Glad I don't waste 700/year on cable

[SFTV_troy]

X-No-Archive: yes


Smarty Pants wrote:
> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>
> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
> > evening.
> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>
> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?



No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. It
would be nice to hear some right-wing, pro-small-government news for a
change, just to have a little balance.

As for the "truth" it lies somewhere between CNN on the left, and the
Libertarian Party on the right. Listening to either one of those,
alone, only gives you an extremist viewpoint. I prefer to stay away
from extremists.

[SFTV_troy]

X-No-Archive: yes

On Jun 4, 5:06 pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > Except it's not forced. The cable company voluntarily pays those
> > subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if it's too much.
>
> Where do you get the idea that the cable companies voluntarily pay
> subscriber fees? There's no voluntary at all when they have to
> pay for all the cable networks they carry.


Disagree. Overall I think subscriber fees are reasonable (between 0
cents and 75 cents), but if I owned a cable company, and ESPN came to
me and said, "We want to increase our per-home fee from $1.90 to
$3.00," I'd tell them to go **** themselves and drop the channel. I'd
then replace it with local Channel 10-3, NBC Sports from
Philadelphia. WCAU doesn't charge any fees.

Vice-versa, if a cable company says "yes" to ESPN's demand, then it's
done voluntarily. Which is what I originally said.




> > PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked
> > directly from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>
> There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System.


That doesn't make it any better. It's still forcing me to support a
channel I never watch. Same applies to Amtrak. Same applies to AIG,
the Federal reserve, GM, and other subsidies for private companies. I
think these businesses should stand on their own, without assistance,
or left to die. IMHO the only legitimate taxation is "for the common
welfare", aka for the benefit of all, not just a few.

I don't mind giving temporary loans during this time of crisis, but I
do expect them to be paid back. I don't feel like giving money from
my poor self to the rich corporations. It's not Christmas. ;-)


<n...@nope.nyet> wrote:
>
>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>30% gov't subsidy? And it seems that just about any time I go by the
>local PBS station these days, they are whining for more...

Well said. I have a Christian station and an independent station in
my area, and they receive NO government assistance of any kind, and
yet they still survive on nothing but donations. The people who watch
are the ones who pay the bills, as it should be.

[daytripper]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>Smarty Pants wrote:
>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>
>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> > evening.
>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
>
>
>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]

Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
"centrist".

Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)

[EGK]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:08 -0400, daytripper <day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>>
>>Smarty Pants wrote:
>>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>>
>>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>> > evening.
>>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>>
>>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>
>>
>>
>>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]
>
>Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
>"centrist".
>
>Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)

Actually a LOT of people think it's centrist. It's right of the left
leaning network news outlets and CNN.

[AuldPhart]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:48:18 -0400, daytripper
<day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:41:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:08 -0400, daytripper <day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Smarty Pants wrote:
>>>>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>>>>
>>>>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>>>> > evening.
>>>>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>>>>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]
>>>
>>>Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
>>>"centrist".
>>>
>>>Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)
>>
>>Actually a LOT of people think it's centrist. It's right of the left
>>leaning network news outlets and CNN.
>
>Well, of course it's to the right. And other than that 21% of the population
>that still admit to remaining Republican (or at least RINO) my bet is a LOT
>MORE people think it's a lot further to the right.
>
>In any case....do you really think Rupert Murdoch could be considered - by an
>actual sane person - as being a "centrist"?
>
>How about the network's "stars", like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura
>Ingraham, Karl Rove, and Glenn Beck - not to mention frequent contributors
>like Oliver North and Ann Coulter, et al. Which one of those people is the
>"centrist"?
>
>The only thing more humorous is their slogan...
>
Where do you get your news.......MSNBC? I watch Olbermann
once in a while for comedy relief. LOL!

[daytripper]

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:46:20 -0500, AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:48:18 -0400, daytripper
><day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:41:22 -0400, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:36:08 -0400, daytripper <day_trippr@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:55:37 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Smarty Pants wrote:
>>>>>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>>>>> > evening.
>>>>>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC
>>>>>are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is centrist. [...]
>>>>
>>>>Ok, we finally found the one person on the planet that thinks FOX is
>>>>"centrist".
>>>>
>>>>Fortunately, he's harmless ;-)
>>>
>>>Actually a LOT of people think it's centrist. It's right of the left
>>>leaning network news outlets and CNN.
>>
>>Well, of course it's to the right. And other than that 21% of the population
>>that still admit to remaining Republican (or at least RINO) my bet is a LOT
>>MORE people think it's a lot further to the right.
>>
>>In any case....do you really think Rupert Murdoch could be considered - by an
>>actual sane person - as being a "centrist"?
>>
>>How about the network's "stars", like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura
>>Ingraham, Karl Rove, and Glenn Beck - not to mention frequent contributors
>>like Oliver North and Ann Coulter, et al. Which one of those people is the
>>"centrist"?
>>
>>The only thing more humorous is their slogan...
>>
>Where do you get your news.......MSNBC? I watch Olbermann
>once in a while for comedy relief. LOL!

Actually, I don't think I've ever watched MSNBC. Like, ever. And the only
Olbermann I've ever seen was in Youtube clips others had sent me links to. In
those, at least, I thought his rants were hilarious, and his targets ripe.

I suppose I'm in the fortunate position of having the time to read the "news"
from multiple sources, some very much left leaning, and at least three that
anyone with a clue would consider right-falling-over. Fox "News" is clearly in
the latter category, but that's just fine. Because I don't listen to OTA
radio, if not for Fox "News", I'd have no clue what the mouth-breathing wing
nuts are being told to think..

hth ;-)

[Primordial Ooze]

On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I visited a friend this past Sunday. *I don't have cable television
> but he does, so we talked for awhile and then he turned-on the set.
> Flip. *Flip. *Flip. *Nothing. *Nothing. *Nothing. *70 channels and
> nothing worth watching. *Eventually we stopped on a John Travolta
> movie, but not for long since we both had seen it multiple times, and
> we both agreed it was crap. * Flip. *Flip. *Flip.
>
> I've come to the conclusion that cable tv, like insurance, is a giant
> scam to get people to waste their hard-earned money to get almost
> nothing in return.
>
> Contrast that with over-the-air TV where I get around 25 channels and
> hundreds of shows at no cost. *Much better deal in my humble opinion,
> and for those few shows I don't get to see (like Battlestar Galactica)
> I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> a year on cable.

well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
something better whatever you may find that to be

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 7, 7:16*am, Primordial Ooze <jmna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
> > a year on cable.
>
> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
> something better whatever you may find that to be


My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>> something better whatever you may find that to be
>
>
> My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
> and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).
>

Why make insulting inferences like that? With every post I think you are more
and more of a troll.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

[David Johnston]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:12:19 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
<nerp@nope.nyet> wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0700 (PDT), WQ <wq@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 4, 5:31*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PBS on the other hand is not voluntary - the money's sucked directly
>>> from your paycheck whether you like it or not.
>>
>>--- There's a reason why it's called PUBLIC Broadcasting System. Then
>>again, if you're going to complain about any sucking sounds coming out
>>of your pocket, direct it at all those companies and banks that got
>>bailouts. At least PBS is providing some decent documentary, news and
>>cultural arts programming, not to mention more sensible kids shows.
>
>If the shows are so good, why can't they support themselves without a
>30% gov't subsidy?

What does being "good" have to do with being able to support
themselves?

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 09:59:10 -0700 (PDT), SFTV_troy
<SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>On Jun 4, 5:06 pm, WQ <w...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 5:31 pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > Except it's not forced. The cable company voluntarily pays those
>> > subscriber fees; they could drop the channel if it's too much.
>>
>> Where do you get the idea that the cable companies voluntarily pay
>> subscriber fees? There's no voluntary at all when they have to
>> pay for all the cable networks they carry.
>
>
>Disagree. Overall I think subscriber fees are reasonable (between 0
>cents and 75 cents), but if I owned a cable company, and ESPN came to
>me and said, "We want to increase our per-home fee from $1.90 to
>$3.00," I'd tell them to go **** themselves and drop the channel.

And then you'd lose a lot of subscribers. I'd say near half the
people who get cable get it primarily for the sports.


>
>That doesn't make it any better. It's still forcing me to support a
>channel I never watch. Same applies to Amtrak. Same applies to AIG,
>the Federal reserve,

If you think the Federal Reserve provides you with no services, you
are living in a dream world.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>>>with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>>>something better whatever you may find that to be

>>My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
>>and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).

>Why make insulting inferences like that? With every post I think you are more
>and more of a troll.

You couldn't tell this thread was going nowhere from the root message? Even
if you didn't know who it was, that the message was crossposted among
five newsgroups, not really on topic in any of them, is a bit of a hint.

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,
SFTV_troy wrote:

>On Jun 7, 7:16*am, Primordial Ooze <jmna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>> > a year on cable.
>>
>> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>> something better whatever you may find that to be
>
>
>My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
>and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).

Tell me, Troy...just how do you plan to get your imaginary girlfriend
pregnant? With your imaginary stiffie?


**
Captain Infinity

[AuldPhart]

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:01:58 GMT, Captain Infinity
<Infinity@captaininfinity.us> wrote:

>Once Upon A Time,
>SFTV_troy wrote:
>
>>On Jun 7, 7:16*am, Primordial Ooze <jmna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 10:14*pm, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I can rent on DVD for cheap. * I'm glad I don't waste over 700 dollars
>>> > a year on cable.
>>>
>>> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
>>> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
>>> something better whatever you may find that to be
>>
>>
>>My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
>>and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).
>
>Tell me, Troy...just how do you plan to get your imaginary girlfriend
>pregnant? With your imaginary stiffie?
>
Stiffie.....huh huh huh huh. He said stiffie. :-)

[John Carter]

SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:b78fa2a2-5929-4b17-bf88-f5b3a16e115a@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
:

> On Jun 3, 11:41*pm, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only
>> what you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way
>> your $700 a year will render any profit for the cable company's
>> efforts.
>
>
>
> You're right. You're not getting my $700 a year. I hope you and
> your company go bankrupt (like Circuit City did). Poor service
> begets lose of business.
>
> And there are no "variables" to consider. Free tv is free tv.
> Nothing Comcast cable has to offer can beat that. Even their
> internet is overpriced - $60 a month??? Verizon DSL only costs me
> $15.
>

And you get what you pay for.

You also have demonstrated a thick skull -

"Poor service begets lose LOSS of business."
You are like so many other Internet pseudo-intellectuals - can't
spell, and can't use the proper words either.

[John Carter]

AuldPhart <auldphart@the.home> wrote in
news:9vqj2519eq3nvsqrdcb1a6eebhqeeqkfh3@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:42:38 -0400, "Smarty Pants"
> <smarty.pants@C0MCAST.NET> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home> wrote in message
>>news:38bj251kuvdlp4c5uo18bq3tfgtl8ik1gv@4ax.com...
>>> The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>>> evening.
>>> Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>>What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
> I've never heard any truth from a left wing liberal.

And I suppose your right-wing nuts like Dick CVheney tell the truth -
He's told so many lies - even he doesn't know what is truth and what
is a lie. Look at all those Republicans - now criticising those
policies they practiced when they were in power. They are so full of
double-talk. Maybe they think some of us don't remember their inane
banter from the first time around and now they can denounce it and
somehow feel like they have accomplised somethig. Just read some of
Michele Bachman's drivel - even her own Republican party members
cringe each time she "rises for a comment". Don't any of these
people have staff that can do a half way decent job of fact checking
and Googling. If you think the left wing liberals lie, then you need
toswitch your channel off Fox News and spend more time at
http://www.factcheck.org/.

And then you have the Right wing spokesmen Rush and Newt who live
with their feet in their mouths and yet the Party members run all
over each other to be the one who kisses their ass.

Give us all a break with your labeling.

WHat this country needs is for all those useless members of Congress
to spand as much time working for the country as they do for their
party.


>
>>Did you Rush Limpdick dittoheads forget it's Joe Sixpack-Taxpayer
>>that's bailing out the capitalist insurance and elite banking
>>geniuses?
>
> Ummm, I don't listen to Rush. He's a hard right winger. I'm an
> independent.
>

Your status as an Independent has nothign to do with whether you are
a right-winger or a left winger. You are not a Democrat or a
Republican registered party member. Maybe you tend to be a moderate
maybe ?



>>> or begging.
>>
>>Begging?
>>
>>Isn't that what the banks, insurance and Wall Street geniuses are
>>doing?
>
> Ummmm, no. Your messiah, Prez. Yomama forced it on them. They want
> to pay it back, but Yomama says NO.

If yo u are referring to Obama - you are certainly incorrect. Don't
you remember George Dubya Bush, ans Hank Paulsen from last September
2008? Hell, they just told banks to take the money and didn't even
have a plan for the use of the money - Their bailout plan was a
stupid pissing away of $350 billion that let banks pay dividends,
bonuses, and buy other banks with their George and Hank windfall.
You see, the money was allocated by Congress to assist individuals in
mortgage trouble and to help the banks do something with tthe"toxic
assets" on their books. But Mr. Paulsen decideded to "re-
capitalize" the banks so they would get credit flowing again - only
problem, there was no direction given to do this when the money was
given out. I would like to hear from Greenspan after this charity
hand er bailout. Remember he said he was "shocked to learn that the
banking community failed to regulate itself..."

Let's look at the whole picture and the FACTs before we start talking
about who forced what onto whom.

Currently, they may pay back the money if they can remain capitalized
to the point where they can take the worst case scenario of asset
failure, mismanagement, or any other catastrophe and remain liquid
and in business. I don't see that as a negative, do you ?

>
>>Hey, lets get a government bailout so we can reward our executives
>>with multi-million-dollar bonuses.
>>
>>It's Robin Hood in reverse. Rob from the poor taxpayer and give to
>>the corporate elite.
>>
> Yeah, yeah...and I bet you watch Keith olbermann every night to
> get your news. LMAO!!
>
>
I watch many news shows and listen to news on radio each day. I do
watch some Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but I also watch some CNN, some
FOX. Of he three, Fox seems to need noe fact checking that the other
two - not as much from their newsroom, but from their decidely right
wingers O'Reilley, Hannith and Beck - who even many of my staunchest
conservative friends refer to as the Clown-Troika.


And taht's all I have to say about that.

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 8, 12:02*pm, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.online-service.comcast SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> well woop-dee doo for you, thanks for sharing. Many would disagree
> >> with the cable part and the insurance part. Tuck that 700 away for
> >> something better whatever you may find that to be
>
> > My retirement so I don't have to live like a parasite off my children
> > and grandchildren's wages (as you will probably be doing).
>
> Why make insulting inferences like that? *With every post I think you are more
> and more of a troll.


The guy insulted me
I insulted him back.
That doesn't make me a troll, but defensive.

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 9, 1:17*am, John Carter <m...@mymailsvr.org> wrote:
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:b78fa2a2-5929-4b17-bf88-f5b3a16e115a@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
> :
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 11:41*pm, Cable Shill <cable_sh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Your head is too thick to consider all variables. You want only
> >> what you want, want it cheap and damn the others. There's no way
> >> your $700 a year will render any profit for the cable company's
> >> efforts.
>
>
>
> > You're right. *You're not getting my $700 a year. *I hope you and
> > your company go bankrupt (like Circuit City did). *Poor service
> > begets lose of business.
>
> > And there are no "variables" to consider. *Free tv is free tv.
> > Nothing Comcast cable has to offer can beat that. * *Even their
> > internet is overpriced - $60 a month??? *Verizon DSL only costs me
> > $15.
>
> And you get what you pay for.

Precisely my point in post one. For what cable offers, it's not worth
$700 a year, since there's often nothing worth watching. In addition
every show I desire to watch I can see for free via antenna, or rent
on DVD, for significantly less money than seven hundred dollars.




> "Poor service begets lose LOSS of business."
> *You are like so many other Internet pseudo-intellectuals -
> can't spell, and can't use the proper words either.



A typo is not a mis-spelling. It's simply fingers stumbling on keys
where they don't belong. I see YOU stumbled yourself when you typed
"lose loss" and ruined your sentence.

I'm not perfect but then neither are you.

[John Carter]

SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:dc3e389d-134c-4afd-a8d0-c212b25a29ee@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.co
m:

> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> Smarty Pants wrote:
>> "AuldPhart" <auldphart@the.home>
>>
>> > The only thing I watch on PBS are the British comedies on Sat.
>> > evening.
>> > Everything else is liberal left wing crap
>>
>> What's the matter? You can't handle the truth?
>
>
>
> No but a little balance would be nice. PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and
> MSNBC are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. FOX is
> centrist.


FOX is centrist ? How long have you been asleep Ri Van Winkle ?
Look up the phrase "far right-wing conservative news" in the
dictionary and you'll find a group prtrait of the entire FOX channel
personalities.



It would be nice to hear some right-wing,
> pro-small-government news for a change, just to have a little
> balance.
>
> As for the "truth" it lies somewhere between CNN on the left, and
> the Libertarian Party on the right. Listening to either one of
> those, alone, only gives you an extremist viewpoint. I prefer to
> stay away from extremists.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[SFTV_troy]

On Jun 9, 3:26*pm, John Carter <m...@mymailsvr.org> wrote:
> SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:dc3e389d-134c-4afd->
>
>
>
> > No but a little balance would be nice. *PBS, CBS, ABC, CNN, and
> > MSNBC are all leftist, pro-big-government channels. *FOX is
> > centrist. *
>
> Look up the phrase "far right-wing conservative news" in the
> dictionary and you'll find a group prtrait of the entire...

....Al-jazeera news cast. That's a far right-wing conservative
channel, not FOX. FOX presented the presidential campaign in a
balanced fashion (equal time for both sides), while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN
acted as if they were in man-love with Obama. i.e. Biased.

I think you'd find it amusing that some groups like the libertarians
call FOX a "liberal" channel. It's all dependent upon your own
viewpoint.

In truth studies show FOX lies directly in the middle of the American
political landscape, like Missouri.