@newtboy: He's just plain idiotic. I'll bet many of his "points" come straight from Faux News...I'm pretty sure I've heard some of this insanity before.

Fox News? Really? You don't understand libertarianism at all, do you? Also, you and Voodoo should spend some time making substantive points instead of emotional arguments.

I always wonder how these people ignore the fact that, if their theory about 'self regulating business' was true, it would work that way now. It's because industries repeatedly and consistently DIDN'T regulate themselves and thrived on the public ignorance of their actions that regulations were enacted in the first place. DUH.

Again, more appeals to emotion. That aside, I've heard this argument often from statists. The truth is they tend to forget things like regulatory capture and the sheer number of regulations on the books that create barriers to industry for those without significant capital to compete. These are all unfair advantages the government gives the rich and connected.

Also, I'm not sure if the two of you were asleep when he mentioned that corporations are fictitious entities given legitimacy by the government, and shields the rich from liability? That didn't happen because of unregulated markets.

OK, my reactionary, defensive, closed minded take on this is that this guy doesn't deserve 5 minutes of my viewing time (but he got it), much less 22:29 of it.

I'm totally right there with @VoodooV on this one. He's just plain idiotic. I'll bet many of his "points" come straight from Faux News...I'm pretty sure I've heard some of this insanity before.

I always wonder how these people ignore the fact that, if their theory about 'self regulating business' was true, it would work that way now. It's because industries repeatedly and consistently DIDN'T regulate themselves and thrived on the public ignorance of their actions that regulations were enacted in the first place. DUH.

EDIT: I think you meant to say 'how can you NOT disagree that an organization that commits actual massacres...actual fucking massacres is better than Faux News?', meaning 'How can you agree Isis is better than Faux?'...right? You forgot to double the negative.

I think that can be reasonably asked because Faux news (and others) has essentially become the propaganda wing of another organization that commits MORE actual massacres (but usually from a distance...I'm talking about the US military industrial complex here). That makes them directly complicit in and a facilitator and even instigator of the killing of hundreds of thousands of 'innocent' (non-threatening) people, to me that's likely worse than directly killing hundreds, even if you only ascribe 5% culpability/responsibility to them, perhaps it's not to you.
It's a bit like if you're in a disagreement with your neighbor and your cousin comes over with a baseball bat, knives, and a stun gun, gives them to you and then constantly, angrily, threateningly, cajoles you into violent action against your neighbor. The cousin will be (properly) prosecuted right there with you when you murder your neighbor and his family...so should Faux news be.

This faux news head is obnoxious.

Faux News FTL....

I'm sorry, but those conclusions are pure emotional based off what you see in the MSM. If you can find me a study, a legitimate one, not one from Faux News or Huffington Post, that actually shows that a government safety net induces vagrant behavior, then I will believe you. Until then, I will stick with all the studies that show very clearly that social safety barriers do in fact work, and that the decades old gutting of the programs are wrecking havoc on the system. Not to mentioned the systematic desecration of the educational system that's been designed solely for "efficiency" and pumps out students that are over qualified, unhappy, massively in debt and lead to believe a lie in which they can never achieve, or the exact opposite and ditches those most in need yet are the most visually different.

Combine this with white flight, red lining, and a culture of fear mongering, race baiting and rapid communication and we have a perfect storm. The general population is so overrun with sad stories and empathy inducing situations they actually go into empathy shock - a state in which they cease to care and numb themselves so they don't have to make a decision. A decision which they may later feel bad about. Instead, it's "nothing I can do about it so I won't care." And yes, this happens with those "gang-bangers" you talk about.

Instead of solving the situation, which is a blatant and total discrepancy in incomes, social normality, and general empathy, we will continue to have this problem. So long as white flight occurs and the NYPD openly racially profiles and harasses 110% (no joke) of the black community, and so long as the Christian Right still chants "it's ok to profile brown people" both in NYC, Arizona and everywhere else we will continue to have this problem.

Ever hear of the Theory of Attitudes? Or Reactance? There is far more going on than "if we give them money they'll stop working." Because I'm pretty sure every Christmas when your parents (general assumption) gives you presents, you instantly stop working. Totally proven concept, eh?

I thought we all learned this years ago, but....

'Fox News' is not the same as a local Fox affiliate evening news.

Faux News is a 24-hour cable 'news' network that is run by a Republican strategist and features a bunch of windbag media personalities.

This is WJBK. Although it is owned by Fox, the news director is different, the editors are different, the reporters are different, and clearly the modus operandi is different.

and yet still infinitely better than faux news.....

*promote the fairness and balance of Faux News.

I guess from watching MSNBC for all those years you can not decipher truth from fiction.


Fox reports the truth. Fair and balanced.

>> ^lantern53:

Why, this is Faux News...it's all made up, right?

Why, this is Faux News...it's all made up, right?

gotta love faux news

You're right, my wording is incorrect. What I meant was the "both".

@robbersdog49
Considering that the questions given were about facts and not opinions, I think it is safe to use the term "less informed", at least where the question subjects were concerned.
>> ^messenger:

Did you mean you think it's because Faux News spews nonsense or because of both? You can't have the "latter" of three things.>> ^hpqp:
The link in the first comment gives information on the interviewees' news sources. ~70% get their news from local newspapers as well (over the whole pol.id. spectrum).
I don't know how correct it is to say that watching Fox News makes you less informed, but the data clearly suggests that those who watch Fox News are less informed. Is that because FN attracts the less bright, or because it spews nonsense, or both? My guess is the latter.
>> ^bmacs27:
What about people that, oh I don't know, read news?

Did you mean you think it's because Faux News spews nonsense or because of both? You can't have the "latter" of three things.>> ^hpqp:

The link in the first comment gives information on the interviewees' news sources. ~70% get their news from local newspapers as well (over the whole pol.id. spectrum).
I don't know how correct it is to say that watching Fox News makes you less informed, but the data clearly suggests that those who watch Fox News are less informed. Is that because FN attracts the less bright, or because it spews nonsense, or both? My guess is the latter.
>> ^bmacs27:
What about people that, oh I don't know, read news?

Peter Schiff is right more often than not... I sure the "other" networks were just as wrong.
>> ^Issykitty:

Faux News at its best. Even assholes like Schiff are correct sometimes. Who knew.