Users who Dugg This
NotifyNeal
10141 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
Ali Qayyum
4891 Followers
Matthew VanHook
177 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
SleepingZombie
332 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
shivabeachFeb 11, 2011
this absolutely goes beyond the pale. To accuse Americans who supported democracy in Egypt of being Marxist should show even the followers of Fox news that that network is absolutely insane
laborerFeb 11, 2011
Yeah, if Americans were Marxists we would have universal healthcare instead of 2 decade long wars.
- - "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman,( capitalist and laborer, owner and worker, ) in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
- - "In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of
development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."
- Marx & Engels 'The Communist Manifesto'
shivabeachFeb 12, 2011
Sorry, the rest of the civilized world has health care and they are not Marxists. You are getting carried away on a word that doesnt even exist in reality any more. Sorry, not interestedComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
Im not saying you have to be a Marxist to get universal healthcare, but if we were Marxists we would have it.
Maybe the word doesnt exist, but the ideas still do. Its a question of who should be in charge of the resources of the planet earth. I think it is those who work, not own, that should rule the land and resources.
Though consumer markets are a powerful tool, and should be used alongside socialism. Just not in the same industries. Some ventures should not make a profit. Like brain surgery, or diabetest treatment. There is a conflict of interest there between care and profit often. This is not justice. We came together as societies not so we could all be wage slaves, but so that we could strive.
We have the technology to do that. To change the relation of humans to work and to earth.
youaretooFeb 12, 2011
We both know that Fox news viewers don't even know what being Marxist means. They just knows its not what the US is so it has to be bad.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Well, personally speaking ... I know what it means.
I also know that Marxists won't come out and say what they are.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
Second comment. You cant miss it.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
I know that YOU are a Marxist...you make no secret.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
Yeah, but you dont make it a secret you are an American conservative. In 1000 years it wont matters anyways. We are all just dust in the wind, to borrow from Kansas.
In the eternal eye of our lord, and Christ, you really think that the system you propound is better at filling the needs of humanity? Of the little brown eyed boys around the world, or girls with no father?
I really am curious and would like to have a conversation with you. Not hurl talking points at your feet.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
I believe a democratic republic is an excellent system.
usarugulaFeb 12, 2011
"Why won't the extra-terrestrials that live among us reveal themselves?!"
You need help.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
There's an admitted Marxist posting above you.
There is a Socialist Worker.org in the USA...Novenator has posted s**t from their site to Digg.
"You need help."
Not from you. You're just an insulting ant in the great order of the universe.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
Jesus was a Marxist.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
No, Jesus was not a Marxist.
I'm a Jesus-ist.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
Seriously Mz. Quirk, Jesus was as close to being a socialist-before-there-were-socialists as you can get.
He loved everyone, and made no distinction that a person deserved love only if he encouraged the growth of the "free market". I am just saying, I love you AND there are some things which I feel you are wrong on.
Maybe this wont have any effect. So be it. I still see how bright your lamp of faith is. I see you.
EDIT: Im a little inebriated and wanted to say that I think you rock. You are a rational minded centrist in a conservative land of hyper-bolic males.
abram730Feb 12, 2011
The us Military is socialist.. Lets get rid of some of that socialism.. Are you with me quirk?
Communists love the color red.
U.S.S.R. flag = red
China's flag = red
republican's flag = red
See communists have red flags as do national socialists.
Republicans share quite a few things with communists other then the love for red, red armies, and hatred for democracy.
The republican party is a beachhead for communism and fascism in America.
Listen
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4339772229466283806#
That was Irving Kristol
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/politics/19kristol.html
One finds communism at the core of the republican party.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Abram ... that's insane.
laborer
Jesus is beyond politics.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
How can anything be beyond politics though? Politics are just the societal form of philosophy.
What economic form would Jesus Christ of Nazareth uphold? Certainly not todays system. Just search for 30 minutes on the collateral damage of just the 2 wars we are in now. Do you know what a bomb does to the skull of a 3 year old baby boy in Baghdad? The same thing it would do in the United States of America.
There is no difference. We must love our neighbor. (Just a question, do you really not care to discourse with me? I know Im high strung, but I usually up vote what you write. I so prefer you as the conservative figure head on Digg over davidmcniven or whatever his name is, or jterryohn. Though I do like j as well.)
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
"What economic form would Jesus Christ of Nazareth uphold?"
Capitalism.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
You really believe that Mz Quirk? Just asking.
And why?
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Socialism has a huge issue.
It takes from people to give to people using the power of the state.
I believe Jesus would approve of the stock market.
And if you try to insist that the USA should be socialist because of Jesus... I require that all the elected officials should be Christians.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
(I sent a reply to the post above yours. Sorry. Any chance youd respond to it? I blame it on the alcohol at any rate.)
laborerFeb 12, 2011
(in case you couldnt find the response. Or wouldnt bother. Whatever.)
I dont insist anything right now mi' lady. Im just taking what you have to say in. I may appear like an ideologue, but I really do take what people have to say into consideration. I was actually somewhat pro-fed government when I came on digg.
Now I see that small business and small socialism is the only way to go. I think you still need larger cooperation for endeavors like NASA, but I wouldnt support for a moment an internet kill even if the democratic left supported it.
What I see is that a lot of people on planet Earth are suffering. I mean, a ton. How can we help people who are in pain? I think this is the wish of Jesus. Of course I balance it with 'those who seek help should first help themselves', but even so the system allows for too much corruption at the top.
We just disagree on who the top are. The government, or the corporations who pay them off.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
"What I see is that a lot of people on planet Earth are suffering. I mean, a ton. How can we help people who are in pain?"
You can't do it COLLECTIVELY... you really can only do it individually.
This is the human condition and always HAS been. We, in the USA, have it much better than those in the slums of India...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
I dont insist anything right now mi' lady. Im just taking what you have to say in. I may appear like an ideologue, but I really do take what people have to say into consideration. I was actually somewhat pro-fed government when I came on digg.
Now I see that small business and small socialism is the only way to go. I think you still need larger cooperation for endeavors like NASA, but I wouldnt support for a moment an internet kill even if the democratic left supported it.
What I see is that a lot of people on planet Earth are suffering. I mean, a ton. How can we help people who are in pain? I think this is the wish of Jesus. Of course I balance it with 'those who seek help should first help themselves', but even so the system allows for too much corruption at the top.
We just disagree on who the top are. The government, or the corporations who pay them off.
adaguyFeb 12, 2011
'To accuse Americans who supported democracy in Egypt of being Marxist should show even the followers of Fox news that that network is absolutely insane'
You were expecting common sense?
JewstinFeb 13, 2011
I dont think common sense and fox news veiwers go hand in hand.
adaguyFeb 13, 2011
You picked right up on that, huh!
It will never cease to amazxe me at the number who think Faux is really accurate and unbiased.
JewstinFeb 13, 2011
I thnk it amazes me how quik most fox news veiwers are to try protect fox news's reputation. Im surpirsed that deep down inside they understand that its complete bulls**t.
adaguyFeb 13, 2011
True, It's merely an effort to defend their own voting practices.
Most of the voters are of the opinion that "my daddy wuz a republickin and his daddy wuz a republickin and that's why I'm a republickin'"
Or you could use the same phrase about party line dems.
JewstinFeb 13, 2011
yet they cant see, that the party they warship now is no longer like the party that existed 50 to 200 years ago.
cold0008Feb 13, 2011
adaguy is correct. Conservatism by nature relies on very simple ideals. Unfortunately they often fail to take into account how complex the world is, so you get these weird little disconnects. For example they believe in the power of freedom and democracy but they also understand that a stable middle east would benefit us and freedom and democracy might result in a less stable middle east. Fox News is one of the many solutions they have for this. Things like the abortion issue help with this as well. It allows them to say "Abortion is the greatest evil in our society, so I can let the poor starve and still be a good person if I oppose abortion."
eraptorFeb 13, 2011
Personally, I think Fox "trolls" the real news to prop up their ratings. It's not as though they get those ratings based upon the "quality" of their media content. As Rupert Murdoch admitted (on a hot mic), they're simply "pandering to morons".
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Uhhhh....Knock, Knock. At no time was Scheuer identified as being a "FOX News Contributor".
He is however, an analyst, historian and intelligence operative of some note and his credentials quite possibly make his assessment of the situation a trifle more knowledgeable and credible than those coming from Politicus. In short, the man SHOULD know what he's talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_ScheuerComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 11, 2011
Michael Scheuer is a frequent guest on Fox News channel. He's been on several times over the past few years to give his perspective on events.
I worked for a TV station for two years. Whenever you have a persistent go-to for analysis of something, you consider them a contributor.
Is the man knowledgeable? No doubt, there's a reason they keep calling him.
Too bad for such a smart guy he doesn't know what 'Marxism' means in relation to the American people.
jdenzerFeb 11, 2011
If not a contributer then why would Fox want a guy on their trusted News network to say things like:
Hoping for another terrorists attack.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-scheuer-fox-americas-only-ho
Or suggest Obama is a terrorists.
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/12/02/on_oreilly_michael_scheuer_suggests_president_obama_is_a_traitor_re_wikileaks.php
davidnivenFeb 11, 2011
Oh, I don't know...maybe to get ALL sides of an issue?!? [sigh]
jdenzerFeb 12, 2011
And then conveniently remain silent. Funny when a liberal says something like that, O'Reilly has no problem getting in their face and cutting off their mic.
I wonder if you will have the same attitude, when a contributor on MSNBC says something similar. My guess is no.
[sigh]
xtomtomxFeb 12, 2011
"O'Reilly has no problem getting in their face and cutting off their mic."
Ohhhh...And you LOVE him for that, DON'T YOU..OHHH...So powerful, that Bill O'reilly..so FIRM in his conviction..what a MAN's MAN he is..SO IN YOUR FACE..SO STEADFAST..SO..so..."MARXIST" in his power to sway you to his side..why..if he were to enter into your bedroom with lush hair billowing in the moonlight breeze, it's enough to make you swoon, isn't it..Once you've had Republican..you never go back, baby.
/sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerFeb 12, 2011
Actually more like a coward. He can yell and cut off mics of liberals, especially woman. But won't stand up to some bearded man who was a former CIA Counter Terrorist Specialist.
And just a tip, you don't have to put /s, b/c your sarcasm was quite obvious.
adaguyFeb 14, 2011
Did you know that it's a scientific fact that most hard line republickins have sex with their clothes on? The man even stops and straightens his necktie during intercourse. (that's what my girlfriend said)
jdenzerFeb 12, 2011
Calling the American people Marxists, b/c they support freedom for the Egyptian people. What the hell side is that? And what side are you on? My guess is the calling American people Marxists for supporting freedom.
What's next , get the side of the Big Foot and Loch Ness monster believers? Maybe Fox can interview a parrot next?
michrechFeb 12, 2011
It could be argued that Fox "News" already "interviews" parrots.
Palin
Rove
Cheny
Bachmann
Gingrich
Coulter
Really, I could keep going, but I think doing so would just pile the bull-s**t above my head, and I rather like breathing.
stubearFeb 12, 2011
Insanity and bulls**t are not sides to any issue. Facts are the basis of a side to an issue and Fox News is short on facts.
theswashbucklerFeb 11, 2011
He should, but he doesn't. Keep in mind it was the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld that got us into the fiasco known as Iraq. They SHOULD have known better, but were blinded by ideology. Scheuer is no different.
xtomtomxFeb 12, 2011
"They SHOULD have known better, but were blinded by ideology"
They DID know better, but were blinded by money.
Pdub_killaFeb 13, 2011
True dat
d4nie1Feb 11, 2011
The Egyptian people have the right to choose their government, even if they choose a theocratic one that we don't like. The important thing is that it is a government of the people's choosing.
The idea that the US should be trying to keep a dictator in power against the will of the country's people just because that dictator is friendly to the US is absurd. It's amazing to me that a politician as prominent as Gingrich would suggest it.
Even if Obama had wanted to somehow try to keep Mubarack in power, it's completely obvious that would have been impossible. As it is I am very glad he did not try to meddle and simply stated he supports the Egyptian people's wishes for democracy. To criticize him for that just validates that some right wingers will automatically slam the president for absolutely anything simply because he is a Democrat.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
When did Gingrich say we should be trying to keep Mubarak in power?
souldad57Feb 12, 2011
Well... What then was Gingrich implying when he said that Obama handled this situation incompetently like Carter did with Iran? What could Obama (or Carter) done differently? Only one thing; support Mubarak (and the Shah) and stop the Egyptian (and Iranian) people's move to self-determination.
Why? Because the dictators may have been bastards, but they were *our* bastards.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
I'm sorry ... you fail. Gingrich did NOT say we should be trying to keep Mubarak in power.
IMO what happens now is MORE important. I believe Obama needs to reach out and offer Egypt help in the form of advisors that can help them form a government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
souldad57Feb 12, 2011
I fail? I asked you to clarify you though Gingrich was implying and you did not.
Michael Scheuer certainly thought that Gingrich was implying that Mubarak should stay, read the transcript.
The logic is simple really:
1) According to Scheuer, the most desirable outcome is to have Mubarak remain in power. He prefaced that by saying that he agreed with Gingrich. So he certainly thought that was what Gingrich was saying.
2) Obama handled the situation incompetently, again according to Gingrich and Scheuer.
3) To be competent is to help affect a desirable outcome.
Therefore if Obama were competent he would have handled the situation in a way that kept Mubarak in power.
So I'll ask it again, what did Gingrich mean? If you don't have an answer, don't waste the bandwidth and time to reply.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
You pretend to be psychic. By saying Obama has mishandled this Gingrich DID NOT SAY that Mubarak should remain in power.
You asserted something that is not true.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Pdub_killaFeb 13, 2011
I'm going to follow you so I can read your insane posts.
agmlauncherFeb 11, 2011
"The Egyptian people have the right to choose their government, even if they choose a theocratic one that we don't like"
Then we have the right to bomb the s**t out of them when they start pumping out radical terrorists as a result.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
qntmdnmcsFeb 11, 2011
Like Saudi Arabia? Oh wait. Where exactly did the 9/11 bombers hail from?
bugsy187Feb 11, 2011
We have the right to defend ourselves from a threat, yes. We DON'T have a right to pretend that some small, 2nd world country is a threat, invade, install a puppet dictator that bends over to whatever US companies want while dicking over the native population.... It tends to piss the natives off. It's a vicious cycle. The natives start criticizing US support for the dictator and then Fox News criticizes them for "hating freedom". Then, uninformed (or dumb) people in America say "Bomb 'em! They hate freedom! Terrorists! Why do they hate us? We do so much good in the world!" You see YOU may want good things for other people, but your politicians are crooks. They lie to you... or have Fox News do the lying. Figure it out.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
bugsy187 you're assuming that Americans generally give a s**t. They don't. As long as gas is cheap and they feel "safe" many Americans just don't seem to care. I think many events of the last 10 years are revealing Americans to be very boneheaded, short sighted people.
pinskiaFeb 11, 2011
This is what happened in Iran. We were proping up a dictator after he gained power with a coup against a democratic elected government. Oh I guess the right wing wants people friendly to us even if it means no democratic elected government; hint Palestine too.
cosmicsurferFeb 12, 2011
Actually, in Iran, we were the coup immediately after the Iranians elected their government. We didn't like who they picked and didn't even give them a chance
bille3Feb 12, 2011
Obama did not want Mubarack to stay in power. He is encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood to take control of Egypt. He is not defending the rights of the Copic Christians to have a say in the formation of a new government, only the Muslim Brotherhood. Both groups represent about 20% of Egyptian population. He should have been defending the rights of all of the people to have a say in their future. Up to now he has not.
From his actions it appears that Obama only supports a secular fundamentalist Muslim take over of Egypt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferFeb 12, 2011
And your "proof" that he is encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood? Were you there?
monkeywithgunFeb 12, 2011
"He is not defending the rights of the Copic Christians to have a say in the formation of a new government, only the Muslim Brotherhood."
Credible citation needed
Here's what the white house did say about them
"The organization must reject violence and recognize democratic goals if the U.S. is to be comfortable with it taking part in the government, the White House said. "
and today
Obama did not mention the Brotherhood Friday but said the transition "must bring all of Egypt's voices to the table."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/11/obama-address-mubarak-decision/
fragmaster01Feb 11, 2011
Now how long will it take for a mashup video showing how many times Fox spoke the opposite opinion regarding democracy in Iraq? In other news, that's entirely not what Marxism is about, though it's not like using such words to scare people who don't know better is anything new on cable news.
rgb86Feb 11, 2011
Such things can take quite a bit of time, mainly owing to the great number of times Fox makes those claims (assuming you want to show all of them).
fragmaster01Feb 11, 2011
Oh goodness no, people's attention spans aren't that long(as evidenced by behavior such as this). If you tried to show all of them, viewers would fall asleep before you got very far.
I'm just mainly confused by their behavior. Given how much they touted the 'force democracy on them' angle back in 2001-2003, you'd think they could show a little consistency. It's not like there aren't people at Fox who were working with Fox back then.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rgb86Feb 11, 2011
Well, that's why you have to try to cut out as much of the slow BS out of the clips as possible, as demonstrated by the O'Reilly montage that was on Digg yesterday.
http://digg.com/news/politics/fox_never_said_that
These edits aren't meant for deception, but rather just an attempt to keep the clip length down, in spite of the dozens of examples shown.
Also note that in this case, just as with Megyn Kelly a few weeks ago, Fox shows that they have absolutely zero memory when it comes to things said and done on their own network, despite the involvement of "researchers" and testimonials from the hosts themselves to the contrary.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
It's a former CIA Counterterrorism agent who said that. Not "Fox News Calls..." a commentator made the statement.
Egypt isn't necessarily going to get a democracy. You know this, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesFeb 11, 2011
Agreed, they trumped this up.
One can argue he gets called for having a particular viewpoint, blah blah, but FNC didn't say it, their guest did.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Also, you can contact the Socialist Workers about this. They really ARE all excited about what's happening there and some hope that Americans will take to the streets.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerFeb 11, 2011
We should.
We should demand an end to lobbyist dollars in politics
We should demand an end to outsourcing
We should demand an end to the war
We should demand transparency
God Bless America.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Oh simmer down. You people are ridiculous.
laborerFeb 11, 2011
Love you too, my fellow American and follower of Christ.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
You think you want a revolution?
Do you know what that would mean? Thank your lucky stars you live in a country that allows you a vote.
laborerFeb 12, 2011
No, I want a clean up of what is wrong with this system. Thats corporate corruption spreading to government, our pointless wars, supporting of dictatorships, and our lack of transparency.
jdenzerFeb 12, 2011
What do you mean 'You people'? Sounds racist to me?
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
jdenz -
No, there's nothing remotely racist about it, though I understand that you and the Digg leftists are desperately trying to paint me as a racist.
To those with a brain, it's clear that I am talking about the Socialist Workers and the would-be revolutionaries.
You people are pathetic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
souldad57Feb 12, 2011
"You People"? What people?
In what way are these people ridiculous? Your'e not say much here.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
For f**k's sake ... how much clearer can it be.
I'm talking about the socialists/progressives who think we need a melonfarming revolution in the USA.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferFeb 12, 2011
Love your definition of "ridiculous".
Quirkette, why do you hate America?
jdenzerFeb 12, 2011
"To those with a brain, it's clear that I am talking about the Socialist Workers and the would-be revolutionaries."
You mean those non-whites? or Che Guevara revolutionaries? Yep 'you people' still sounds racists, LOL
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Cosmic - I LOVE America. You are the one with your head up the poopy underbottom of every issue claiming that this nation needs to be fundamentally transformed.
How your inflated head fits up the poopy underbottom, I really don't know.
"You mean those non-whites? or Che Guevara revolutionaries? Yep 'you people' still sounds racists, LOL"
You understand that no matter how hard you bury...there are people who can read my comments in the order I made them on this thread and figure out that you're just another hateful lying leftist? Yes?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
moktailFeb 12, 2011
@quirkopatra
Laborer wrote:
"We should demand an end to lobbyist dollars in politics
We should demand an end to outsourcing
We should demand an end to the war
We should demand transparency"
What part of this do you disagree with with? Do you consider some of these demands ridiculous?
jdenzerFeb 11, 2011
If not a contributor then why would Fox want a guy on their trusted News network to say things like:
Hoping for another terrorists attack.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-scheuer-fox-americas-only-ho
Or suggest Obama is a terrorists.
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/12/02/on_oreilly_michael_scheuer_suggests_president_obama_is_a_traitor_re_wikileaks.php
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
Because he's a CIA counter-terrorism expert?
theswashbucklerFeb 11, 2011
Not anymore...
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
So? Should you never interview a retired doctor about health matters.
jdenzerFeb 12, 2011
So why not challenge him on it? It has never stopped Fox before. Allowing him to say what he says and then remain silent is almost as bad as saying it yourself. O'Reilly doesn't have a problem getting in a liberals face when they say something 'Anti-American'. Would you give the same pass to a MSNBC or CNN if a contributor made some Anti-American statement? No, you would be outraged and screaming foul from the MSN.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
You sound angry and possibly racist.
jdenzerFeb 12, 2011
Yeah Ok, CFTC, quirk.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Look. I can't help you. I really don't think any of your buddies can help you.
There's a certain paranoia you have. And coupled with a COMPLETE lack of integrity and any semblance of rational thought...
I'm just saying. You seem to do nothing but ad hominem. You should try honest debate and maybe THINK for yourself and not follow your hive.
It would be liberating for you.
And then you'll throw off your anti-fellow-American, onlyleftist, racist tendencies and you'll feel great about yourself.
I promise.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JewstinFeb 12, 2011
its funny how your giving someone advice about not following their pack, when you yourself follow your own righty pack very closely and rarely break away from their beliefs.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Jewstin - you are a baby here.
There's a history. I'm being called a racist above.
Also .... you don't have room to talk.
JewstinFeb 13, 2011
and neither do you, when have you ever tried to break away from party lines, to try find common ground or some truth outside of your own comfort zone?
agmlauncherFeb 11, 2011
"Not "Fox News Calls..." a commentator made the statement."
Kind of like how Bill used a user comment as if it was something the Huffington Post wrote?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-27-2011/bill-o-reilly-defends-his-nazi-analogiesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitFeb 11, 2011
No. Fox chose to have him on. The Huffington post didn't choose to have that commenter.
agmlauncherFeb 11, 2011
You've missed the comparison.
1. The title of this story accuses Fox News of saying something a commentator actually said.
2. Bill (a Fox News employee, and one of the networks' highest rated personalities) did the same thing to the Huffington Post.
Fair is fair. If Bill can use reader comments against a network, then we can use outside commentary against Fox.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
4bitFeb 12, 2011
Um. I'm actually agreeing with you by saying that Fox had more control over their commentor than Huffington did.
youareretardedFeb 12, 2011
You can't point out hypocrisy to a hypocrite.
grammerpantsFeb 11, 2011
I love how many people see what happen in Egypt as a win for Democracy. What has changed? Sure the leader is gone, but the military still runs the show, and has since 1952. Nothing has changed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bdbrFeb 11, 2011
A president and vice president have resigned, and you honestly think nothing has changed?
It's not a complete win, because it's not a done deal yet. Everyone knows that. It depends on the good faith of the military to let the election process proceed. So far their statement has been, "we are not a substitute for the legitimacy of the people", which is a good sign.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2011
It really IS too soon to call it a win for democracy. They have had a relatively peaceful revolution ... no doubt. But many modern revolutions resulted in increased power of the state.
I hope Obama is reaching out to them to offer advisors to help them transition.
Iran had a revolution, too ... and it didn't turn out well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grammerpantsFeb 11, 2011
The Country isn't run by the President and Vice President, it's run by the Military the same military that has been running things for 60 years, still loyal to the over all regime. So no nothing has really changed.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
The military did not fire on the civilians.
grammerpantsFeb 12, 2011
Of course it didn't it wants to stay in power. Toss the "leader" out come out squeaky clean. A year later business as usual.
bille3Feb 12, 2011
Hamas was put into controlling power of Gaza by vote.
The Muslim Brotherhood expect to do the same in Egypt and then Jordan.
bille3Feb 12, 2011
How is this a win for democracy when the only group at the table is the Muslim Brotherhood?
bvd503Feb 11, 2011
Tune out the propaganda of Fox.
llamabaFeb 11, 2011
What they need to remember is that America is a country built on revolution and democracy (before Karl Marx was even born.)
Every patriotic American should be watching Egypt with a lump of pride in their throat.
*sheds tear*
*gets off soapbox*
frombeyondFeb 11, 2011
America isn't a democracy, its a republic. Minority rights are protected by the Constitution no matte what the mob wants.
Ill get a lump in my throat when I see their Constitution protects peoples rights and separates mosque from state.
llamabaFeb 11, 2011
Yes, you could get nit-picky, but I still consider a representative democracy a democracy.
As for a secular government, I'd like to see that too, but it's not my country.
You make one good point though; even here, minority rights weren't always protected by the constitution. In fact, it took us a while to get it right.
Mostly.
bille3Feb 12, 2011
The people have driven Mubarack from office without offering up a favored leadership. This is leaving a massive void that will be filled by the next oppressive despot. Changing dictatorships is not going to benefit the people of Egypt in any way whatsoever. It could well become even worse. As of now there is disparity in representation of the demographics of Egypt at the negotiations table with the Muslim Brotherhood taking the lead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferFeb 12, 2011
Unlike the jaded commentary here looking into their cracked and clouded crystal ball, predicting the demise of all that is holy out of their unreasonable fear and delusion, I'm with you,llamaba.
I am so proud that people proved today, again, what I have always known...the people, when standing together, can topple empires without firing a shot...through peace, song and commitment
TheHorsesMouth Feb 11, 2011
How can they [Fox] suppose that people in support of free speech and do not support for Mubarak and the National "Democratic" Party's 30 year regime in Egypt? For true democracy to result there must be a peaceful and orderly transition of power — not to a military regime. And.... I really don't think it helps that the U.S. funds 25% of their military through our annual aid programs. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/us-egypt-usa-aid-idUSTRE70S0IN20110129
I think that if America wants to protect its 'interests' they need NOT write a check and turn their back, but rather turn that aid into another form of capital: educational, shelter, food, etc.
Protect the people, not the government
skews13Feb 11, 2011
That's funny, when W. was in office i believe this same asswipe was waxing about how great his view of democracy was for Iraq. f**king hypocrite, he must have missed how the Egyptian Army didn't stand in the way of the revolution. I wonder what this nitwits opinion would be if the American people started just such a revolution. Would that mean if the revolution was repelled violently by our armed forces and police, that means a Muslim country is more democratic than we are? f**k people like him, he's nothing but another corporate whore shill town crier like all the rest of them are.
mtnmusicmanFeb 12, 2011
They keep getting worse the more they realize they might lose their ass in 2012. Keep up with the buls**t fox, Glenn Beck Rush and all you other idiots, oh and I would like to mention calgaryjay to that. He likes calling Democrats cowards, I would like to know if he served in the military? Jay, your a punk.
kalvinbFeb 11, 2011
I think he was trying to say that Americans are trying to force democracy on everyone in the way that communism / socialism force state values on everyone.
To some people, forcing "Freedom" on them is like forcing your religion on them. Some people actually like dictators, communism, socialism, etc. That's why those systems get support. "non-free" systems work great for people who like power or like to be taken care of by the government. There are a lot of people in the world like that.
Another way to put it: getting Democracy into Egypt may be as difficult as taking away Social Security in the US.
Also, he's just a contributor, he doesn't represent Fox News.
skinturtleFeb 12, 2011
I don't care what he was trying to say...but he sounded pretty self serving with his ..."it's going to hurt American security and interests." garbage.
What is it with these people? All they seem to care about is their own needs.
laborerFeb 11, 2011
Groucho? Ah.. damn its just Karl. Hes the least funny of the Marx brothers.
crashsuitFeb 11, 2011
FOX News, you so damned crazy.
dannyspaceFeb 11, 2011
Finally!
http://postimage.org/image/1nj3db5ms/
skinturtleFeb 11, 2011
I'm not a fan of Islam...but when I heard this twit on the news say, basically If a Islamic regimes gets in power...it will hurt OUR national security.
Seriously what a selfish and douchebag thing to say. What about the national security of the people who live in Egypt. It just goes to show you the selfish and greedy nature of some of those old, grey haired Americans. In their opinion...the world can go to hell and long as going the hell keeps them afloat.
irukaFeb 11, 2011
Faux News, what a load of rubbish.
isenborgFeb 12, 2011
Pointing out the partial, undeniable marxist influence in this revolution is apparently heretical. Welcome to the new dark ages where people are afraid to think, observe and comment. I really feel as though society is progressing <forehead slap>Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vitriolandangstFeb 12, 2011
If the people in Egypt CHOOSE to rule themselves -- that's Democracy baby!
But the terms of actual philosophy and government have been changed to protect the fascism.
Maybe one day we will overthrow corporate rule -- if Egypt can do it -- maybe there is hope!
isenborgFeb 12, 2011
Democracy and Sharia law. Don't let them touch for fear of that anti-matter explosion.
Welcome to the world stage Islamic Big Brotherhood.
vitriolandangstFeb 12, 2011
I was forced to watch Fox's coverage of the event at the Health Club -- and I was amazed that they seemed to be supporting "kicking the bastard out." I was really confused -- Fox only likes Democracy in the Middle East, when it's wrapped in military invasions and corporate pillaging goodness.
>> Thanks for restoring order to the Universe, Fox News comes out against Egyptians living in a Democracy, and anyone supporting that, is a commie bastard!
I thought I'd been transported to a sane dimension that I was totally unfamiliar with.
jarysmFeb 12, 2011
Leave it to Conservatives to define a foriegn situation only by how it detriments their political interests, sputter incredulpus name calling in reaction to altruism and sympathy to the plight of the actual partisipants.
Such people made their stance well known: they would strongly prefer that the Egyptians suffer a dictatorship, because American power is more important than Democracy, to them, Every time.
xtomtomxFeb 12, 2011
What I don't even...
"Marxist" is not any verb nor adverb that I am aware.
What..did they mean stauch? Stoic? steadfast? unshakable?
Bartender: What'll ya have?
Me: I'll have a Johnny Walker Black.
Bartender: You mean, a blended Scotch.
Me: No, I meant, a Johnny Walker Black. To me, there is no other blended Scotch.
Bartender: Whaddayou, some kind of Marxist?!!!
behavedaveFeb 12, 2011
So, democracy is only good if all the political choices are good for American interests. I'm not sure how wanting open democracy is inherently Marxist when Marxism is just one political choice.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Oh for f**ks sake. If our president was a Republican everyone would be up his ass talking about how amazing it is to spread democracy and would call it a victory.
Mubarak was corrupt. Life in Egypt has been difficult. My father, a conservative, is a retired military officer who has spent time in Egypt on more than one occasion, who is very happen Mubarak has stepped down. He used to tell me all the time how corrupt the police force was and how much poverty there was.
The people were tired of being kicked around and they stood up and fought for freedom and go it and now suddenly we're all socialists if we support that?
We're evil socialists because we support making America healthy by providing health care to everyone and for supporting the freedom of choice of government in Egypt? Are you f**king kidding me.
So that means those who call us Marxist support a dictator, right? I mean, if he stepped down and we're Marxists that means that if he stayed then you guys support a dictator. Awesome.
Cant have it both ways!
torisutanFeb 12, 2011
Am I the ONLY person who's going to point out that WE ALSO HAD NO EXPERIENCE WITH DEMOCRACY when we revolted against Great Britain?
So why the f**k is anyone, especially the un-American ****s at Fox, accusing the Egyptians of being "not ready" for Democracy when they have at least SEEN what a Democracy looks like (and I'm talking about modern England and France and Germany, not America, we're a full-on Corporate State now)? We had no idea how a Democracy should look, let alone work, and we did just fine (until Reagan, but whatever). So why so little faith in people that at least have the intelligence to revolt against unfair conditions? WE don't even have that anymore. Our government is trying to help protect us from Corporate control, and we're revolting against the wrong side!
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
You're so right, I've been saying this to everyone. America will be corporately owned soon unless this s**t comes to a stop. All these idiots asserting the virtues of the free market but without regulation, without a cop on the beat, big business will use any and all unethical practices to continue to shake the American people down. I can't believe people can be influenced to worry about whether the president is a muslim or how health care reform will result in a socialist dictatorship, but they don't worry when they are told about the catastrophic damage done to the country through big corporations skirting laws and regulations, cutting corners, exporting jobs and influencing government disproportionately.
The real problem is unrestrained capitalism. That is the problem. Here is a tip. If you are for de-regulation, YOU are the enemy. This isn't a "perspective" or "opinion" issue. De-regulation has and will always lead to massive corruption and unethical business practices. It is the nature of a business to use any and all means to increase profits and cut costs, no matter the price paid by the country or the people. If this is the natural state of a corporation (and it is) then there MUST be regulation. It may make things less stream lined, but all you have to do is look at how Canadian banks weathered the financial storm to see how regulation is worth the trivial drawbacks.
The only people who oppose regulation are big business owners who don't want loop holes closed, who don't want to pay their fair share, or consider American interests first. A corporation HAS no allegiance. A government does. You cannot vote a CEO out of power, but you can vote or protest a leader out of power.
Business is good. Unethical, unrestrained business is disasterous.
On fox business they had these slimy scum bags on for their "expertise" and this one fool was going on and on about how to ween ourselves off of energy from the middle east we should open up ALL restricted areas of the country for drilling. Open up all the national parks, open up ANWAR, etc. What kind of moronic thinking is this? Do you people on the right think that man is speaking for your best interests? Of course not! He wants to ravage the national parks for what? A few years worth of gas or oil? And then what? THEN f**kING WHAT? Where does this end? If we don't put money and focus on alternative energy sources now, then WHEN? "Oh, the technology isn't there yet, it isn't efficient enough" well shelfing the research and focus needed ISN'T GOING TO FIX ANYTHING. All new technologies require refining in the beginning.
People please, think long term. These business interests are out to get away with whatever they can. Don't let them. Don't let them scare you with economic threats. THEY ARE THE ENEMY. THEY MUST BE POLICED.
crymtyphonFeb 12, 2011
'Prestadigitation' is the show-magician's art of distracting with
one hand, - while doing something quick with the other.
The claim that Egyptian liberty is a threat to America? - is distraction.
The demand to prove to the satisfaction of conservatives,
that liberals are not marxists? - is distraction.
The fury of conservatives the last two years,
has been against an America daring to focus on its
own problems: Health care; jobs; financial reform; tax reform.
Those for whom it is strategic to see that America
continues to neglect itself?
- will continue to scream for America's attention
outside its borders.
We decline
oswegodemFeb 12, 2011
Fox News wil keep making stuff up as long as there are liberals in power and beyond. They are the propaganda machine for the rich and powerfull and they are very good at what they do. In a perfect world, Fox would have been called out on this by so many people in the media and politics. But now, when the so-called "liberal media" doesn't dare speak out against Fox, they can get away with it. They will continue to promote their ideas, project their morals and try to instill fear into enough Americans until no one dares to disagree.
jetsethiFeb 12, 2011
There are many who do call out Fox on their actions. However, there are so many people that watch, they've become the proverbial 800 Pound Gorilla of News.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
You will see that change. Fox news viewers consist mainly of people 50 and over. The baby boomers. Thankfully this large percentage of the population is coming to the end of their lives and their influence. I have been saying this and you will see, once the gen xers and ys begin to finally take power away from these wrinkly old out dated thinkers, you will see a new era. The new generations are more diverse, more educated and more worldly than any other in history, more so than our parents. These baby boomers are living longer than anyone else in history and as a result are holding on to the reins of power far longer than they should have been allowed. Someone who is 65 years old has no business in a position of power when ideas, technology, the world, has progressed so rapidly in the last 20 years. They are obsolete and so are their perspectives and ideas. It's time for the new minds to begin to shape the future.
Look at all the political upheval that has been taking place. It isn't even so much a right versus left as much as it is old versus modern. You will see. Marijuana will be legalized, military spending will be cut drastically, gay marriage will be legalized everywhere. The more educated a population becomes, the more liberal it becomes, the less religious, the fewer children they have, this is the trend you see in all other developed nations. America is the last horse to cross the finish line in this case, mainly due to the rich and powerful business interests in the country and the pervasivness of religion.
eventhorizon666Feb 12, 2011
Newt Gingrich it such a tool.
190273Feb 12, 2011
US is Marxist--that won't play in Peoria. Fox sounds crazier every day.
jeff704Feb 12, 2011
It's Fox - see above. You're a Marxist for believing in freedom. Yeah, that makes sense. I wonder if the anchors really believe the crap they're spewing or is just the paycheck?
jetsethiFeb 12, 2011
It's Fox News- Must not feed the troll! It's time to ignore them!
user500Feb 12, 2011
"Americans seem to be increasingly Marxist in their absolute faith in democracy for people who have never had any experience with the process.”
So using that logic invading Iraq was Marxist too....
... funnier yet is they were protesting a government not doing the will of the people so are the Republicans now afraid of being forced totally out of power?
ren1999Feb 12, 2011
The Women of Egypt want Democracy.
The Muslims of Egypt want Democracy.
The Poor Men of Egypt want Democracy.
When U.S. politicians and FOX call us Marxists for supporting Egyptians, what they are really saying is that they HATE DEMOCRACY!
ren1999Feb 12, 2011
Now that Egyptians are demanding their freedom, it is time for the U.S. to demand an end to the Corporate Lobby!
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
This is the war of our age. It is a war against the total corporate takeover of the United States. The right wants corporations and businesses to be able to do whatever they want, the want de-regulation so they can destroy the environment, ship jobs overseas and pay the American worker and increasingly paltry wage. This is the nature of business, to make a profit, to cut costs, no matter what. They say that making a profit isn't illegal, it isn't a bad thing. It isn't not in itself. But to allow businesses to conduct their affairs without a cop on duty is suicide. It is just such an incredibly bad idea. But you have all these people shouting for de-regulation, because they have been told it is the only way to rebuild the economy.
America is literally being dismantled by big business. America's economy is litterally being shipped to China. Hey that's the free market after all. The market is correcting itself. Jobs are going where there are no regulations, where workers are paid in rice.
This is their vision of America's future. Fox news works for big business, not for the people.
paultripFeb 12, 2011
"fox news" oxymoron
mikemcc67Feb 12, 2011
Really people...another article dedicated to Fox News bashing. It says more about the people who like to bash then it does about Fox News. This article and its source is predictable and repeatable. What is the point of the article? We shouldn't watch Fox news? Who cares. Can we DiGG something else for a change. Digg used to be pretty cool, now its the same old thing everyday. Top story in past 24 hrs on any given day will include articles on Fox News, Palin, Gingrich, Uncaring Republicans, Healthcare, Liberals, Conservatives. Getting boring. EVOLVE PEOPLE
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2011
Attacking Fox news, their influence, calling them out on their unethical, lying ways IS evolving. We're trying to caste off a propaganda station and replace it with actual objective reporting, you know, real news. To evolve would be to recognize that giving one's opinion of the news isn't reporting the news. The forces on the right want to back the corporate takeover of America. Big business is exploiting this recession to reduce wages, ship jobs overseas and drain the country dry.
Fox news is a significant part of the effort of large corporations. It is their mouth piece and from it spews lies 24/7, an unending tirade against everything liberal, democratic and mocks with contempt anything that does not fit their rigid ideology. They are trying to convince the American people that becoming a consuming slave is freedom. That what is standing in the way of economic progress is regulation, even though that is all the protects the common man from being utterly exploited by big business, acting without responsibility or ethics.
These are the most important issues of our time, this is our great war, it is a war against the corporate interests that would fleece us and the country of all it's wealth. Throwing their weight around. Hell, a corporation is considered a person now? What a stain on America's democracy, how could that have happend, do any of you realize the implications of that?
mikemcc67Feb 13, 2011
I am not a Fox news watcher. but very interested to hear all of the lies they spread. Everyone opines about these lies but never offers a list of ......say 5 of the top well documented lies,( not opinions on whether they reported on something that pissed everyone off, but reported it inaccurately ). I never see that. Doesn't mean its not out there, just don't see it much. Do you have a well documented list? Regulation...... Mind you it was one named Barny Frank in your congress who told a bunch of his colleagues on C-span in 2005 that the attempt to regulate Fannie and Freddie was not needed and was fueled by nothing more than conservatives keeping minorities and the poor from getting houses. I believe Mr Frank is what you refer to as a liberal, but poo-pooed the idea of regulation . Look what happened to you yanks and your housing market when Freddie and Fannie collapsed under "unregulated" corruption 3 years later, under Mr Franks watch. I am not arguing that you have many valid points, just throwing into sharp relief that you have a very narrow viewpoint with a lot of data out there to suggest the opposite of what you are saying concerning regulation.. By the way, a corporation has always been considered its own "entity". This is nothing new. Here in Australia its the same deal...every owner could die and the corporation lives on. Been like that since being "incorporated" has been around, people are just figuring it out. Lastly, you don't really have to provide that list I asked for about Fox News lies, like I said...I don't really care...just being rhetorical to make my point...details about accusations of lies are always better than vague claims of lies.
mikemcc67Feb 13, 2011
I am not a Fox news watcher. but very interested to hear all of the lies they spread. Everyone opines about these lies but never offers a list of ......say 5 of the top well documented lies,( not opinions on whether they reported on something that pissed everyone off, but reported it inaccurately ). I never see that. Doesn't mean its not out there, just don't see it much. Do you have a well documented list? Regulation...... Mind you it was one named Barny Frank in your congress who told a bunch of his colleagues on C-span in 2005 that the attempt to regulate Fannie and Freddie was not needed and was fueled by nothing more than conservatives keeping minorities and the poor from getting houses. I believe Mr Frank is what you refer to as a liberal, but poo-pooed the idea of regulation . Look what happened to you yanks and your housing market when Freddie and Fannie collapsed under "unregulated" corruption 3 years later, under Mr Franks watch. I am not arguing that you have many valid points, just throwing into sharp relief that you have a very narrow viewpoint with a lot of data out there to suggest the opposite of what you are saying concerning regulation.. By the way, a corporation has always been considered its own "entity". This is nothing new. Here in Australia its the same deal...every owner could die and the corporation lives on. Been like that since being "incorporated" has been around, people are just figuring it out. Lastly, you don't really have to provide that list I asked for about Fox News lies, like I said...I don't really care...just being rhetorical to make my point...details about accusations of lies are always better than vague claims of lies.
Pdub_killaFeb 13, 2011
This is absolutely insane, remember the Republicans said we where bringing democracy to Iraq and the middle east, now countries are doing it themselves and they cry foul! Obviously they do not truly believe in Democracy or Freedom.
PicknickAttackFeb 14, 2011
"Democracy is the road to socialism" Karl Marx.