REPORT: What Fox Business Channel’s ‘ More Business-Friendly’ Model Means For Television
REPORT: What Fox Business Channel’s ‘ More Business-Friendly’ Model Means For Television
News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch has announced that he will launch the new Fox Business Channel (FBC) in the fall. The channel is marketing itself as being “more business-friendly” than its rivals.
Nevermind that FBC’s main rival — CNBC — is dealing with allegations that its star network host had an inappropriate undisclosed relationship with a Citigroup executive. Fox wants to push the limits even further. Fox News chief Roger Ailes explained, “Many times I’ve seen things on CNBC where they are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be.”
Neil Cavuto will reportedly oversee content and business coverage at the new service. Here’s a glimpse of what we can look forward to from the new Fox Business Channel:
Cavuto to Paul Krugman on his argument about growing wealth inequality in America: “You are lying to people. That’s what I think that you’re doing.”
“Most Americans, when they’re polled on the likability of this president, he polls highly in that regard.”
“The Liberal Media: Out to sabotage the economy?”
“All this hype over global warming could be just that — hype.”
Are immigration protests “economic terrorism?”
“Did Americans who took Hugo Chavez’s oil today commit treason?”
Democrats “will crush the economy” if they win.
Cavuto explained, “We’re going to be a channel for America — not for old white men with money.” No, instead, FBC will be “entertaining, informative, youthful,” Cavuto pledged. Given his record, we assume that only means more Playmates, pole-dancing, and nearly nude women.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Given his record, we assume that only means more Playmates, pole-dancing, and nearly nude women.”
…and Bushite propaganda of course…
February 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pmThe hell with Neil Cavuto.. The #1 story on your site and every other progressive site should be the treatment of Iraq vets.
This is Katrina times two for the GOP.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pmIt’s too bad “great journalists” will never get a shot at true,straight forward investigative journalism with the MSM the way it is anymore.
Then I think of all the wasted “resources” these news groups wield and it is such a shame that what comes out of the pen, the camera, and the typewriter these days is like a form-letter melodrama of what reallty ISN”T happening in the world today.
Up is down, down is up, left is right, right is left, cold is hot, hot is cold.
I just did a doubletake on my calendar, nope it’s still 2007 and not 1984 like I thought.
There is a 23 year timewarp here from 1984-2007.
To know what is happening today, one needs only look at America’s recent history say in the last 50 years.
1957-2007
If there is a political chronology of the past 50 years, I shall attempt to find it and post here. If it’s too long I will just post the link and a brief.
Here is a good start.
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
George HW Bush: The Unauthorized Biography
by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin
It’s also downloadable in .zip format at the above link or HTML on same link.
Always start at the “root” and follow it’s “stems.”
February 19th, 2007 at 3:18 pmCNBC put hundreds of analysts on camera from 1997 to 2001 screaming BUY BUY BUY. Not once during that period did they ask them if they owned the stock they were pumping. A simple question yes. But a question they neglected?? to ask.
CNBC was the chief cheerleader and largely responsible for the Nasdaq bubble. Eventually 7 TRILLION dollars disappeared (went to money heaven). No one from CNBC was fired for this outrageously unexplainable on air behavior. The biggest crime in the history of the world. CNBC and the Wall Street firms they promoted and pumped made out like bandits. You can’t get much more business friendly than that. But I’m sure Fox will try.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pmWhy do conservative preach about family values and abstinence, etc, etc. but then have girls in lingerie on their news channel?
February 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmNothing matters but corporate profits. Sell anything, including lies and disinformation, or sell out on someone else. America is going for the gold label of greed. How wonderful.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pmThis is Katrina times two for the GOP.
Comment by Richard Bottoms #2
Richard,
…we ain’t seen NOTHIN’ yet…
…wait’ll the bill comes in for:
1) the prosthetics for armless, legless soldiers…
2) their S.S. disability payments
3) mental health costs
4) ptsd related violent crime
5) public assistance for wives and children of ptsd soldiers who become divorced/seperated…
…and on and on…
February 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pmI wouldn’t buy anything but Hugo”s oil.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pmAnd I might watch any tv channel except fox.
I am sure FBC will succeed. The people who watch business news will enjoy the self congragulatory and uncritical coverage of the news. Will its slogan be White Republican Businessmen of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your soul.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pmWhy do conservative preach about family values and abstinence, etc, etc. but then have girls in lingerie on their news channel?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Nothing like a hot cup of hypocrisy in the morning with your news, huh?
February 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThe #1 story on your site and every other progressive site should be the treatment of Iraq vets.
Comment by Richard Bottoms
The veteran issues could be fixxed in 2 simple steps.
1.the government needs to keep the promises it made to veterans and properly fund veteran programs.
2. quit making more disabled veterans.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pmWhy do conservative preach about family values and abstinence, etc, etc. but then have girls in lingerie on their news channel?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Maybe they got confused and thought it was “Bare and Falanced” instead of “Fair and Balanced”
February 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pmRemember when conservatives were critical and liberals were open-minded. I liked liberals better when they were a little less stuffy.
Besides not being afraid to be proud of America, not apologizing for defending liberty, realizing that freedom isn’t free and requires sacrifice, yet another good reason to watch Fox News. Thank you, Rupert Murdock.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pmExcept for this being another smear/propaganda outlet, I think this is great.
Let the morons who watch this be duped with rosy outlooks and brought to economic ruin. I’ve had it with these buttwads.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pmThis strategy will fail. People make and lose money on the basis of decisions they make from what they learn in the financial media.
Outside of anyone who actually joined the military, no one lost any money because they believed Fox News’s cheerleading about the Iraq war. By contrast, if anyone starts making finance and investment decisions on the basis of what they see on FBC, they will find out what the financial ramifications of their decisions are pretty quickly and thus quickly tune into another channel which has better coverage.
No one reads the New York Post for their business section.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pmahahahahah! FAUX NEWS IS GETTING OUT OF THE SERIOUS NEWS BUSINESS THEN – THIS IS NEWS?? THEY’VE BEEN OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICANS FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS! AHAHAHAHA!
February 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pmSO IT CAN NOW OFFICIALLY BE DUBBED: FOX’S FASCIST NEWS!
February 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pmWhen this coup is over and the dust settles and every Rethug is in the minority (where they clearly belong), it will be time to begin holding news agencies accountable for the lying that’s gone on in the name of truthful reporting. Rupert will get his “day in court” then, no doubt.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pmFAUX NEWS HAS ‘ALWAYS’ BEEN NOTHING MORE THAN A CAPRICIOUS LYING GROUP OF FASCIST THUGS.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pmnot apologizing for defending liberty, realizing that freedom isn’t free and requires sacrifice
Comment by paul #13
Two questions paul:
1) WHERE are you defending liberty/freedom?
and
2) WHOSE freedom/liberty are you defending?
February 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pmSpudge_Boy. I’ve been trying to be as disagreeable as I can, but I must admit I’m onboard with your 16 link. I am also against the turtlenecks and even more against the burkas. Thanks.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:58 pm“Remember when conservatives were critical and liberals were open-minded. I liked liberals better when they were a little less stuffy.”
That’s just all the conservatives who have joined us since Republicans became the party of death by stupidity.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pm# 5 Why do conservative preach about family values and abstinence, etc, etc. but then have girls in lingerie on their news channel?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 19, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Why? Because they treat their women like shit and want “it all.”
They box in women…women have to be whores or wives. Wives cannot like sex and Whores better dish out. But that is fine because the fat white boy cons intend to leer, get their porn, and sneak it on the side anyway. That way everything is in it’s place for them. The only ones that suffer of course are the women. ( all the fetus hysteria is abot controlling women as well, not the fetus)
Women need to cut these pricks off…….they are the ones that will have to ultimately break out of their bondage. It is too bad they have been wearing the collar for thousands of years, which ever role they choose, They haven’t really woken
February 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pmup yet. It’s really a shame. Women really have been trained to see themselves, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, in terms of men. And men know it. Talk about framing the issue! I do wonder if it will ever change.
It’s really a shame. Women really have been trained to see themselves, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, in terms of men. And men know it. Talk about framing the issue! I do wonder if it will ever change.
Comment by s #25
s,
I’d venture to guess by your post…
…that the wheels are at least in motion…
February 19th, 2007 at 4:08 pmInteresting gambit. I presume what Fox wants is a bigger share of the affluent viewership — the ‘OMP’, or Owners, Managers, Professionals demographic.
Though this may signal a move towards jingoistic business boosterism and a further slide towards GOP cheerleading… I’m not sure it’ll happen. Or, if it does, I’m not sure it’ll be successful.
After all, conservatives read the Washington Times and the NY Post. The affluent read the Washington Post and the New York Times. The average high-earning business maven probably doesn’t care to hear a tirade about the likability of GWB any more than the rest of us.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:13 pmThey haven’t really woken
up yet. It’s really a shame. Women really have been trained to see themselves, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, in terms of men. And men know it. Talk about framing the issue! I do wonder if it will ever change.
Comment by s
Well said, s. Tell it like it is!
**standing ovation**
February 19th, 2007 at 4:16 pmHere Paul. It doesn’t get any more American than this.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Oy. Now that’s a dim bulb….
February 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pmI love Fox’s new “we’re desperately seeking relevance” campaign of new products….almost reluctant to laugh at them…..poor, ignorant bastards…….
February 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pmThanks big papa. Yes, that is true. It’s finally clear to me that my boobs are not “product” or toys. And that I don’t need to present them that way. This society would rather I hadn’t figured that out. I am REAL tired of corporate America tell me what my sexuality should be. I would think that men would be tired of corporate America getting in their pants 200 times a day, but most don’t see how they are being played and just laugh and eat it up. The man that enjoys the picture above and cannot see it’s destructiveness to both sexes and love between men and women is……. a dick. :)
But, let em have at it. Thank God I don’t feel compelled. :)
s for sexy
February 19th, 2007 at 4:19 pmZooey……:)
February 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pmSpudge_Boy. I’ve been trying to be as disagreeable as I can — paul
I think this sums up all of paul’s posts to a T
=D
February 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pmU.S., U.K. Worst Places to Grow Up
As if news of recent developments in Iraq weren’t already sobering enough, this past week brought some more unwelcome findings for the U.S. and Britain that hit closer to home, namely the deplorable state of their children’s well-being. According to a UNICEF report that ranked 21 developed nations in six categories that included health, education, relationships, behaviors and risks, material well-being and young people’s own sense of happiness, the U.S. and U.K. came up dead last overall, respectively 20th and 21st.
Not surprisingly, the countries that ranked as the best places to be a child included the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark (these Nordic states frequently top this and similar rankings). What was perhaps the most surprising outcome of this survey was that children living in the most developed and best-off countries weren’t necessarily the best-off in terms of their own well-being. Some have tried to explain these findings by suggesting that these wealthier nations’ lower rankings were the result of less spending on social programs and intense competition in the job market that led to adults spending less time with their children.
Many have attributed the U.S.’s pitiful overall ranking to, amongst other factors, the high rates of child mortality (mostly due to high instances of low birth-weight and the deaths of those under 19 from accidents or injuries) and high levels of poverty that have progressively worsened over the past few years due to marked imbalances in the distribution of wealth. Indeed, nearly 25 percent of children ages zero to 17 live in households with equivalent incomes that are less than 50 percent of the median income.
Did anybody in the states see these articles ???? a few days ago all over the Front Pages of the papers in the UK … ps I never buy any paper
February 19th, 2007 at 4:40 pmI think this sums up all of paul’s posts to a T
=D
Comment by Wayne
I didn’t realize paul had to TRY to be disagreeable.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:41 pmFox Noise doesn’t fool anyone any more.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pmFox Noise Business will be “pro-economy” when a Repub is in office, then they’ll become “anti-economy” when Democratic Presidents are in office.
This is just another way for Murdoch to propagandize Americans.
He probably feels that Bush needs a hand propagandizing the economy for his political benefit.
But should a Democratic President take office, Murdoch’s propaganda machine will be on 24 hours a day saying how horrible the economy is.
These right wing idiots aren’t hard to figure out.
Hard to beleive it took two acts of Congress to create the Murdoch propaganda empire. One to allow propaganda outlets and another to allow a non-American to own one.
Why is it that the two main Repub/anti-American propaganda outlets in this country are owned by foreignors (Murdoch & Moon)?
Looking closer at the picture above (does Cavuto always look so glazed over?), I realize they’re talking about something called the “Lingerie Bowl.” I’m assuming it’s exactly what it sounds like?
February 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pmWhy is it that the two main Repub/anti-American propaganda outlets in this country are owned by foreignors (Murdoch & Moon)?
Comment by OxyCon #36
hmmmm…
…good question Oxy…
…first thing that came to my mind was…
….”starving the beast”…
February 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWhy is it that the two main Repub/anti-American propaganda outlets in this country are owned by foreignors (Murdoch & Moon)? –OxyCon
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President ( Bill Clinton ) is the reason.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pmClinton has gone on record stating his signing of that bill was a mistake, BTW. Not that it helps much now.
Clinton has gone on record stating his signing of that bill was a mistake, BTW. Not that it helps much now.
Comment by Wayne #39
I wonder what was bundled in the deal (legislation) for Bill (or the people)?
…do you know anything about the bill and what amendments or attachments were a part of it Wayne?
…I could google it I know but maybe you could save me the trouble if you do…
February 19th, 2007 at 5:09 pmBriefly off topic-
Bill O’Reilly is going to be on Oprah this Wednesday, touting of all things, his antipedophilic stance. I didn’t know he had such a stance.
What with Foley, Gannon et al.
Oprah says it is really important to watch and a must see.
This should be interesting, the contradictions by O’Reilly I mean.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pmBill O’Reilly is going to be on Oprah this Wednesday, touting of all things, his antipedophilic stance. I didn’t know he had such a stance.
Comment by rachel #41
…especially given his recent waaay OVER-THE_TOP (and out of line) comments…
…about that MO kidnapping victim “ENJOYING” his life in captivity with his abuser/kidnapper…
…O’lielly’s a proven sexual predator, and Oprah is misguided in having him as a guest…
…at least in this context…
February 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pmJust look at the bait NC has used for association reminders of who’s your afternoon misogynistic buddy. Rush Limbaugh meets Jimmy Kimmel, meets Larry Kudlow. Man think of the advertisers all high end, rich, white guy stuff, cars, booze, golf and the object of their envy, ass.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pms for sexy. I appreciate your principles and independence. If, however, if you ever find yourself in a little less principled state, you call me. You know I’d never tell your progressive friends. (q^:)
February 19th, 2007 at 5:53 pmIf you are going to write something you might as well write thoughtfully. How often does Fox really run the stuff that you are talking about? Now compare it to the MSM.
Andrew Pass
February 19th, 2007 at 6:14 pmhttp://www.pass-ed.com/Living-Textbook.html
You know I’d never tell your progressive friends. (q^:)
Comment by paul
I’m sure s will feel appropriately whelmed.
And you know we’d never tell Mrs Paul.
*eyes rolling*
February 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pmpaul…how kind of you. But no thanks. As far as “my progressive friends” …..we’re all the same bud…progressives, Dems, Pubs, Independents. We’re all just in various stages of decay or evolution in the great scheme of things! Have a great weekend. May you have all the boobs/pricks you desire.
Just not mine. Cheers. s :)
February 19th, 2007 at 6:42 pmMay you have all the boobs/pricks you desire.
Just not mine. Cheers. s :)
Comment by s
Oh my god, that is priceless….
February 19th, 2007 at 6:49 pmNothing like a hot cup of hypocrisy in the morning with your news, huh?
Comment by Wayne — February 19, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
More do as they say and not as they do…
February 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pmI do wonder if it will ever change.
Comment by s — February 19, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Maybe not in our life times, but it is going in that direction.
51% of women in America are single. That’s a first. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution did a spread on the subject, and credited the trend with the fact that women are choosing careers and independence over subservience.
More women in white, black and latino demographics attend college than men. Women are making their own money, even if we still don’t have equal pay. We’re no longer tolerating these patriarchal men in the same capacity that we used to.
And I think, the more women who choose to not be defined in terms of their marital status, the more acceptable it will becme.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:18 pmIf, however, if you ever find yourself in a little less principled state, you call me. You know I’d never tell your progressive friends. (q^:)
Comment by paul — February 19, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
P for Pig – we know you’re married.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pmAt this point, anyone who watches a Fox/Murdoch show or network is dumber than a bag of hammers.
The “news” programming is propoganda of the worst sort, and the shows are written for the NASCAR level of intelligence and provide the financial support for the “news” programs.
I don’t see any point, really, and have not missed anything for the 3 plus years I have not watched the stuff. However, in my view point, they are free to and can produce whatever they want. I only hope that more and more people come around to the reality that they are being exploited and played by Fox.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:32 pms. consider it an open invitation. Zooey. you know she’s on board. There’s room left on the love train. All Abooooaard!!!
February 19th, 2007 at 7:46 pmFox News chief Roger Ailes explained, “Many times I’ve seen things on CNBC where they are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be.â€
Maybe cause people are sick and tired of ad-ridden TV? Thats not TV, 5 minutes of commercial, thats an excuse to go to the restroom.
IsouV CristoV in a sweatshop, no more burritos, urrp, pleazz.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:48 pmIf, however, if you ever find yourself in a little less principled state, you call me. You know I’d never tell your progressive friends. (q^:)
Comment by paul
Another ’selective’ Jeebus type.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:53 pms. consider it an open invitation. Zooey. you know she’s on board. There’s room left on the love train. All Abooooaard!!!
Comment by paul
Why do these idiots feel free to hit on us?
Keep looking paul, I only f*ck men I respect.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:56 pmIs this a parody on my name?
Rachel teen Hoodlum?
Please stop.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:57 pmpaul,
Best to quit fu*cking with my name before I fu*k you up.
Git me?
Bitch?
February 19th, 2007 at 8:07 pmI knew it !
February 19th, 2007 at 8:17 pmSooner or later fox was bound to change their format to porn !
Soon to follow . . . CNN !
…bet Neil has a nice set of cans too…
February 19th, 2007 at 8:29 pm#53: There’s room left on the love train. All Abooooaard!!!
I suspect there’s a reason why there’s plenty of room on that particular love train. Paul seems to think every progressive woman is just aching for a bigoted moron such as himself. That’s not been my observation, but I’ll let the females here speak for themselves.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pmRachel Chickennardi = PISS SOAKED TROLL USING MY NAME.
Rachel teen Hoodlum = PISS SOAKED TROLL USING MY NAME.
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO IT
February 19th, 2007 at 8:45 pmFirst of all, Neil Cavuto is one of the best talking heads out there. His interviews are top notch.
1) Krugman has been wrong on most economic points of view. While the rich are getting richer, so is everyone else. Net worth is up for everyone. Krugman has been predicting dire times every year the past 6 years. He was right once. “Broken clock syndrome.”
2) I think the liberal media is out to promote their candidates and to bad mouth the GOP. I don’t think they intend to wreck the economy, but I doubt they even understand the implications of the economic agenda being pushed by Hillary, Edwards, Obama, etc. Basically, high unemployment, bad stock market, poor real estate market, etc.
3) Global warming is happening, but the dire predictions are just hysteria out to sell an agenda. Fear sells. A lot of folks will make a ton of money on the global warming hype. Including me, as I invest in whatever the government is planning on spending billions on. LOL. But at least I recognize it for what it is.
4) Democrats won’t crush the economy because they won’t implement most of what they promise on the campaign trail. They know that most of what they propose would kill the economy. But they say it just to get elected. And even if they tried, gridlock would keep their policies from being implemented. Either a presidential veto or a filibuster in the Senate.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pmI’ll be honest, I didn’t read the post. The beautiful big t*ttied women distracted me. I think I understand why so many people watch FOX news…
February 19th, 2007 at 9:24 pmDollars to donuts that Cavuto is a perverted freakazoid marshallow man. We’ll read all about it someday…
February 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pmTesting 123
February 19th, 2007 at 9:28 pmIn other words, the new Fox Channel will disseminate lies about businesses and the economic situation. Great! Once again, they will couch the terms of the debates in inflammatory terms, misuse statistics, and pander to the lowest denominator of viewers. Let them do it. They’ll wound up with egg on their face and with very unhappy viewers who made the wrong investments based on their distorted approaches. Good!
February 19th, 2007 at 9:33 pmComment by Granola Hippy
What a boob.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:44 pm68
Yuck yuck
February 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pmHuh? They are going to be for business and not for rich white men? Can somebody please explain this to me?
February 19th, 2007 at 9:56 pmCavuto knows how to win sweeps week. I know this is a sin but, I think I might start to watch Cavuto.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:18 pmFor what reason, Joefriday? I am not sure but I don’t think business shows are supposed to win sweeps.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:30 pmSerious business types won’t watch this channel, because they can’t afford to. The idea that serious investors want corporate-friendly business reporting is ridiculous. So who will get their news from this channel? Dumb people, that’s who. Dumb people with a little bit of savings to invest will watch this channel, and when they do they will get played by the big boys.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pmBingo VerbalKint……..#73
February 19th, 2007 at 10:40 pm#73 Yeah, the morons who want to “reform” Social Security.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:42 pmDemocrats won’t crush the economy because they won’t implement most of what they promise on the campaign trail. They know that most of what they propose would kill the economy
Someone hand this person a Cupie doll! Except wars today are borrowed.
What is the irony here, I am so lost.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:45 pmCavuto knows how to win sweeps week. I know this is a sin but, I think I might start to watch Cavuto.
Comment by Joefriday
I’d rather watch cow manure grow mushrooms.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:48 pmDemocrats won’t crush the economy because they won’t implement most of what they promise on the campaign trail. They know that most of what they propose would kill the economy
Yup, because FDR was a total failure, economically.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:48 pmYup, because FDR was a total failure, economically.
Comment by JPark
economically yes,
But he reinvigorated America to become a world power.
Welfare sucks but it makes great Americans!!
Yeh Baby YEH!!
February 19th, 2007 at 10:53 pm#79 No, welfare saved us during the depression. Course, what does it matter that we had great leadership in the 30-40s when it sucks now.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:00 pm61. Luke. There is room left on the train, but you have to understand, it’s a pretty big train.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:00 pm#81 That is one ugly train. A big, self-loathing, low-self-esteemed train.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:04 pmNo, welfare saved us during the depression. Course, what does it matter that we had great leadership in the 30-40s when it sucks now.
it saved us, yes! Does iraqi welfare save you, naww.
Sadly todays leadership is bred from silver and not from hard scrabble.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:04 pmNo, welfare saved us during the depression.
It saved us as a nation. It was not economically profitable, it was however a necessity to humanity
February 19th, 2007 at 11:06 pmIt saved us as a nation. It was not economically profitable, it was however a necessity to global humanity. Dollars be damned.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:12 pmsuspect there’s a reason why there’s plenty of room on that particular love train.
You confuse love with sex.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:14 pmNo, Rache, I think your economically profitable comment is a bit off. If, in the end it was good for the economy, it was, by definition economically profitable.
By the way, I am not sure what you mean by Iraqi welfare.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:14 pmBy the way, I am not sure what you mean by Iraqi welfare.
Comment by JPark
Privatization such as bechtel. The democratic experiment one might say.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:22 pmNo, Rache, I think your economically profitable comment is a bit off. If, in the end it was good for the economy, it was, by definition economically profitable.
You forget the solidarity factor. I said it was not profitable, but necessary for the nation, as a whole.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:24 pm#81: There is room left on the train, but you have to understand, it’s a pretty big train.
Blech.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:24 amyou think now you have attained status by your rank amateur remarks?
Comment by Rache Chickennardi
————————————————
If you are a regular here in “disguise†and I well think you are by the way, I am disappointed for the rest of the posters here.
Is the “only†reason “YOU†post here is for…â€statusâ€?
That just blows my mind.
Totally the WRONG reason to be here if you think this is what TP is all about my friend.
This will be my last communique with you now and in the future, as you have ruined this particular thread beyond “repair†for anyone else to make heads or tales of.
Congratulations Troll!
Barfly is the ONLY one here who has ever referred to me as Rache.
Barfly, sober up dude. You have trashed the entire thread.
Again,
Congratulations Troll!
————————————————————–
Rachel Chickennardi = PISS SOAKED TROLL USING MY NAME.
Rachel teen Hoodlum = PISS SOAKED TROLL USING MY NAME.
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO IT
February 20th, 2007 at 3:17 amyou think now you have attained status by your rank amateur remarks?
Comment by Rache Chickennardi
————————————————
If you are a regular here in “disguise†and I well think you are by the way, I am disappointed for the rest of the posters here.
Is the “only†reason “YOU†post here is for…â€statusâ€?
That just blows my mind.
Totally the WRONG reason to be here if you think this is what TP is all about my friend.
This will be my last communique with you now and in the future, as you have ruined this particular thread beyond “repair†for anyone else to make heads or tales of.
Congratulations Troll!
Barfly is the ONLY one here who has ever referred to me as Rache.
Barfly, sober up dude. You have trashed the entire thread.
Again,
Congratulations Troll!
————————————————————–
Rachel Chickennardi = PISS SOAKED TROLL USING MY NAME.
Rachel teen Hoodlum = PISS SOAKED TROLL USING MY NAME.
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO IT
February 20th, 2007 at 3:20 amThis will be my last communique with you now and in the future,
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi
Then why did you post that twice?
February 20th, 2007 at 3:37 amhttp://www.eff.org/
EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers
Updated April 20, 2006
Whether you’re a newly minted blogger or a relative old-timer, you’ve been seeing more and more stories pop up every day about bloggers getting in trouble for what they post.
Like all journalists and publishers, bloggers sometimes publish information that other people don’t want published. You might, for example, publish something that someone considers defamatory, republish an AP news story that’s under copyright, or write a lengthy piece detailing the alleged crimes of a candidate for public office.
The difference between you and the reporter at your local newspaper is that in many cases, you may not have the benefit of training or resources to help you determine whether what you’re doing is legal. And on top of that, sometimes knowing the law doesn’t help – in many cases it was written for traditional journalists, and the courts haven’t yet decided how it applies to bloggers.
But here’s the important part: None of this should stop you from blogging. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a functioning democracy, and Internet bullies shouldn’t use the law to stifle legitimate free expression. That’s why EFF created this guide, compiling a number of FAQs designed to help you understand your rights and, if necessary, defend your freedom.
To be clear, this guide isn’t a substitute for, nor does it constitute, legal advice. Only an attorney who knows the details of your particular situation can provide the kind of advice you need if you’re being threatened with a lawsuit. The goal here is to give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.
Please note that this guide applies to people living in the US. We don’t have the expertise or resources to speak to other countries’ legal traditions, but we’d like to work with those who do. If you know of a similar guide for your own jurisdiction or feel inspired to research and write one, please let us know. We can link to it here.
Table of Contents
or, see an index of all the questions » http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/questions.php
Blogger Legal Liability Issues
The Overview of Legal Liability Issues FAQ briefly addresses some common legal issues that affect you as a publisher, especially situations where you may face legal claims or threats based on the information you published on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Intellectual Property addresses issues that arise when you publish material created by others on your blog.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Section 230 Protections discusses a powerful federal law that gives you, as a web host, protection against legal claims arising from hosting information written by third parties.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Privacy addresses the legal issues surrounding the privacy rights of people you blog about.
Bloggers As Journalists
The Bloggers’ FAQ on the Reporter’s Privilege is useful to bloggers who report news gathered from confidential sources.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Media Access can help bloggers who need to get access to public records and government meetings, as well as secure press passes to help with newsgathering.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on the Freedom of Information Act can help bloggers use open government laws to get information from the government.
Other Legal Issues for Bloggers
The Student Bloggers’ Legal FAQ addresses legal issues arising from student blogging. It focuses on blogging by high school (and middle school) students, but also contains information for college students.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Election Law addresses the legal issues you may face blogging about political campaigns.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Labor Law addresses legal issues with workplace blogging, including union organizing, protections for political blogging away from the workplace, and whistle blowing.
The Bloggers’ FAQ on Adult Material addresses the legal issues arising from publishing risque adult-oriented content, including obscenity law, community standards on the Internet, and the new 2257 regulations.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:28 amI suggest people truly ignore the posts that are signed rachel anything AND….that are of that nature. Just respond to rational discussion.
So……rachel……bite it.
Good try troll with your “legal” information.
Talk about an obvious attempt at the “chilling effect.”
February 20th, 2007 at 8:42 amYou lose. We will speak out….you bet. And we will ignore your post.
Clinton certainly did “crush” the economy, didn’t he. How dare that 22 million jobs were created during his watch and how dare that median wage increases were greater than inflation.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:51 amWatch Neil, the fat little ‘fruit’, showing off the scantily-clad lasses- “I’m not, I’m really NOT (gay)”.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:21 am#78 Yup, because FDR was a total failure, economically.
He was bailed out by WWII.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:14 pmWhy do conservative preach about family values and abstinence, etc, etc. but then have girls in lingerie on their news channel?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Because to them, submission of women is a family value.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:35 pmCavuto reminds me of the proverbial geek who couldn’t get laid to save his life in highschool, who, through the prostitution of his newfound “celebrity” still looks like a geek, trying to wow women who are just as dumb as he is.
Who’s f-cking who now, eh Neil?
February 20th, 2007 at 7:23 pmWould that be called the New Fox MONKEY Business Channel? Now THAT’s an APPROPRIATE name!!!!!
February 20th, 2007 at 8:16 pm