My quote was

"yes I agree that all news stations should be free to cover politics, our system basically allows freedom for any member of the press to get involved with press conferences. But they just can't walk out and make an extreme story saying how one party is full of scum and another is lead by Jesus. It works quite well because it cuts out this situation where one news company have been frozen out.

Also, I know not everyone of FOX news is extremist, but I think you will agree that Bill O'Reilly isn't going sing Obamas praises anytime in the future lol."

what maffoo quoted was just

"Also, I know not everyone of FOX news is extremist, but I think you will agree that Bill O'Reilly isn't going sing Obamas praises anytime in the future lol."

and then followed up with

"So don't let Bill O"Reilly go to a press conference.

I doubt Anderson Cooper would sing the praises of Bush, but that's no reason to freeze CNN."

making it seem like I was in favour of stopping FOX from reporting on the press conference, when I wasn't actually in favour at all. That's the quote. It made me out to be a douche.

That was not my intent. I used your quote as an example of why people think Fox news should be frozen. Not to imply you felt that way.

Well that wasn't one of my quotes so...  I don't think you're a douche or a bad person.  Just something got mixed up on the interwebz

The first amendment is an amasing thing. It works so well in America, very good for you people to have. But I'm afraid it does not work so well here, the papers are different, they are allowed to be extremist and the government has become very scared of some like the Daily Mail which damage labours reputation senseless. This means they avoid the daily mail and other politcally opposed papers. Which is what happened with FOX I imagine, but on TV.

Luckily our TV coverage of politics does not have this problem in the same way the papers do. The political parties do not fear TV coverage anywhere near as much as papers.

But In the USA I imagine it is much different to here because you don't appear to have such a sensationalist tabloid media.

Oh, OK then Maffoo. I felt it read that way though. Saying

"So don't let Bill O"Reilly go to a press conference.

I doubt Anderson Cooper would sing the praises of Bush, but that's no reason to freeze CNN."

when quoting my post made it seem like I was in favour of not letting Bill O'Reilly report on a liberal press conference. Which I wasn't.

But I know you are an honest man and if you say that was not the intent then I believe you.

Haven't you heard of the National Enquirer?

OT: I guess since the UK is smaller then you have more ppl wanting to talk about each other in the pubs and such to pass the time.  Same here but it is more pronounced in the UK.

What's the national enquirer?

1 of our top tabloids.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Read to your heart's delight (or until you have laughed enough)

I realize I'm entering this thread a bit late, but I want to address something that disturbed me in the OP.

Do you really think corporations compete because they want to? Competition means other corporations stealing what could have been your profits. No, they compete because they need to - if you're in a burning building and want to get out before it collapses, you might have to suffer a run through some flames, but you'll do it. And more taxes does, in fact, increase competition, because the money pool to compete for is smaller and they need to work harder to get the same amount.

The only issue with this comes from foreign competition, but it comes entirely because their taxes are lower. My point is that I can't see how taxes don't encourage, or more accurately, force competition (as very few large corporations will deliberately make business more difficult for themselves if there was any way to avoid it happening).

Could you care to explain this to me?

@ TheRealMafoo.
You are being unpatriotic. Americans are not supposed to say bad things about their president when they are at war.