Previous Story
Bernie Sanders: We Need Liberal Equivalent to Fox News
Posted On 09 May 2016
Well, they don’t call him “Crazy Bernie” for nothing.
This week, Hillary Clinton’s most persistent political pest – Sen. Bernie Sanders – said that it was time for some changes in the American political landscape.
In an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Sanders said, “I think the American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics. And, by the way, a little bit tired of corporate media, as well. They want real changes in this country and I think as president of the United States, we can ignite those changes.”
Maddow’s ears perked up. “What`s the solution to corporate media?”
Sanders, oblivious to irony, said, “I think we have got to think about ways that the Democratic Party starts funding the equivalent of Fox television. Number two, I think that pressure has got to be put on media to say that you know what, maybe as a nation, the American people are entitled to hear real discussions on real issues.”
We can dismiss the second half of his comment as the usual folderol that politicians say. Oh, we’re gonna have to do this or that. We must pressure this sector of the economy or that one. Yay activism. It’s just a stand-in for the real answer to Maddow’s question, which is, “I have no earthly idea.” Or perhaps, “I have an idea, but I can’t say it because then the American people will realize how radical I really am.” In either case, it can be safely ignored.
But the first half is really something to behold, especially since he said it on MSNBC of all places – a network whose unofficial motto is: We’re the liberal alternative to Fox News. Even leftists understand this. Has Sanders ever watched the Rachel Maddow show? It’s as far to the left as you can get without joining a commune in Oregon.
Result being: the network has been hemorrhaging viewers. In recent months, new management has made some positive changes, replaced unpopular and abrasive personalities with better anchors, and shifted focus away from commentary and towards political news coverage. The oppressive liberal bias is still there, but it’s a bit less confrontational.
But there’s simply no real demand for a liberal equivalent to Fox. Not because liberals don’t watch television, but because that “equivalent” already exists: it’s called Everything on TV that Isn’t Fox! Fox News triumphed because there was nothing else like it on the dial. Suddenly, Americans had an outlet that wasn’t spewing the same old propaganda. If the mainstream media had been relentlessly conservative for forty years, a “Liberal Fox News” channel might have thrived. As it stands now, MSNBC is just the worst of many liberal echo chambers.
Sanders has said many comical things over the last six months, but this one’s right up there with the kookiest of them.
You’ve got MSNBC Bernie. How many useful idiots do you need?
MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, N.Y. Times, Washington Press, and others are ALL liberal agenda pushers! Bernie’s a bone-head!
agree
The Communist Broadcasting System has been the leader for YEARS!!!
Comrad Katy, Ellen Degenerate, etc., etc.,
Well done, Bill. I guess Bernie so tied up with all the government alphabet agencies he forgot the private sector has its own airhead, duncehat collection.
Yes, and should a socialist like Bernie get elected, the ownership of these media companies along with the ownership of other corporations will discover what a sop on wealth socialism truly is.
And that is a bad thing?
You bet your 401K it is.
How so? You may be right. I just don;t know.
The government must pay for all of the social and other programs it runs. The money must come from somewhere. There are only two possibilities, taxes or borrowing. The government is using both of these sources now and the debt has more than doubled in the last 8 years. More “free” stuff from the government means more government spending. We already have the highest corporate taxes among industrialized nations which puts us at a disadvantage price wise on the world market. More taxes means higher prices for US goods and that affects your 401K. More borrowing means more government money goes just to pay the interest on the debt and devaluation of the dollar and that affects your 401K. The government must learn to do what every working man and woman already has to do and that is have a balanced budget so that all spending is accounted for by income. That would result in a healthier economy and more jobs for people who want them.
Could not have said that better myself. Excellent post. Liz needs to learn just what socialism is really all about. God bless and keep up the good fight.
Why do I need to learn what socialism is really all about (beyond what I already know)? Bernie is not advocating socialism in the sense of government control of the means of production; he is advocating for more social programs.
We can agree that borrowing is not a good thing. So that leaves taxes. I hope we can also agree that the current tax system in the US is not great. If I were in charge of re-writing the tax code, I would probably not tax earned income at all, at least not below $250,000, say. But I would tax all unearned income, including inheritances, and I would tax speculation, specifically stock exchange trades. That may not be enough, but it’s a start.
I encourage you to read this : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/15/1357922/-How-I-Converted-My-Republican-Co-Worker-on-Tax-Policy. It shows the tremendous unfairness of a tax system which allows Warren Buffett to pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
I don’t like the present tax system either. It gives the government too much power the economy and is way too complex. I would repeal the sixteenth amendment (income tax) and replace it with a tax on consumption (sales tax). Corporations would pay no taxes which would make their products cheaper. The rich would end up paying more in taxes since they have more disposable income which they spend on high priced cars, homes boats ect. Items such as food and meds would be exempt as they are from state sales taxes. The IRS would lose the power punish people on the political left or right since the tax would be collected at the point of sale. Your paycheck would go farther since there would be no with holding. I predict this will not come to pass. The politicians wont give up that much power voluntarily.
A consumption tax is not a bad idea.
But I fear that your take on corporations and the really wealthy is based, perhaps, on what economists say, rather than what actually happens. The rich are rich because they have far greater income than expenditure even while living seemingly extravagant lifestyles. A consumption tax would hardly be noticed, especially as they buy the yachts somewhere else!
Investments don’t create jobs. They create greater wealth for the investors. Lower corporate taxes don’t necessarily mean lower cost of products. Can you see banks lowering their credit card rates or bank fees because they were paying lower taxes? I can’t. What about the corporations which have been “forced” off-shore because of the high corporate tax rate? In many cases they end up paying no taxes at all – has the cost of their products gone down s a result? No, but the executive compensation has gone up.
Politicians won’t give up that much power without a fight. It is just possible that Bernie Sanders and his millions of supporters could win that fight. Will you join us?
“Investments don’t create jobs. They create greater wealth for the investors”
I must disagree with your view of economics. To the investor, the goal is a return on investment. Investors invest in companies they hope and expect will be profitable in the future. Most are not. Much of the investment wealth in this country is held by pensions and 401ks The problem the middle class and the poor face today is a soft job market for good paying jobs with opportunities for advancement. That is a result of trade agreements made with countries seeking to take advantage of cheap labor and low or no corporate taxes. Most of the money and jobs go to out of the country as the cost of doing business (wages, purchases, taxes etc.) Raising corporate taxes would only increase the incentive to send more business offshore. The politicians caused these problems by signing trade agreements that made it economically attractive to move factories and jobs overseas. It will be up to them to either fix them or lose their jobs as elected officials. I think Bernie would only increase social programs making it necessary to either increase taxes or increase the debt. Neither would be good.
.
You are not actually disagreeing with me. You are talking about something quite different, namely businesses moving off-shore because of cheaper labor (and the possibility of avoiding taxes altogether). Investments in start-ups may create jobs in the short term, but as you rightly point out, most of those fail. I have yet to see where an investment (that is buying shares) in a large corporation has led to job creation. The more shareholders there are, the more profit the company needs to make to keep them happy. As they also have to pay their executives ridiculously high salaries, it is far more likely to mean workers are laid off or replaced with machines.
If I suggested raising corporate taxes, that was a mistake. But I do think that they should pay what they owe. And I agree one hundred percent that the various trade agreements are bad for everyone.
Bernie’s plan is to tax the super-wealthy. Do you have a problem with that?
What I want is for every citizen to have a stake in this country. That means paying taxes as well as benefiting from job creation and the general welfare. What we seem to disagree on is how this should be accomplished. I want policies that create a robust economy providing an opportunity for a choice of rewarding jobs. You seem to be advocating for a high tax on the rich and redistributing the wealth among the citizens. I have several problems with this. Higher taxes, larger government, politicians and bureaucrats making these decisions instead of individual citizens with the resulting power this gives to government.
As the ultra-wealthy in this country have without fail gained their wealth through the exploitation of workers or resources (plus the opportunity to expand their wealth through virtually untaxed speculation on the stock market), I see no problem in taxing them now. It can justifiably be called redistribution of wealth. Again, I have no problem with that.
A robust economy seems a worthy goal, but it will not necessarily benefit you and me. You are worried about the power that higher taxes will give to the government; I worry about the power that is currently in the hands of the corporations.
Only Bernie will actually return power to the people.
Speculation on the stock market is not untaxed. Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not. Power to the people sounds too much like a dictatorship of the proletariat. Remember that the government regulates corporations, not the other way around.
If there is a tax on stock market trades, I Have not heard of it – and apparently neither has Bernie: isn’t it a large part of his platform to put a tax on transactions. As I understand it (which is also what I think should happen) that would mean for every share that changed hands, a fraction of a penny would go to the government. That will make very little difference to me when I sell a thousand shares of whatever;less than $10. But it could make a substantial difference to Mr Hedge Fund who buys 5 million shares, and sells them again half an hour later. That is what I call speculating.
“Remember that the government regulates corporations, not the other way around.”
You think? On the one hand there are entities like ALEC which writes corporate-friendly legislation which is then taken by lobbyists to members of Congress, many of whom look upon it favorably, because they will be up for re-election shortly. On the other hand, there is a strong group of legislators who are working very hard to roll back the few regulations that still exist, limiting the power of corporations. Add to that the Supreme Court giving them personhood, and I would say that corporations are very much in charge.
The annual increase in your account is treated as income and taxed. (dividends used to purchase stock or returned as cash income) This is the reason people speculate, to generate income. The value of stock sold is taxed against your investment. If there is a loss, there is no tax. Investment losses are limited to an annual amount. The rich hire accountants to figure this out and minimize the taxes paid. I trust the individual taxpayer to decide how to invest and spend their money. The government already spends way too much money. I don’t trust it with even more.
I am aware that dividends and interest income is taxed as part of general income (I have done our tax returns including the dreaded schedule B for more than 30 years). Capital gains, however, are taxed at a much lower rate, currently 15% if I am not mistaken. Also, bonuses are taxed at a lower rate. This means that an executive might get a $600,000 SALARY, on which he pays maybe 38%. But he also receives a bonus of, say, $3.5 million, on which he pays 25% tax, and stock options worth another $6.5 million on which he pays a capital gains tax of 15%. (I’m not making these figures up by the way: these figures are very close to the publicly reported remuneration for the CEO of the corporation that runs the town where I live).
But that is not what I am talking about – nor is Bernie. According to his website, Bernie “Has proposed a financial transaction tax which will reduce risky and
unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street
speculation; proceeds would be used to provide debt-free public college
education.”
I can’t support a tax on stock trading. That would hurt 401ks (retirement investments) and company pension funding. I can support a consumption tax as long as the sixteenth amendment is repealed. When the government proves it can spend tax money responsibly, we could talk about the need for more federal income. As far as college educations go, when I attended college, the tuition was $106/quarter and this was at one of the best colleges in the USA. It was easier for me to have a night job, take daytime classes and pay for this myself than to take a two hour buss ride (each way) to class and have my parents pay for it.
You are giving away clues here about your age! But aren’t you glad that you were able to attend college and graduate without debt. Even back in the Middle Ages, (when I went to school) $106 per quarter was very affordable (perhaps $1000 in today’s terms). These days tuition at a community college is similar (starting at $3500 per year) but that does not take into account books and living expenses (not everyone can live at home). A community college is a great start in higher education but an associate’s degree does not get you very far in the job market.
A tax on stock trading would not make a significant difference to 401ks or other pension funds, because – unlike the speculators – they do not trade millions of stocks on a daily basis. At least I hope they don’t! I would like my pension fund to invest in steady, reliable companies.
No, they do trade stocks and while not on a daily basis, the number of trades is far more than the day traders. The point is that the problem is costs which are not moderated by increasing demand and imposing mandates as the CRA and the ACA government programs illustrate. Until you can define the cause of a problem, there is no chance it can be solved.
I don’t know how to check your assertions. Are you sure that a steady mutual fund or pension account is trading millions of stocks on a regular basis?
In my, admittedly limited, knowledge of how the stock market works, I understand that day traders can but and sell the same enormous holding of stock several times in a day. That is what I call speculation, and what I think needs to be curtailed because it is gambling with other people’s money, and skews the market for the small investor.
As I said before, I want my pension fund to take a long-term approach to investing and only switch stocks if there is a very good reason to do so.
Most pension funds and IRA investments are done in mutual funds which are handled by investment professionals who frequently move funds around to get a better result for the investors. They frequently hedge their bets to avoid big losses. I get reports on the change in value on my investments several times a year which indicate that sales and purchases have been made. Some of this money is dividends which are reinvested. Corporate taxes have already been paid on this money. The government doesn’t have an income problem, it has a spending problem and a management problem.
How you describe your investments is pretty much my experience as well. Several times a year is not a lot. A tax on those trades is not going to make much difference to anyone.
Maybe the government does have a spending problem. Let me rephrase that. Government does spend more than it needs to. BUT! Where would you make the cuts?
“BUT! Where would you make the cuts?”
I could make more than a few suggestions; but that is why we have elections.
“Add to that the Supreme Court giving them personhood,”
Personhood is only valuable if you pay taxes as a “person” with exemptions and deductions. A consumption tax eliminates this.
“I have yet to see where an investment (that is buying shares) in a
large corporation has led to job creation. The more shareholders there
are, the more profit the company needs to make to keep them happy.”
Corporations use stock sales for several purposes. They are used to create capital a company needs to expand its operations or to improve its products. They are used as a way to reward employees for faithful service through profit sharing. They are used as a way to provide for employee retirement, replacing pension plans many of which were poorly funded. They are used to reward investors who have contributed needed capital in hopes of financial gain.
Then I suggest you try to educate yourself on socialism and find out just how oppressive it really is. It also has never, ever worked when it has been tried in country after country and century after century. It doesn’t work because eventually you run out of other peoples money. But that is only one facet of the problems that socialism encompasses.
And I suggest that you read Bernie’s platform and then tell me how it is oppressive. Come to that, tell me how it is socialism.
Socialism in Russia, farmers were given a small plot of land to grow vegetables for their families, but the majority of farmland was to raise crops to to feed the populace. The farmers were treated so bad, they raised more product on their small plot of land than they did on the commutative farm land. Plus, how many times have Americans had to take a pot load of money to the store and stand in line, just to buy a loaf of bread?
During the Depression maybe?
Perhaps you should talk to some chicken farmers about how their capitalist overlords screw them at every turn.
Don’t forget PBS
They used to be good but got caught up in the political correctness/balanced reporting stuff, even when the ‘balance’ is seriously uneven (as with the climate change debate).
The only place to get an unbiased view of the country is to watch the comedy shows: those guys are equal opportunity critics. They make fun of anyone and any situation that is worthy of ridicule.
Political correctness is not a good thing. It frequently ignores the truth.
I absolutely agree.
Bernie is show ing signs of dementia. He WAS on one of them. If he gets elected he’ll probably want the white house to be painted white, ’cause I don’t think he knows what color it is now. His revolution will be having him in put into an assisted living home
Well it has appeared to be a rainbow color at times.
true, ’cause the closet fairy president wanted to make sure all the nations fairy’s new he was always thinking of them and like them
Thanks. Some else sees them for what they are!
LAME stream media not enough for you, lamebrain??
I’ll see the world the way I want yo see it! La, la, la, la, la, la, la.
Fox news is already too liberal for me. They think fair and balanced is an opportunity for anyone to spew talking points and propaganda. Quit matching people just to create controversy. In the end Fox loves creating controversy, it sells advertising. That’s why I seldom watch Fox anymore. Even so, Fox is much better than the democrat party networks of NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.
If you believe in the constitution, the media has a responsibility to present competing ideology. It also has a responsibility to expose spin. The percieved problem with Fox (and some of the others) is that people do not understand the difference between opinion and fact. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Bib Stewart,,,,,you are so right about the media and politicians. They are ALL in it together. That is why there is such a ground swell to vote for Trump. He is not, so far, one of THEM!
One America News, but not all networks carry it
Didn’t Rush Limbaugh rail FOR the”fairness doctrine”?
Shouldn’t Americans demand honesty in broadcasting?
No, mater of fact Limbaugh didn’t. Where did you get that idea? As for honesty in broadcasting, might want to demand that from the “drive by media!”
.
a
Vote in November
.
.
THE TRUMP vs THE TRAMP.
.
.
DEFINITELY. The BEST VS The BITCH.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2016
You already have multiple equivalents to Fox News starting with editorialized Facebook, CBS,NBC CNN,ABC and every other alphabet network out there they are ALL editorializing for the liberals.
Ya. Is he delusional? Everyone of those stations are too far left for me. He probably wants a socialism station.Yikes!
The Democrat party has changed for the worse since John Kennedy gave his inaugural speech in which he said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” That is the spirit that won the second world war and stymied communism. It is far different than the spirit of those who voted for the winning candidate in the last two elections.
Well we can give Bernie a little credit then; it is obvious he does not watch MSNBC or CNN! And it is easy to understand why with people like Rachel Maddow; she is the most boring, one sided thinking person on any of he networks.
And, FOX probably gets vey little of the $2.2 billion dollars Obama has spent marketing his agenda but you can bet CNN in particular gets their fair share!
Let’s see, the liberals have an entire media wing of their party starting with ABC, cB.S., NBC, CNN, NPR, PBS and last but not least MSNBC! In addition they have FakeBook, the NY Times, Boston Globe and LA Times along with the AP. Bernie is a bit demented I would say.
Bernie? A bit demented?! Nooooooo, what makes you think that? The fact that he is an old hippie, much like those congressmen and senators who are running our country these days. He is just an extreme example of his type of brain dead and liberal maniac. They live in another dimension among the zombies and the retarded folks. The rest of us live in the real world with the working poor, middle class and the super rich. How did they get super rich? Most of these folks worked, had better luck than most and really deserve to live a better life than most of us.
I gather from your comments that you are not one of the super-rich. In that case Bernie is on your side!! He IS one of the rest of us.
I am staggered to see you say that these folks (the super-rich) really deserve to live a better life than most of us. Are you saying that they are better people? They certainly had better luck than most of us, and that luck consisted in being born in favorable circumstances. If you are born well-off, the chances are that you will do very well in life. If you are born poor, the odds are overwhelming: you will stay poor. Bernie would like to level the playing field.
Einstein said:
Strive
not to be a success, but rather to be of value. Making tons of money (almost always by exploiting the environment, your employees or the public) is not the pinnacle of achievement.
“Strive
not to be a success, but rather to be of value. Making tons
of money (almost always by exploiting the environment, your employees or
the public) is not the pinnacle of achievement”
Most of us don’t make a ton of money, we are too busy earning a living to get rich. I was fortunate enough to find a job that I enjoyed and was well paid to do it. Some people make more money by accident than I made on purpose.The problem with socialism is that it is a leveler and it levels down. It does not incentivize people to be of value; It incentivizes people to be average and it is a sop on the country’s wealth to do this and keep the socialist in power. It promotes collectivism at the expense of individualism. Einstein was an individualist. He came to this country to escape the national socialism of Germany
The word socialism comes with a lot of baggage and can mean totally different things. The national socialism of Germany was fascism by another name. Socialism where the government controls the means of production and promotes collectivism at the expense of individualism is more accurately communism. Democratic socialism (the sort that Bernie espouses) should really be called populism or social democracy, because the needs of the people are more important than creating wealth. One could also call it compassionate democracy.
Far from incentivizing people to be average, it allows them the freedom to be as creative as they choose to be instead of worrying about getting ill, or having to take time off work to care for a family member, or work three jobs to pay off a college loan. It gives them the freedom to contribute to society (that being of value bit).
Capitalism has created more wealth and opportunity than socialism. All socialism has done is sopped up the wealth created by others and used it to keep the politicians in power. I never had a college loan. I had a job at night and went to college in the day. It didn’t cost that much and I took it seriously because I was paying for it. The problem seems to be how much the cost of things that the government has regulated has gone up since then. If you have a job and are productive you are contributing something of value.
It is quite clear that those who have benefited from capitalism will support it. What I don;t understand is those people who have not done particularly well under the system, yet continue to support it. I am making the assumption that you are one of those, because that is what your argument strongly suggests. If I am wrong, let me know and I will adjust my argument.
Let’s look for a moment at the wealth created by others. Let’s look for a moment at the family I most love to hate: the Waltons. Sam Walton created an incredible empire. Some of his business dealings may have been a bit shady, but he was by every measure a huge success. I don’t know too much about how he treated his workers, but I can look at the Walmart of today and say, this is not right. The fact that the CEO of the company earns $8,500 an hour, but will not pay his workers a living wage is outrageous. This has nothing to do with the government or government regulations. This is sheer corporate greed. It will be a long time before Walmart workers feel that they are contributing something of value.
I was well paid to do a job I enjoyed doing. I could have moved up in the company, but I liked solving problems and making systems work better than managing people. In my job, I had to do both with the emphasis on engineering. I did not like the politics involved in the management meetings I had to attend. I have a dim view of politics. The problem of wage disparity could be solved by having some labor representation on corporate board of directors. These are the people who determine upper managements pay. You have to accept that the more responsibility you have the more your pay will be but it is frequently overboard.
“Far from incentivizing people to be average, it allows them the freedom to be as creative”
The fewer government regulations you must obey, the more creative freedom you have.
Absolutely true. But I would still like to see some checks in place to keep ‘creative freedom’ from becoming exploitation.
We already have numerous checks in place to protect the environment. What we don’t need is regulations designed to raise taxes or to limit energy production.
And the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Seattle Times, the Portland Oregonian, on and on…
And the McClatchy News (Sacramento Bee etc)
FREE; of course……………huh, Burnie!!!!!!!!!
Hey Bernie what about MSNBC NBC ABC CBS HLN CNN HNN hell did I forget one of them. They have been in your corner for years you lamebrain
If Bernie gets elected, his news agency will be called PRAVDA.
Spot on
Oh, please! You have made some interesting comments elsewhere, but this one is either a misguided attempt at humor, or else shows a profound ignorance of what Bernie Sanders stands for.
I know some one who could tell you about socialism. He lived through it. The economy works better when you pay for what you get.
The economy works better when it works for everyone.
And I have no idea who you mean by some one who could tell you about socialism. Silly me.
Is he that clueless? The libturds have control of ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, MSNBC, CNN (Communist News Network, etc. The only thing they don’t control is talk radio and they failed at that with Air America because they don’t understand how it works.
Worse, he thinks all his programs will be easily paid for by taxing Wall Street and the top 1%. He wants to spend 3 TRILLION dollars a year while the tax base he’s after is far less than that. He and $hitlery aren’t telling their moron supporters that under their administrations the deficit will grow exponentially and will never be brough back under control.
The already have the equivalents in the form of virtually all the main stream media networks. Plus they already have the equivalent of Pravda in the form of PBS and NPR. although certainly not perfect, Fox is the only non-progressive/socialist network that I am aware of.
What the hell does Bernie think ABC,CBS, NBC, MSNBC & CNN are?
Good God Bernie, you have all of the media except Fox, what more do you need ?
Moron is as moron does. WOW!!! They have a lying, cheating, corrupt, scandalous POS like Hitlery or, a delusional, inept, deranged old moron who doesn’t have the first clue about economics. What has this world come to?
Is Sanders joking?? Most of the media is liberal. They can’t help themselves. Between their normal liberal thinking brain due to idealism, the college and university brainwashing, and that temporary feel good attitude at the expense of all of us,we are being spoon fed the liberal ration of un-truths and twisted opinions.
They have had several for years, and years. It know as the “Mainstream Media”
So NBC, CBS,ABC, CNN, MSN and MSNBC are not enough leftist views for this Communist? None of them have presented the fact that there are many ministries that have helped same sex addicts out of their habit as well as the gender confused? Nor did they tell the American Public about How both Ginsberg and Kagan broke federal statutes to push same sex marriage when they were required to recuse themselves, did NOT hear a peep about “SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AND DISBARRED”. Please note that there are more one Percenters (Billionaires) supporting the democrat party over the Republican Party. You think the Democrats once elected are really going to bite the hand that feeds them?
You do have liberal stations, Bernie. They are ABC, NBC, CNN, SNBC, and Public Television.
Bernie have you been napping, the Hollywood media industry has 90% or maybe 95% of the lefty liberal output of bilge or toilet talk they call news.
Man, he IS crazy; CNN, CBS, ABC, are all lib stations, snd recently Fox 10 is too! What he means is close up the non-lib websites, I guess.
Maybe he watches Disney channels, or Gun Smoke? Or maybe he just doesn’t remember.
Seriously, Bernie, you’ve already got ABC, CBS, NBC and MSNBC and CNN! And FOX has moving left for the last 8 years!
No, what he REALLY needs,…….is a one-way ticket to Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!
What Bernie: the liberal main stream media isn’t enough?
A state controlled news media. Where have we heard that before, well, yes… in Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, Cuba, and the list goes on.
First, in order to get anybody to watch that channel the government would have to ban all other media.
At that point I would destroy my television set.
What is really needed is a good BS filter. If you have one, you will not be a useful idiot.
Bernie is nuts. What does he think NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are? Socialist is too kind a word for Bernie. Communist is a better description and it also applies to many democrats as well.
That’s impossible Bernie. Fox is what it is because it’s “conservative”. As the old saying goes, “You can’t turn a sows ear into a silk purse.” You sir, and the Dummycrat Party are the sows ear.
Is Bernie kidding. All news outlets with the exception of the Drudge Report are liberal. Stick your head back up your arse where it came from Bernie.
Sad thing is, Bernie is better than Hillary.
What this country needs is a good king. I’m ready when you are.
Bernie the Bolshevik has never worked a real job in his life.
How about this for a radical idea? How about a channel which just presents news without any political spin? How about a completely unbiased look at what is happening in the world?
Fox is the only conservative news around, all the rest present their libertard views in presenting the news and then, instead of presenting the news truthfully and unbiased, they try to present it in a way to make your mind up for you.