It is to the "right."

The fact is, the "right" is just a different brand of globalist tyranny politics.

If your views on immigration, birth control, abortion, socialized medicine, social safety nets, personal liberties, and laws regarding marriage/adoption and homosexuality all fit neatly with the "right" or "left" of globalist Amerikan politics, face it: You're a globalist. You're settling for the lesser of the evils they offer you, based upon your personal choices and priorities. Literally everyone you've ever supported has been chosen by them for you and has furthered their goals when in power.

Literally every one of Fox News' anchors and personalities is a globalist. Including their business network.

I'd go on, but since you literally have no idea what the Federal Reserve is or that we've given trillions to international bankers in the past few years, or that most of our debt is theirs, why bother.

False dichotomy + straw man argument. Nobody is interested in dishonesty.

Additionally, you didn't respond to the point in any way whatsoever. I think I left out gun rights, for instance. Does any position on gun rights necessarily tie in to particular views on social safety nets, how extensive (and expensive) they are, or how they're structured? No. But the "left" vs "right" oversimplification of political philosophy (also a false dichotomy) would presume you're so base and uneducated as to think so.

That was the point I was making.

I'm against using violence to kill babies whenever it's convenient. Obviously I'm against government funding such violence even before that.

I'm against the use of drugs. They ruin lives and kill people. I merely mentioned the fact that some people think our laws on this topic are unproductive and more harmful than good, if good at all. I mentioned it in light of the fact that their views on this topic do not necessarily tie in to their views on abortion, for instance. They're not a packaged deal. By virtually no conceivable foundations of logic does a position on one necessitate a particular position on the other.

That's the point I was making. That's all I was saying. I offered no positions on these topics I mentioned to make the point. I offered no judgements of others' positions. I showed no interest in the topics themselves beyond their relevance to that point at all.

Have any thoughts on that point? Fallacious arguments aren't furthering discussion or enlightening anyone.

I did not claim that none of those things I mentioned matter. I obviously have very strong opinions on all of them. None of them are relevant to the point I made. None of them are relevant to the topic of this thread: "Fox News" being to the "right." That means that "right" and "left" being mostly the same on important topics is relevant. That means that the topic of how they're the same, and Fox is both "right" (on abortion/Republicans/whatever) and "left" (on the Fed, overtaxation, overregulation [raw milk is illegal in the USA. It's not even in North Korea][you can't claim that water cures dehydration in the USA because the FDA {controlled by the pharmaceutical industry} only allows drug companies to make such claims after millions in bribes and decades in research], and the plethora of major stories that Fox completely ignores just like the other cable networks and broadcast networks.) at the same time is relevant.

I'm not sure how making this point suggests that I don't think any topic matters. But not all topics are relevant to this point I make, nor the topic of this thread which this point pertains to.

Obviously I think that Einstein's claim that Fox News is to the "left" has validity, while at the same time I see it support views on the "right" on some topics as well. My point gives context to how and why this is so, in my humble opinion of course.

You should agree with me, or you missed the bus

Oh, Kemp's an intelligent individual. That said, there's no point arguing with him in depth because:
a. He'll repeatably miss the point and then carry the debate around in circles
b. He loosely labels anyone he disagrees with some sort of insult

I'm not sure where you're at in relation to this topic.

Fox has gone limp.  Fox Business News retains the spirit, but Fox News is just pap.  They got spanked when the Egyptian revolt revealed they had no assets overseas to talk about the world, and now they decided to stop snarking on Obama so hard.

This is hilarious.

Everything I said was 100% about the topic. Every single one of you has refused to address a single thing I've said or the topic in any way. You're whining emotionally while calling my 100% content post emotional.

Yes, at the end of my post I pointed out that the topics which Fox won't cover (the topics on which they support with both Democrats and Republicans) are confusing to Einstein and he has refused to address them on any level, ever, because he doesn't understand them. That failure on his part is relevant to the topic because it directly explains why I disagree with him: The reasons that my views differ from his are because of facts he doesn't understand. I explained what those differences are.

I can understand not appreciating my blunt honesty, but to pretend that my post was filled with such emotional content because of one not particularly complimentary remark (which was relevant to the topic) at the end of the post is childish, emotional, and ridiculous.

This is really funny though. Thanks. Tell me more.