Why does Fox News hate Barack Obama so much?
They do not. They thrive on him - as they do with any president.If there is a democrat in the White House, they attack him and warn the people of the "imminent doom". If he is a Republican, they worship and protect him from the "crazy liberals". Meanwhile, they thrive either way. And keep serving their real masters: Multinational Corporations and the New World Order globalization agenda. Because Fox News republicanism is nothing but the magician's flash, the pretty lady in the swimsuit there to grab your attention long enough for the trick to be completed. There are no more republicans than they are patriots.Notice how they are fervent capitalists whenever workers' rights or global health care issues are discussed yet have no problem with the very socialist concept of the taxpayer paying and bailing out banks and corporations? Their MO is capitalism for the poor but extreme socialism for the wealthy. Which makes perfect sense: the poor cannot afford buying their airtime, why should they expect any support when minimum wage is to be raised or the fear of loosing their house because of an emergency surgery is about to be alleviated.Notice how all those warmongering Fox news pundits have never served in the military and neither has any member of their immediate family? And yet, they are all supportive of the perpetual war the US is caught in since 1912. No one questions the billions spend on a war the average American has nothing to gain from , and especially not security since the countries attacked and invaded had nothing to do with terrorists.I am convinced that the real republicans are decent, hard working folk who want to keep the government long hands out of their pockets. And I am sure they deserve better than for these imbecile hypocrites at Fox News to claim to be expressing the republican opinion.
Was Fox News a legitimate news source at some point in the past? If so, what made it change?
Your question is as bias as Fox News. That said, in order to begin to answer your question One would need to know what your definition of "legitimate news source" is. Fox News is a channel who caters primarily to a conservative customer base, thus their content, editing and coverage often has a conservitave slant. A similar model can be drawn for just about every single television channel on the air. MSNBC is often recognized as a liberal leaning news channel and their content and editing represents such. The LOGO channel represents itself as a channel for people in the LGBTQ community, the Lifetime Network caters primarily to women, ESPN caters primarily to sports enthusiasts, etc., etc.The news is and always be a subjective view filtered through those who report it. Many good and reputable reporters claim to be unbiased and no doubt they strive for such. However, truly unbiased reporting does not sell newspapers or air-time and in the end a business must be profitable.
What do you think of Fox News editing out the laughter at the UN during Trump's speech?
A classic example of state-sponsored censorship and propaganda - showing only carefully selected, edited segments of events in order to tell the story they are being paid to tell.The USSR used to be accused of this all the time during the Cold War period - with some justificationAlthough … Pravda would sometimes reveal stories the US or other western nations did not want revealed to their public at homeThe BBC is sometimes accused of this - with some justification at timesDuring WW2 the BBC gained a reputation throughout most of Europe for telling the truth (although not necessarily the whole truth) when compared to the increasingly bombastic and fictitious newsreels and radio reports from the nazi propaganda ministryThe North Korean news media is often accused of this - with some justificationThe Murdoch-owned Newscorp TV and internet channels are constantly accused of this - with overwhelmingly obvious examples for all to seeMost state-run media outlets do this, to one degree or otherThe real lesson is to never fully believe any one source of news, without cross-checking to see what others are also reporting about the same events - this gives you the best chance at finding a balance between facts and fictionThe scary genius of the far-right (and frankly facist) takeover of the American government, and a significant portion of the American public, is that they have several news outlets completely under their sway - Fox, Briebart and Infowars are apparently the spiritual successors to the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and PropagandaWe are watching a masterclass in the methods that can be used to convince a population of people to vote for their own repression, encouraging hatred, fear and intolerance in people who believe themselves to be “good christians” - a term which is loosing credibility with every stepGeorge Orwells post-war novels Animal Farm and 1984 were meant to be stark warnings from history, but have instead become part of the new playbook of authoritarianism in the world today.Sad … very sad - for the whole world
Is it a big deal if the Obama's birth certificate was fake?
Not only was it faked it was badly faked(they never thought Hillary would lose). You can still download it from government archives President Obama's Long Form Birth CertificateAnd download free inkdrop editing software to unlock the editing layers they used. Find online instructions for how to do this. Its clear once you see the layers and what they contain that it was completely made up. People refusing to do their own research is what allowed this fraud to get into office.
Do you think even though Obama didn't have any investigations during his presidency that he still might have done something illegal that he never got caught for?
But, but. You so desperately want to believe this, don’t you?Despite there being no evidence, not even Fox News could come up with an allegation could they? But you hope, and likely pray, ignoring reality, that there could be something.Well, there is. And to all those who have no reason to believe that Obama was anything other than a decent human being, and a scholar, here is the shocking revelation:He once wore a tan suit! There you go, and off to Breitbart with you.Edit: Note to all, the trolls have got into autocorrect (again.) It tries now to turn “Obama” into “boom.”
Did Hilary Clinton lose to Obama because of sexism?
She lost because of two things: #1. She tried to get people to vote for her because she (in not so many words) said she "deserved" the job. NOBODY deserves to be elected to the least position in politics; that is a PRIVILEGE which is allowed by the voters, not taken-for-granted. She presented herself as being little more than a shrill harridan who would nag people into voting for her. #2. She could not disguise the blatant lust for power she has. Even George Dubbya had enough brains to develop the "Village Idiot" act to disguise his ethic-free power-hungry self-serving egotistical opportunistic agenda. That George Dubbya is a smarter political player than Hillary Clinton is something of a concern.
Are Birthers aware that even if Obama were born in Kenya, he`d be a natural-born US citizen due to his mother?
The Whole damn argument is MOOT because his mother NEVER, ever ONCE step foot in KENYA. She was married to a Kenyan, whom she met at HARVARD. She was NEVER, at any point in her life, until the day she died, EVER in Kenya. So debating whether he was born there or not, or even if he was..........or anything else......is just a waste of time. He was born in Hawaii. END of story. Any republican who argues that, has cow dung where their brains should be. As for Ted Cruz.....oh dear God..............here we go again.
How come no American Conservative ever won the Nobel Peace Prize?
by most definitions, "conservatism" is defined by an unwillingness to accept or evoke change. Why would a prize be awarded to a group who is content with the way of the world? By comparison, progress is defined (again, by definition) by progressives. Pretty cool. And congrats to the pres. The rest of the world is finally showing a little respect for our leaders again. Funny what happens when you put a respectable leader in office, huh? BTW- the person who mentioned Teddy Roosevelts Nobel Prize- you are correct about him winning. However, the big difference is that by comparison to todays "conservatives" Teddy was a PROGRESSIVE, widely regarded as the father of the conservation movement, a movement mostly mocked by todays "Fox conservatives".. EDIT- and to the bright folks mentioning the 11 day thing- he was NOMINATED 11 days into his administration, not awarded. BIG difference.