“Our Forefathers knew what government was capable of and tried to limit it… we’ve granted them too much control. “

They also owned black people too. So, what's your point? They weren't even sure they wanted white men who didn't own land to have a say in running the country. They weren't infallible.

“You asked about the Socialists in the White House? Seriously??
President Obama: Go back and listen to some archived statements where he repeatedly uses the term “redistributive”. THAT’S SOCIALISM. In 1999, he was a member of the Socialist 'New Party'.”

Has Obama seized the means of production? If you look at the past thirt years of our economic history there is redistributing going on for sure; however, the redistributing has been going to the wealthy. The top 1% of in comes have seen their share of the pie get as big as it has been since before the great depression. This country is in no danger of becoming socialistic.

Think about it, there so much opposition to him… why? Because a couple of off-the-cuff statements? Or could it possibly be because he's pointing out corruption and waste in the government? Don't take anyone's word for anything, watch him for a week straight… be honest with yourself and see why he's hated so badly. I watch people that I disagree with, just to challenge what I think to be true… it pains me to give any ratings to Olberma, Maddow, Mathews, Larry King,… but it's more important to actually HEAR what the other side is saying, not just get the notes from someone who dislikes the person.

Ok, the definition of Socialism is different based on the source, but I can agree on your definition. Let me ask you, what is a Labor Union? A labor union is established in a private company and then makes demands of the employer. Do they or do they not have control of the production of the resources? So let me ask you, who is SEIU and why is their agenda the same as Obama's agenda (HIS WORDS)?

What is “Employee Free Choice Act” or “Card Check”? This is an attempt for Labor Unions to gain MORE control of private companies. This piece of legislation could prevent the casting secret-ballots… is that good or bad? It’s bad! People vote what they feel when it’s in secret. If many people around me want a union and I don’t, which is more harmful for me, a secret-ballot or a ballot that everyone can see?

Labor unions are great in theory but they’re not realistic… do you think that they had anything to do with GM’s inability to compete?
Enough with Labor Unions. How about the legislation that forced banks to make risky loans, and when those loans went under and initiated the housing market collapse, the government then blamed the Banks… and of course had to take them over… because the Banks cannot be trusted. Wait, didn’t the government force the banks to make loans that caused the collapse? So isn’t the government to blame? Regardless, the government takes over the banks… and of course “We the People…” make up the government… right? So, are the Banks owned by the Public?

What about GM? Why did the government need to take over? THEY ARE UNSUSTAINABLE IN THEIR CURRENT STATE! They cannot succeed as long as they have to pay salaries that the unions are demanding, while also paying over 100,000 retirees… and still make a profit? They are now government owned and government controlled.

Post Office, government controlled. Amtrack, government controlled.
You think the Healthcare Bill being voted on TOMORROW isn’t going to lead to government takeover? If it’s not a COMPLETE takeover, it’s a HUGE step towards it… the first steps were made with Medicare and Medicaid.
That’s a few examples of government ownership/takeover.

You asked about the Socialists in the White House? Seriously??
President Obama: Go back and listen to some archived statements where he repeatedly uses the term “redistributive”. THAT’S SOCIALISM. In 1999, he was a member of the Socialist 'New Party'.

Van Jones, ex-Green Jobs Czar: A self proclaimed communist. He was involved in STORM, a group who was explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics… and his story goes so, so deep.

John Holdren, Science Czar: Made the following statements:
- Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
- The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
- Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
- People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
- A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives — using an armed international police force

Susan Crawford, Internet Czar: Member of the International Socialist Group, who’s trying to push the New Neutrality Movement which is spearheaded by the Marxist Free Press Organization.

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar: Has made several comments about Venezuela’s wonderful revolution of Hugo Chavez. Research Lloyd’s agenda and ask yourself, free-market or socialism?

Ron Bloom (Car Czar), Andy Stern, Sarah Feinberg, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Bill Ayers

Spencer Bachus claims that there are 17 Socialists in the House and 1 in the Senate… READ ABOUT IT NOW OR LIVE THROUGH IT. Our Forefathers knew what government was capable of and tried to limit it… we’ve granted them too much control.

The government ONLY has the rights over us that WE’VE LENT THEM. It’s not party politics, both sides are screwing us… the point is, what news agency is reporting this?

I said that there is not nearly enough evidence in these two examples to support the claim of fraud and to imply otherwise is not only misleading, but it's a disservice to those who THINK that they're getting the truth.

I haven't been presented with any evidence that indicates that Fox INTENTIONALLY showed the wrong video to mislead their viewers into believing that the events were more popular than they actually were. It's illogical for anyone to use this information as a means to jump to the conclusion that it was anything more than a mistake.

They said it was a mistake, so I can either believe it was a mistake, or follow illogical rationale that leads me to think they had an agenda… I think they made a mistake.

Let me provide a different example of using the same rationale (this IS off topic, but it should help understand a different situation where I apply the SAME LOGIC):
Letterman attacks Palin all the time. Letterman makes a remark about Palin's daughter getting knocked up at a Yankees game by Alex Rodriguez. The problem is that it was Palin’s 14 y/o daughter Willow who was at the game with her. Letterman claims that he didn’t know that it was her 14 y/o daughter, he thought it was her 18 y/o daughter and he apologized. There isn’t any information that implies that it was anything more than a mistake, so that’s what I believe. We cannot start with cynicism and assume the worst, it’s not fair. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!

I find Fox to be very accurate in the information they present, and I'm referring to statements, not visual aids. For example, who exposed the corruption in Acorn? Who exposed the radical beliefs of Van Jones? Who's exposing the miscalculations of “Saved or Created” jobs? Who's exposed the ties between Obama and the terrorist group Weather Underground? Who's exposing the number of Obama appointees that cannot properly file their taxes?

I could go on and on… and this IS the topic, whether Fox News is a credible news outlet or if they're putting out false information to misguide their viewers. I find them to be the most credible of the major media outlets, even though they do lean Conservative (not Republican).

I challenge anyone to watch Glenn Beck for a week and come back with any claims of fraudulent reports. He challenged the White House DIRECTLY and provided them with the means to rebut any of his statements… they never called.

So let me ask you; are you saying that they INTENTIONALLY put out the wrong video to misguide their viewers? If so, how is it different from your statement that the two mistakes occurred in the same week? Doesn't the inaccuracy of your statement make your argument stronger?

You made a mistake in your statement that “inadvertently” made your argument stronger and when I corrected it, you apologized. Would it be fair for anyone to STILL think that you were being malicious and intentionally misleading them? I would say no.

“Our Forefathers knew what government was capable of and tried to limit it… we’ve granted them too much control. “

They also owned black people too. So, what's your point? They weren't even sure they wanted white men who didn't own land to have a say in running the country. They weren't infallible.

“You asked about the Socialists in the White House? Seriously??
President Obama: Go back and listen to some archived statements where he repeatedly uses the term “redistributive”. THAT’S SOCIALISM. In 1999, he was a member of the Socialist 'New Party'.”

Has Obama seized the means of production? If you look at the past thirt years of our economic history there is redistributing going on for sure; however, the redistributing has been going to the wealthy. The top 1% of in comes have seen their share of the pie get as big as it has been since before the great depression. This country is in no danger of becoming socialistic.

Think about it, there so much opposition to him… why? Because a couple of off-the-cuff statements? Or could it possibly be because he's pointing out corruption and waste in the government? Don't take anyone's word for anything, watch him for a week straight… be honest with yourself and see why he's hated so badly. I watch people that I disagree with, just to challenge what I think to be true… it pains me to give any ratings to Olberma, Maddow, Mathews, Larry King,… but it's more important to actually HEAR what the other side is saying, not just get the notes from someone who dislikes the person.

Ok, the definition of Socialism is different based on the source, but I can agree on your definition. Let me ask you, what is a Labor Union? A labor union is established in a private company and then makes demands of the employer. Do they or do they not have control of the production of the resources? So let me ask you, who is SEIU and why is their agenda the same as Obama's agenda (HIS WORDS)?

What is “Employee Free Choice Act” or “Card Check”? This is an attempt for Labor Unions to gain MORE control of private companies. This piece of legislation could prevent the casting secret-ballots… is that good or bad? It’s bad! People vote what they feel when it’s in secret. If many people around me want a union and I don’t, which is more harmful for me, a secret-ballot or a ballot that everyone can see?

Labor unions are great in theory but they’re not realistic… do you think that they had anything to do with GM’s inability to compete?
Enough with Labor Unions. How about the legislation that forced banks to make risky loans, and when those loans went under and initiated the housing market collapse, the government then blamed the Banks… and of course had to take them over… because the Banks cannot be trusted. Wait, didn’t the government force the banks to make loans that caused the collapse? So isn’t the government to blame? Regardless, the government takes over the banks… and of course “We the People…” make up the government… right? So, are the Banks owned by the Public?

What about GM? Why did the government need to take over? THEY ARE UNSUSTAINABLE IN THEIR CURRENT STATE! They cannot succeed as long as they have to pay salaries that the unions are demanding, while also paying over 100,000 retirees… and still make a profit? They are now government owned and government controlled.

Post Office, government controlled. Amtrack, government controlled.
You think the Healthcare Bill being voted on TOMORROW isn’t going to lead to government takeover? If it’s not a COMPLETE takeover, it’s a HUGE step towards it… the first steps were made with Medicare and Medicaid.
That’s a few examples of government ownership/takeover.

You asked about the Socialists in the White House? Seriously??
President Obama: Go back and listen to some archived statements where he repeatedly uses the term “redistributive”. THAT’S SOCIALISM. In 1999, he was a member of the Socialist 'New Party'.

Van Jones, ex-Green Jobs Czar: A self proclaimed communist. He was involved in STORM, a group who was explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics… and his story goes so, so deep.

John Holdren, Science Czar: Made the following statements:
- Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
- The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
- Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
- People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
- A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives — using an armed international police force

Susan Crawford, Internet Czar: Member of the International Socialist Group, who’s trying to push the New Neutrality Movement which is spearheaded by the Marxist Free Press Organization.

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar: Has made several comments about Venezuela’s wonderful revolution of Hugo Chavez. Research Lloyd’s agenda and ask yourself, free-market or socialism?

Ron Bloom (Car Czar), Andy Stern, Sarah Feinberg, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Bill Ayers

Spencer Bachus claims that there are 17 Socialists in the House and 1 in the Senate… READ ABOUT IT NOW OR LIVE THROUGH IT. Our Forefathers knew what government was capable of and tried to limit it… we’ve granted them too much control.

The government ONLY has the rights over us that WE’VE LENT THEM. It’s not party politics, both sides are screwing us… the point is, what news agency is reporting this?

I said that there is not nearly enough evidence in these two examples to support the claim of fraud and to imply otherwise is not only misleading, but it's a disservice to those who THINK that they're getting the truth.

I haven't been presented with any evidence that indicates that Fox INTENTIONALLY showed the wrong video to mislead their viewers into believing that the events were more popular than they actually were. It's illogical for anyone to use this information as a means to jump to the conclusion that it was anything more than a mistake.

They said it was a mistake, so I can either believe it was a mistake, or follow illogical rationale that leads me to think they had an agenda… I think they made a mistake.

Let me provide a different example of using the same rationale (this IS off topic, but it should help understand a different situation where I apply the SAME LOGIC):
Letterman attacks Palin all the time. Letterman makes a remark about Palin's daughter getting knocked up at a Yankees game by Alex Rodriguez. The problem is that it was Palin’s 14 y/o daughter Willow who was at the game with her. Letterman claims that he didn’t know that it was her 14 y/o daughter, he thought it was her 18 y/o daughter and he apologized. There isn’t any information that implies that it was anything more than a mistake, so that’s what I believe. We cannot start with cynicism and assume the worst, it’s not fair. PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!

I find Fox to be very accurate in the information they present, and I'm referring to statements, not visual aids. For example, who exposed the corruption in Acorn? Who exposed the radical beliefs of Van Jones? Who's exposing the miscalculations of “Saved or Created” jobs? Who's exposed the ties between Obama and the terrorist group Weather Underground? Who's exposing the number of Obama appointees that cannot properly file their taxes?

I could go on and on… and this IS the topic, whether Fox News is a credible news outlet or if they're putting out false information to misguide their viewers. I find them to be the most credible of the major media outlets, even though they do lean Conservative (not Republican).

I challenge anyone to watch Glenn Beck for a week and come back with any claims of fraudulent reports. He challenged the White House DIRECTLY and provided them with the means to rebut any of his statements… they never called.

So let me ask you; are you saying that they INTENTIONALLY put out the wrong video to misguide their viewers? If so, how is it different from your statement that the two mistakes occurred in the same week? Doesn't the inaccuracy of your statement make your argument stronger?

You made a mistake in your statement that “inadvertently” made your argument stronger and when I corrected it, you apologized. Would it be fair for anyone to STILL think that you were being malicious and intentionally misleading them? I would say no.

But I'll play along with the argument that two instances of using incorrect video is proof of “outright fraud” (even though the author implies that each instance has enough supporting evidence to be independently considered as “outright fraud”).

First, let's address your misstatements (you said it twice) that these two incidents occurred within the same week. I'm looking for a calendar where November 5th and November 18th occur in the same week… your argument that this apparent fraud is based on the fact that: “In the less than a week FNC has used footage…”. See how easy it is to make a mistake? Should we all consider your statements as fraud? No, it wouldn’t be fair to attack your character because you made a MISTAKE… it happens.

I'll continue…
In video #1, the Palin book tour, are you saying that you didn't realize that that was a campaign video? I saw the campaign signs and I immediately identified that it was the wrong video… but that's me.

In video #2, the November 5th rally, Hannity said the number of people attending was about 20,000, and Bauchman says between 20,000-45,000… the video is obviously more people than what either of them stated. I'll agree that it's less understandable how this mistake was made, but my lack of understanding isn't any kind of proof.

All I am saying is that there is not nearly enough evidence in these two examples to support the claim of fraud and to imply otherwise is not only misleading, but it's a disservice to those who THINK that they're getting the truth. The author is calling out a news agency for admitted mistakes while at the same time he's not even coming close to the standards he's imposing.

Apparent fraud looks much differently than showing the wrong video… Dan Rather's story about the Killian Documents on CBS is a GREAT example of OUTRIGHT FRAUD, there is undoubted proof. If the author truly feels that Fox is committing fraud, then he should point to more definitive evidence.

Waaaaaaay 2 FUNNY!!! :>)

Thanks 4 da laff!!! :>)

It's important to point out a few things about the accuracy of this article:
1) The title says that Fox was “Busted”, but who “busted” them? I only see Fox admitting the mistake, maybe the author should have pointed out who caught this “lie” and how they called Fox out on it… then BUSTED could be more accurate.
2) The author's 3rd sentence establishes his authority on the subject: “I’ve never been in the media business”… great to know that the author has no basis to continue…
3) However, the author continues to build on that solid foundation with the following statement, “I will just ‘assume’”… really? So, the rest of the article/comments are going to be based on this person's assumption? Please continue with your exceptional journalism!
4) When analysis starts with an assumption, how can the author then progress to tell you how Fox News stores data? I thought that the author was just assuming, sure doesn’t sound like it as they explain how Fox has to “LOOK for footage from a year ago”. Right, I’m sure it takes them DAYS ON END to find a video clip.
5) Using all of the previously established facts, the author is ready for a conclusion: Fox is trying to “CREATE the story that this woman’s book, and her are more popular than they actually are”… “you [Fox News] are devoting time and money to having anchors follow this woman around and are interviewing her on basically every program you have.”
In order to play along, I’ll have to ignore both the apparent grammatical error and the fact that her book is either #1 or #2 on the bestseller lists at Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Borders.

Accusing Fox News of fraudulent journalism, you would think that this article would contain a few facts, yet FACTS are not provided to support the conclusion. Which anchors are FOLLOWING Palin? How many programs does Fox News have vs. the number of Programs that have interviewed her? That ratio is too small to call it “basically every program”.

Here it is, plain and simple. The author chastises Fox News for “false news”, using an admitted mistake to generalize about their entire organization… this article is textbook defamation at best. Let’s see if the author is able to admit the apparent misstatements THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

What about the 11 reporters from the Associated Press who have been sent out to “Fact Check” her book… that’s a GREAT story… look at all the evidence they found.