Fox News makes you dumber

zekester said:

I watch them all, but I form my own opinion....

You cannot base your belief's on a TV show.....have the balls to do it on your own!

Click to expand...

DocWalker said:

I feel like I have been raped and called names....

I'm really dumb for watching some of the shows on Fox then. I don't watch or like all the shows but I do like some of them; and as far as the news goes I can watch any station I just don't believe 100% of what any of them say.

Most of the shows on fox don't claim to be news shows, O'Rielly, Hannity, and others don't claim to be NEWS but are entertainment bits and actually tell you that. If you are dumb enough to believe everything someone tells you then your life will be pretty interesting.

I like to make my own mind up.

Click to expand...

Shoobee said:

Exposure to Tawnos also makes you dumber, apparently.

Both ends of these extremes, Fox on one side and MSNBC on the other, is a problem.

I like BBC and PBS for both sides of the story.

Tawnos if you are going to quote somebody make sure you quote the whole quote.

Click to expand...

Tawnos said:

If you read the paper, you find that, for international issues, a person who uses Fox or MSNBC is worse than someone who listens to "no news" while someone watching "the daily show" or listening to NPR are much better informed. For domestic news, Fox is the only news source associated with people being less informed than someone who watches no news at all! NPR still tops the list, but what's really sad is how bad the numbers are, overall.

Click to expand...

metalman383 said:

Thats the problem with America now. The Daily Show is not a creditable news source. It's a comedy show hosted by an admited socialist. Ask all of the occupy people though, they will Quote Stewart, word for word.

Click to expand...

Tawnos said:

You know what the difference is between Stewart and Fox? The former admits to being a comedian, and doesn't try to be a valuable news source. The latter claims to be a valuable news source, and doesn't claim to be full of comedians.

Yet despite that, The Daily Show manages to fit more truth and actual news into its comedy program than Fox does in an entire day of broadcasting. Part of that comes from Stewart's agenda being comedy, not politics, despite your hysterical claims of "socialist."

Click to expand...

Daylen said:

um, bs. Stewart is as truthful as a politician trying to get elected, which is why I had to stop watching him. Fox has gone down when they replaced Beck with the five idiots, when I watch them on occasion I feel dumber.

Oh how I wish I had FBN so I could get Stossel and Napolitano regularly....

Click to expand...

PrayingForWar said:

Whatever, a bunch of leftist "intellectuals" compile a study, without any bias at all mind you, that exposes the highest rated "news" station (with the best looking women mind you) as having the most "uninformed" audience. Give me a break. The stupidest people I've ever talked to are all libs who don't watch anything but CNN if they watch anything. These are people who know more about the Kardsashians than they know about the Clintons (if they even know who they are).

The reason why Fox and Stewart have the highest ratings? They're entertaining. Stewart at least has some libertarian sympathy, and Fox isn't up obozo's ass. Everything else would be a joke if it was even funny, but it's all pathetic agitprop for an anti-american agenda. Whether the left likes it or not, most people like to feel good about themselves and what they're connected too. Leftist "news" outlets go out of their way to make us feel bad about our standard of living. Fox makes liberals feel bad by showing them what miserable sniveling bed wetting parasitic sociopaths they really are.

Click to expand...

Tawnos said:

Best looking people is a great metric of news. As shown in this documentary film and one of Fox's most popular guys:

Know why Fox makes me, a moderate, feel bad? Because they are so clearly pandering to the head in the ground cowards who don't really have a clue about anything, and they're raking in cash while doing so.

Click to expand...

PrayingForWar said:

First of all, Idiocracy isn't a documentary, it's a fictional tale, although it does seem like a plausible prediction of mankind's future. Perhaps you're not as well informed as that study makes you feel. My advice to you is to avoid breeding. That will help a lot.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/idiocracy/

Furthermore, Ann Coulture is a mouthy broad with an ample "adam's apple". We know since "people" like you point it out so frequently. That has nothing to do with the fact that she destroys your insipid arguements with the same tactics you use, and have the audacity to piss and moan about. You can't make any headway against her, so you assault her looks, even though she's a finer piece of tail than you'd ever get your hands on. Lets face it, libtard chicks are hideous.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/10-ugly-comments-made-by-10-even-uglier-liberal-women

Click to expand...

Crowley, the right-winger, is a damn hottie--personally, I think she is wholly one of the hottest of the lott on either side.

I'll bet BL92 is pretty good looking though, but she's not a complete and total moonbat either.

Click to expand...

I'm a dyke with a thyroid problem LOL. I used to be skinny. I don't have a mullet though.

In regards to idiocracy, and your sad attempt to use it as some sort of proof that "entertaining" news is somehow detrimental. I'd like to point out that if the values and standards promoted by those annoying "right wing" religious types were implimented, a scenario like idiocracy would be impossible. Since we've been "liberated" from our moral foundation, the shows with the hottest chicks get the audience, and the boring, unintelligible, leftist "intellectual" drivel regurgitated by some miserable hag is ignored.

I'm hopefull that the trend of rejecting leftist dogma continues, and that Karl Marx's grave gets converted to a septic tank for public use.

Click to expand...

As we ought to be Liberated from the so-called Moral Foundation--it's nothing more than a set of presumptions about humans, existence, and how we ought to function within the latter. The construct of Morality is plagued with a psychological form of coercion, that is the only way that such Moral Constructs can be forced upon unruly Man.

Click to expand...

Beretta92FSLady said:

Here's the problem with your little so-called 'intelligent' theory in the photo: what is being zoomed-in-on is her thyroid, not her 'apple,' (the female in this case actually has no 'apple') there is a difference. At least if they're going to point out a bulge, they ought to know what the bulge represents.

Click to expand...

Beretta92FSLady said:

PrayingForWar said:

Crowley, the right-winger, is a damn hottie--personally, I think she is wholly one of the hottest of the lott on either side.



I'm a dyke with a thyroid problem LOL. I used to be skinny. I don't have a mullet though.

I'm sure you still look better than (ugh) Rosie.

As we ought to be Liberated from the so-called Moral Foundation--it's nothing more than a set of presumptions about humans, existence, and how we ought to function within the latter. The construct of Morality is plagued with a psychological form of coercion, that is the only way that such Moral Constructs can be forced upon unruly Man.

Click to expand...

While I generally agree with you that the "moral foundation" is in some cases an archaic relic based on religious fundamentals that explained what science could not at the time, the basic premise, if followed more closely by society could relieve many of the ills we face. For instance, before humans understood that disease was caused by micro organisms, they attributed disease to "God's will". People who notoriously screwed around a lot died horribly of VD. Obviously a monogamous (sp?) relationship precluded such issues, therefore it became a religious moral to abide by that standard.

That still works today. Condoms fail. Drunk people fail to use them. ETC.

So as annoying as some of the Christian bible thumping zealots can be, in some cases they do have a point, and if they follow their rules (we know some don't) no harm comes to them. If the rest of us ignore their rules, we put ourselves at risk of a variety of ailments. So I can tolerate evangelical Christians far more than obnoxious libtards who insist I stop eating meat, pay the gods of global warming their carbon tithings, demand at gun point that I feed the "poor", and tolerate people who want to turn society into an ant farm. With themselves of course as the leader.

Click to expand...

Tawnos said:

If that's true, why do the numbers say otherwise? Why are people who turn to fox serially misinformed, while those who get most of their news from a comedy program are better informed than most viewers?!

Click to expand...

PrayingForWar said:

I TOTALLY MISSED THAT!! He claims to be a MODERATE!?!?!?! The only hard left position he hasn't endorsed is gun confiscation.

Click to expand...

Tawnos said:

Best looking people is a great metric of news. As shown in this documentary film and one of Fox's most popular guys:

Know why Fox makes me, a moderate, feel bad? Because they are so clearly pandering to the head in the ground cowards who don't really have a clue about anything, and they're raking in cash while doing so.

Click to expand...

Animus said:

It's not surprising considering they routinely lie, doctor footage and even totally manufacture stories at the behest of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. For my cite, I submit over 180 examples of Fox News' bias.

www.tinyurl.com/foxnewsbias

Click to expand...