What is Digg?57 Comments
- diggerydood, on 11/20/2007, -4/+37It's time to have Fox's broadcast license revoked.
- inactive, on 11/20/2007, -3/+20Papa sociopath at our displeasure.
- Frei, on 11/20/2007, -7/+23#1 Is simply a lie. No WMD agents of any type were found.
#2 Why did they say, "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here?"
#3 LOL YOU FORGOT POLAND.
In short, you're completely full of *****. - chkdg8, on 11/20/2007, -0/+8This is straight out of the pentagon's psychological warfare program. Very slick. Get them while they're young right?
- JoeVet, on 11/20/2007, -2/+9"The US has found massive amounts of chemical weapons since the war started (if this is news to you... google that too)." He clearly stated that WMD's were found. Its a lie but then he obviously doesn't care about the truth if he's defending Fauxnews.
- JoeVet, on 11/20/2007, -2/+8Fauxnews is the only program that I've ever seen on any DOD TV set and I've seen a bunch. I believe its part of the indoctrination. Fauxnews waves the American flag while calling for war. That's the same kind of propaganda the army uses to get young soldiers to kill. Its a match made in ......
- ZenMojo, on 11/20/2007, -1/+7Partial transcript from Lesson 1:
"The media and the military will from here on out be selfless pawns for the political establishment in carrying out its greed and megalomania. The media will, of course, benefit from this with increased revenue while the military, naturally, will benefit from this with increased loss of life and decreased support programs once you are no longer useful. The media will disguise all attacks from foreigners on President Bush as attacks against the United States, since the only voices ever heard are the media and the only force ever felt is the military regardless of the only interests upheld being those of the President."
"Excuse me, Mr. Ailes?"
"What is it, Cadet?"
"Why are you such a ***** douchebag?" - heartcoldfusion, on 11/20/2007, -3/+8Whoa, slow down there, cowboy. There's this amendment, you may have heard of it, it's kind of important, as it's the first one, but I can't seem to recall what it says, something about free something or-other. Free speech, that's what it is, you're allowed to say whatever you want, no matter how stupid, ignorant, offensive or wrong it is. Even though all of these apply to Fox News, you can't stop them from saying what they want to say just because you dislike it.
- Frei, on 11/20/2007, -1/+5It's not well written and it's based on lies not facts, anyone with a ***** brain should realize this.
- Frei, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4I think you need to read it again. He said they were found several times in #1. What the ***** is going on here.
- FredFredrickson, on 11/20/2007, -0/+4Let's just hope all the cadets there are smart enough to see past all the baloney he tries to feed them tonight.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 11/20/2007, -1/+4Many different people with different political views have spoken at West Point.
Noam Chomsky at West Point
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=7022 ... - petewiz, on 11/20/2007, -0/+3No you fool, he's a Republican! That's what he'd want you to do!
- neotrantor, on 11/20/2007, -2/+5***** this guy, right in the ass
- HanSolo69, on 11/20/2007, -1/+3Maybe if you post your comment one more time in a slightly different way someone might actually pay attention. Not likely though.
- Timetheos, on 11/20/2007, -3/+51) Public airwaves are owned by the public. Thus, Fox has to serve the public in order to have its license.
2) To Fox is a corporation, primarily owned and managed by foreign interests. Why should it have constitutional rights like an individual has? - TheLoneHoot, on 11/20/2007, -0/+2pretty sure it was sarcasam, poking fun at the fact that so many loyal Fox News viewers seem to believe in so-called "Jack Bauer Justice".
- Ribald_Jester, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2He's just there to teach the young cadet's that it is in fact A-OK to torture someone. As long as they are an evil Aye-Rab!
- Timetheos, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2Fox News-Corporation is an oxymoron.
- Frei, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1#1 No, there is no loose definition, we did not ***** find any and you need to stop lying. IED are not by any stretch of the imagination WMD's. No nerve gas was found in Iraq, it was all destoyed during the 1990's, why are you making this ***** up? Again, stop ***** lying.
#2 Again, Al-qaeda in not Iraq and Saddam had ***** all to do with them.
#3 Please pull your head out of your ass..
If you wan to engage in intelligent conversation stop lying. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's about facts and you don't have any. - Frei, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313
In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
This is common knowledge, why you're trying to lie and say otherwise is ridiculous and insulting. - Frei, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1#1 You posted outdated links to sources that say they fight have found things when follow up stories showed they didn't. You apparently didn't even bother reading the others because just as it has been reported for the past few years, only old shells were found near the border with Iran that had in active trace amounts of these agents left over from the Iran Iraq war, what cave have you been living in to miss this? You are the only person in the world still saying they had WMD's, not even the CIA and the Bush administration say that. Here are some more current report with less guessing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_m ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm
STOP LYING.
#2 "Forget I even mentioned Al-qaeda all together" It doesn't work like that. I can;t believe how far you're taking this you actually have the balls to lie and say Islamic militants controlled most of Iraq in 2003, excuse me but that is just ANOTHER blatant lie.
# Your idea of international support is laughable and completely disingenuous. No one defines WMD and differently, you're just a liar. - mikesherov, on 11/20/2007, -1/+2Actually, no. See there is this body called the FCC. And if they can fine you and revoke licenses for exposed nipples, they can fine you and revoke licenses for anything deemed indecent.
I mean, I obviously don't agree that Fox News should have it's license revoked. I just mean to correct you that freedom of speech doesn't protect hate speech, offensive material, or "shouting Fire in a theater" on PUBLIC airwaves. - Frei, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Now you're just making stuff up to support your lies. Wow...
- martinjd, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I gave you 7 sources earlier defending the finding of nerve gas. The bottom line is that if it was there in '04, and the CIA said they couldn't find it in '05 - it had to go somewhere. Where that is can only be speculated... but I don't think the CIA is lying, and I don't think that it *poof* disappeared. There's not a whole lot of other options than them hiding it.
- inactive, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1You know who's a real hero? Hiro from Heroes, that's a hero.
Also Bono. - obliviousfool, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1This is what I find disturbing about this. It's not a freedom of speech issue! Who cares? Let him say what he wants. What I find disturbing is the idea that this huge media outlet and this center of military thinking want to be best friends. That is creepy and disturbing.
- TheLoneHoot, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1"I don't even know who this guy is, but this article is the most ridiculously slanted thing I've ever read."
You need to read some of the hyperslanted drivel in his other gem, the NY Post. - andrew1193, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1"Yes, it does. Government is the one that allows corporations to exist in the first place. You have to APPLY to incorporate from a STATE government in the USA."
If there was no government, it would still be possible to form corporations and limit liability legally (through private law and private agreements), geographically, technologically, or with a combination of those three.
"Owners are not liable for crimes committed using the property "
"Perhaps you need to get up to speed with the law. For example, if you take a boat out on the sea, and the coast guard finds banned material put on their THAT YOU DID NOT PLACE THERE (cousin freddy did), the boat may be seized and you might not be able to get it back. You might even get hit with possession even if you had no knowledge of it because you are responsible for what is in your vehicle."
Under any just code of law, owners are not liable for crimes committed using their property. (In the context of the United States Government, such penalties are unconstitutional.)
"Wait a minute there. I didn't say that NO organizations have rights of the individuals that contain them, just corporations."
So, "freedom for me, but not for thee"?
There is no difference between a corporation and any other organization
"Arbitrary associations of people are a right, but they aren't corporations either. Furthermore, I'm not saying that the individuals that own the corporation do not individually have free speech, just the corporation itself."
If you supported free speech, you would support the right of people to say things on behalf of the corporation. - fleischner, on 11/20/2007, -2/+3Jack Bauer, the imaginary TV character that doesn't actually exist? Or Kiefer Sutherland, the actor who was busted with a DUI? Just wondering whom your heroes are.
- TheLoneHoot, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1Not even with your dick -
maybe with a cactus though -
sideways -
and on fire. - BlacklabelSAR, on 11/20/2007, -2/+3Horrible "article". I guess this is why I have been an Independent for 20 years. I won't cheer for "my team, right or wrong". Read any of my previous comments and you'll see that I am no supporter of Bush or the war. Actually I'd like to see the Bush Administration tried and executed for war crimes. Clear enough? Good. But I will not support articles like this that speculate on what might be said. It's not worth anyone's time to read, and hurts the cause it intends to help.
Most Americans are inherently moderate and want to live in a free society. The US population has been dumbed down and manipulated to the point where most don't even know what our Founding Fathers intended for us. We all need to critically think, in order to discern accurate information from propaganda of any sort.
From Wiki:
Critical thinking consists of mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation. It includes all possible processes of reflecting upon a tangible or intangible item in order to form a solid judgment that reconciles scientific evidence with common sense.
Critical thinkers gather information from all senses, verbal and/or written expressions, reflection, observation, experience and reasoning. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual criteria that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance and fairness. - TheLoneHoot, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1Your point is fair enough, but I think the outcry stems from the fact that Mr. Ailes' network is the defacto mouthpiece of the current administration, comprised of so many who never served who sent so many to serve and die -- all based on lies.
- inactive, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2Jack Bauer has more cred then this guy.
- andrew1193, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1"You are wrong. Corporations are merely a synthetic/artificial entity. They have rights that individuals don't have, such as limited liability."
Any individual can create a corporation, and enjoy the benefits of limited liability, which does not depend on the government to enforce.
"If we were to argue as you do, then we should say that shareholders are responsible for the actions of the corporation, thus making them subject to any criminal actions the corporation has taken. Imagine people going to jail for investing their 401k in the "wrong" company..."
Owners are not liable for crimes committed using the property they own if the crime was committed by someone else.
"Corporations were created solely as money making entities, and to sheild their owners from legal liability. So no, organization do not (or should not) have the rights of their individual members."
In that case, organizations like the ACLU and Daily KOS would have no rights to free speech or assembly. - kungfoolou, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1The first amendment does not cover fraud or causing public alarm, like yelling "FIRE" in a movie theater. In case you forgot that part of your primary education.
- Pplus, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1That's a little something we like to call, Digg's comment system sucks.
But hey, way to troll all over the comments never making one valid point concerning the article. Then again, your f'ing name is HanSolo69. Suck my balls Han... - ChuckIT, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2yeah i realize it's based off of lies, like i said, if you had a brain you would read my response over again, "not saying i support this guys idea"
- ChaosMotor, on 11/20/2007, -2/+2While I agree that Fox News should not be allowed to call itself News, as that misconstrues its nature, try "Fox Propaganda",
1) Cable is not public airways. People are exposed to cable programming by choice, and they pay for it.
2) Corporations are considered individuals under US law. They have the same rights as individuals.
Now if you want real solutions on getting Fox out of the lie business, we can -
1) Remove personhood for businesses and establish a business entity. Personhood was only granted because corporations were a new concept and didn't have appropriate legal structures. We now have enough experience with corporate behavior to recognize they are not persons, but require a different entity designation. We can recognize necessary functions of incorporation without assigning them human rights.
2) Legally establish that corporate entities (once separated from personhood and human entities) have no legal grounds, justification, or acceptable excuse for lying. Lying by corporations should never be acceptable, not ever, for any reason, ever. - Timetheos, on 11/20/2007, -1/+1" which does not depend on the government to enforce."
Yes, it does. Government is the one that allows corporations to exist in the first place. You have to APPLY to incorporate from a STATE government in the USA.
"Owners are not liable for crimes committed using the property "
Perhaps you need to get up to speed with the law. For example, if you take a boat out on the sea, and the coast guard finds banned material put on their THAT YOU DID NOT PLACE THERE (cousin freddy did), the boat may be seized and you might not be able to get it back. You might even get hit with possession even if you had no knowledge of it because you are responsible for what is in your vehicle.
"In that case, organizations like the ACLU and Daily KOS would have no rights to free speech or assembly."
Wait a minute there. I didn't say that NO organizations have rights of the individuals that contain them, just corporations. Arbitrary associations of people are a right, but they aren't corporations either. Furthermore, I'm not saying that the individuals that own the corporation do not individually have free speech, just the corporation itself. - martinjd, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Frei:
#1: Whether or not WMD were found in Iraq depends on how you define a WMD... right? I mean if we defined a WMD as any IED, then we would say yes, whereas if we defined it as nukes only, we would say no. In an attempt to bring some objectivity into the discussion (which apparently causes you to recoil like a cat from water), I defined WMD by an outside party (a.k.a wikipedia).
If you are going to tell me that no WMD were found, then please define what you're talking about. Massive amounts of mustard and sarin nerve gas (along with a host of other chemical weapons) were found in Iraq. These weapons qualify for both the US Civil Defense's and the US Military's definitions of WMD (and, incidentally, wikipedia's).
#2: Because al-qaeda has been responsible for several attacks against the US abroad, and have threatened an attack on US soil even since the Clinton years
#3: Did you mean to say "LOL YOU FORGOT ABOUT POLAND........... AND the UK, and Japan, and Albania, and South Korea, and Australia, and Romania, and Bulgaria, and Latvia, and Macedonia, and Estonia, and Lithuania, and Armenia, and New Zealand, and Ukraine, and Italy............
I don't care if every comment I make on this board gets dugg down into oblivion.. If you don't agree, then bury it, that's what it's for. But if you're going to respond and pretend to engage in an intelligent conversion, then WTF was that? - martinjd, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1There are multiple documented events where military soldiers found nerve gas (when they had anything resembling an element of surprise). The best the inspectors could find were traces of it in somehow now-empty warehouses. Must've always been that way. These stupid Iraqi's would be too dumb to go bury it somewhere in the miles and miles of sand. Or you know, Syria wouldn't have been sympathetic to their cause at all. If we say "ready or not here we come"... who's going to cross their fingers and hope we don't find anything? All we effectively did was warn them so they could go hide anything they don't want found.
- seanpetrash, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0It's time to "bomb" Ailes with true information. And that is that true Americans are tired of all the "true" lies.
Go digg! Go Youtube! Go Ron Paul! FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!! - martinjd, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1I wasn't defining IED's as WMD. You knew that so stop being a baby. If you're uncomfortable with hyperbole I can dumb it down a bit.
#1: You still haven't told me how you define WMD. Yes, we did find nerve gas.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000915.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/ ...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Can I stop now?
#2: Ok... we'll take for granted that there are no Iraq/Al-qaeda ties (other than private funding). Ok fine, not even private funding. Forget I even mentioned Al-qaeda all together. Saddam Hussein was in violation of over 30 UN resolutions (which the UN never enforces any more). Most of the resolutions were with regards to military and weapons... and we had ample threats from the Islamic fanatics in Iraq... who at the time conveniently controlled most of the country.
#3: My point was that we had international support. If I have my head up my ass that's my own business. I thought you were going to explain how all these other countries in Iraq didn't count.... "LOL POLAND!..."
Of course it's not be a matter of interpretation, but everything is a matter of definition. If we all define WMD differently, then we might as well note even be talking about the same thing. Which brings me full circle: what is your definition of WMD? - skews13, on 11/20/2007, -0/+0don't worry.there's not as many beleivers being brought into the fold as you might think.thanks to the internet,the fruitcake indoctrination machine.isn't winning as many new inductees,as it used to.
- HanSolo69, on 11/20/2007, -2/+1Go right ahead. Me? Not so into that sort of thing. But you go right ahead, ok?
- Timetheos, on 11/20/2007, -2/+1Chaos,
Fox News has airwaves, such as radio.; those could be cancelled; However, you are correct about the cable outlet.
Please look up the "personhood" of corporations; in the original supreme court ruling, you'll find it was slipped in by a clerk and not an official ruling. But yes, the concept needs to be removed.
Andrew,
You are wrong. Corporations are merely a synthetic/artificial entity. They have rights that individuals don't have, such as limited liability. If we were to argue as you do, then we should say that shareholders are responsible for the actions of the corporation, thus making them subject to any criminal actions the corporation has taken. Imagine people going to jail for investing their 401k in the "wrong" company... Corporations were created solely as money making entities, and to sheild their owners from legal liability. So no, organization do not (or should not) have the rights of their individual members. - marksism, on 11/20/2007, -2/+1Wouldn't touch Fox News, as they're cable. And Fox Network is basically just a bunch of reruns to watch every night.
- andrew1193, on 11/20/2007, -3/+1"It's time to have Fox's broadcast license revoked."
Good to see that leftists support freedom of speech and freedom of the press. - Pplus, on 11/20/2007, -5/+3So the head of a news corporation shouldn't give a lecture on the media's involvement in the military because he never served? Should we have rather gotten someone who has served in the military and has never had any experience in the media? Apparently, it's also ludicrous that he would give a lecture on 'a variety of media topics" too?
I don't even know who this guy is, but this article is the most ridiculously slanted thing I've ever read. I do like the completely baseless speculation on the three points he might make during the speech though, nice touch there... -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is