Contrary to your assertion, atheism is a belief that there is no God. Ask an atheist, "Is there a God?" Their response, "No." Question: "Can you prove it?" Response: (After quoting conflicting passages in whatever holy book) "No." Therefore, they believe in something without proof. The lack of proof does not constitute the correctness or scientific-ness of their belief nor the opposite of their belief. Therefore, atheism qualifies as a "religion" under a couple different definitions. Agnosticism is the non-belief system - or at least that the existence of God cannot be proven nor dis proven, belief notwithstanding.

Contrary to the editorials at the time, George Bush was (allegedly) amazed by scanners that could read damaged barcodes:

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.asp

How McCarthy-istic of you. Therefore, everybody should embrace governmental scrutiny into our lives (if we have nothing to hide, of course)...?

The point was, the scare tactic in the 1970's was "nuclear winter". The scare tactic now is the non-committal "climate change" which defines absolutely nothing. Climate is change. Apparently "global warming" was too specific and had evidence to the contrary, so the newer vogue vague term (I should coin that phrase) is "climate change".

Wait - is it "climate change" as in "global warming", or "climate change" as in "nuclear winter"? Which meteorologists' turn is it to flip the scare coin?

So an Anonymous Coward replies a la the liberal handbook of insulting the poster and changing the subject. How droll. Of couse, ignoring what was said is handy too. But if the best you can do is spew accusations without proof, than you are no better than the "spoiled five year old" you spoke of in your last comment. If someone is not capable of figuring out that a network having multiple people with differing points of view is more "fair and balanced" than networks that only allow one point of view, then there is little use in trying to explain it further. If it is of no value to you to see stories that non-Fox News networks have ignored or mis-repeported, then I guess the "100% complete tools" would be the ones ignorant of things outside the scope of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, etc...like you.

And the people who can be ignored even more safely are the Anonymous Cowards. But I'll pay some attention to you anyway.

You may not have any respect for those Fox pundits, but that doesn't change their political positions and the fact that their voices are heard on Fox News. How many conservative pundits are asked to be on MSNBC? CNN? And "a plague on all your houses" approach is just plain cynical. Another implied cliché of "a fish rots from the head down" approach to Fox being owned by Roger Ailes is similarly specious - although I'm sure George Soros would agree with you. With MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, etc. all keeping a watchful eye on everything Fox News says and does, who polices the policers? Who calls out all of the non-Fox News organizations when they ignore stories, edit clips to misrepresent what people have said, neglect to provide context to peoples' comments, generate hysteria as a distraction, etc.?

The point is, MSNBC cannot even be bothered to try and represent any opinions other than far-left. Even if Fox's balance is for show, it is miles beyond even the faintest attmpt by MSNBC. And quoting Chris Matthews as some sort of example of balance only nullifies your point.

Elephant in the room time: MSNBC is the liberal propaganda arm of the democratic party. MSNBC tries to ignore stories that have any whiff of putting their glorious democrats in a bad light while simultaneously manufacturing outrage over conservatives in the hopes of distracting the public from seing the democrats as they really are.

So spare us the "Fox News is worse" garbage. While the Fox News slant is well known and acknowledged, every other news organization is left-of-center and denies it has any bias whatsoever. If MSNBC can't be relied upon to report all stories, even those that are negative to democrats, then it is a propaganda firm, not a news oranization.

Does MSNBC's 85% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Of course not! The 85% is at least 85% liberal opinion. Does Fox news 55% opinion consist of both liberal and conservative views? Yes it does. Some of the liberals, independents, or non-conservatives that are now, or have been, on Fox are: Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Mara Liasson, Santita Jackson, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Simon Rosenberg, Bill Schulz, Shepard Smith, Juan Williams. Conservatives on MSNBC? Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough (arguably fiscally conservative, socially liberal RINO). Sounds like MSNBC's reporting is severely un-fair and un-balanced.

Pehaps this is only sour grapes that the Clinton administration failed to capitalize on setting up a war that would ensure Al Gore's Whitehouse instead of George Bush's. After all, look at how many statements were made about the dangers accumulating in Iraq before George Bush became President:

February 1, 1998: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

February 4, 1998: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton

February 17, 1998: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton

February 18, 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser.

February 18, 1998: "If a soldier's life needs to be lost let it start with mine." - an un-named American GI expressing his support for President Clinton's policy on Iraq.

February 26 1998: "A democratic Iraq is certainly in our interest, but it is above all for the sake of the Iraqis that we must replace Saddam." - Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., said in floor speech.

February 26 1998: "Saddam's feet will be held to the fire. We'll see if he complies. If not, we'll thump him." - Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. and senior Democrat on the House National Security Committee

October 9, 1998: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton. - Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others.

November 10, 1999: "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

October 10, 1998: Senator Kerry speaks for quite some time about the burgeoning Iraqi threat http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress /1998_cr/s981010-iraq.htm