votes, but it completely connects the Religious/FOX News/Corporate complex together in a pretty intuitive way:
http://videosift.com/video/RSA-Animate-Smile-or-Die-the-hazards-of-positive-thinking

>> ^Mashiki:

What are you talking about? The parent companies of NBC, CBS and ABC all do the same thing. The only difference is they're happily lying to your face about it.


Bzzt. Completely wrong. First, this is all a matter of public record, both on the part of Fox, and the parent companies of the other three major networks.

Second, there's a big difference on the partisan split (and total amount) of money being spent. According to CNN, we're looking at numbers like this:

News Corp (owner of Fox): $1,074,700 to Republicans, $105,500 to Democrats
(91% to Republicans)

GE (owner of NBC/MSNBC): $410,100 to Republicans, $688,900 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Viacom (owner of CBS/Comedy Central): $64,000 to Republicans, $108,700 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Disney (owner of ABC): $95,000 to Republicans, $110,500 to Democrats
(46% to Republicans)

Time Warner (owner of CNN): $41,500 to Republicans, $70,500 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

But wait, you're saying, doesn't this go to show there's a liberal bias in all other forms of media? No, not really. It's pretty normal for companies to tilt their spending to the party in power, especially when they hold the White House, and large majorities in both chambers of Congress.

You can identify partisan organizations by the way they always lean toward one party, regardless of their level of control over congress, or merely by the naked one-sided nature of the tilt (like 91%!). In the case of News Corp, you have both.

Oh, and a final point about the quantity of contributions. I'd note that while GE's total donation amount is comparable to News Corp's, GE isn't just a media organization, it's also a major manufacturer, and a defense contractor. If you compare them to just the pure media companies, you see that News Corp donated nearly ten times as much just to the Republican party as the next largest media company's total spending on campaign contributions.

Ok fanboys and girls aside, highdileeho's post got me to thinking that perhaps we should all take a bit of time like our pal eric827364982374, and go through the sift and do a bit of house-cleaning-

For some of you, who tend to post in a linear fashion from some of the major news organizations, and lack the spark of creativity that sets us apart from the beasts and foul, and who have a particular world view that is parroted by most of those who have been spoon-fed the sheit from television for so long that your limbic system is so much Rupert Maddock's bitch.....

(by the way, we should boycott the following top 20 list of Infotainment Fucks)
1. Time Warner Inc.
2. Walt Disney Company
3. Viacom Inc.
4. News Corporation
5. CBS Corporation
6. Cox Enterprises
7. NBC Universal
8. Gannett Company, Inc.
9. Clear Channel Communications Inc.
10. Advance Publications, Inc.
11. Tribune Company
12. McGraw-Hill Companies
13. Hearst Corporation
14. Washington Post Company
15. The New York Times Company
16. E.W. Scripps Co.
17. McClatchy Company
18. Thomson Corporation
19. Freedom Communications, Inc.
20. A&E Television Networks

....you who fancy Kieth Overmanned'S deaditorials might want to check your viddies.....I got tired of "deading" after 3 pages of THIRTY-THREE FUCKING PAGES OF FUCKING KIETH FUCKING OLBERMANN VIDDIES!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!

Yeah dag, poncy fanvid crapola, is clogging up your site!!

Who the f- cares if they covered or did not cover these tea baggin' inbreds. In 2003 before we went to war in Iraq millions and millions of people protested the war for months and months around the world. The media ridiculed each and every protest; these tea baggers are covered much more extensively than any protest before the illegal war and actually in a much more favorable manner (afterall they are a bunch of bible thumping right-wingers). And they have nothing real to say in my opinion, these people are just political reactionaries that have no real views but to "must beat liberals, no abortions, no smokey smokey, God loves you".

The day that we dropped bombs the city of San Francisco was SHUT DOWN by the people for four days - and it turned into a military-state inside of the city. Was that ever covered by the news? Absolutely not. Did a big news corporation come in our defense with a nice little poster reminder that no one covered this monumental news story? The city of San Francisco was shutdown by the people for four days in protest of an illegal war while most people were still at home scratching their asses and wondering why they had bought duct-tape.