Oh yeah, forgot to mention: FOX News also has Geraldo Rivera, a committed leftist.

Yes, same CEO who owns FOX also owns the WSJ. 

That's just the thing though.  I shape my own views.  FOX isn't a channel that is for people to be sucked in like MSNBC is.  Where are you hearing that people at FOX have to follow a certain point of view or else they'll be fired?  FOX has been critical of both liberals and conservatives.  One thing conservatism promotes is critical thinking.  It's all about individual mindset and finding the reasoning behind things.  Liberalism, on the other hand, is all about succumbing to someone who wants to tell you how to live and believe (i.e. college professors, corrupt news anchors, etc.).  What you say about FOX is actually more true about NBC.  When Rick Santelli of CNBC criticized Obama's massive spending plan, the company sent him to rehab for questioning "The Messiah". 

I challenge you though to come up with times in history where liberalism was a success.  By success, I mean that people lived more prosperous lives and enjoyed their inalienable rights given by God.

From what I have seen, FOX News has been critical of corporate execs (particularly oil execs), talk radio hosts, and even republican politicians.  Not to mention that half of their analysts are liberal.  They're just not far-left analysts/reporters who throw smear attacks against conservatives like PMSNBC and the women on The View do.

What questions are hard for conservatives to answer?  And yes, I say that college professors, at least a lot of them, tell their students how to live, think, and feel by indoctrinating them with left-wing propoganda.  Professors like Ward Churchill and Bill Ayres are just two examples of far-left hate mongerors who believe that all the problems in the world are America's fault.  I even have a friend who is a political science major who has taken some classes where he was forced to watch movies like Fairenheit 9/11 and Outfoxed and subscribe to some left-wing publications in order to pass the class.  I know that a lot of times, people flunk out of classes when they disagree with the professor's political and world views.  Critical thinking involves distancing yourself from what the professor thinks and coming up with your own ideas and opinions.  If you agree with the professor, you should be able to explain why.

Conservatism is placing limits on the government and promoting individual freedom to be able to be anything and make as much money and give as much money as you want.  In that regard, you have to work for it, but the only limit on people is their own individual mindsets.  It's because of conservatism that America is the greatest nation in the world today.  Liberalism, on the other hand, is allowing the government to run everything including the economy but at the same time provides care to the people through welfare programs and whatnot.  With this, growth and prosperity are limited.  Liberalism is evident in countries like Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, etc.  Liberalism is now taking over America unfortunately, and in turn it WILL ruin things.  Liberalism has ruined, for example, black voters.  Black people are traditionally conservative, but liberal Democrats make a lot of them believe, just like other minority groups, that they are and shall forever remain victims of society and that the only way they can live life is if the government takes care of them.  The sad thing is most black people (and hispanics for that matter) buy into this.  Politicians like Clarance Thomas, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal receive far more brutal attacks from the left than your average conservative mainly because they are all members of minority groups and they ruin the image that liberals have set for minorities: victims of society.  As for a society only being successful with liberalism and conservatism working together, this mindset certainly caused the GOP to lose the recent elections.

I have the mindset that you are an ultra liberal because of your rationale for global warming, your stance on fighting terrorism, your belief that all CEOs are evil, your criticism of the GOP for holding conservative values (and not that they're wishy washy and think they're doing themselves good by reaching across the aisle), your belief that big government is a good thing, and your failure to bring light to wrongdoings of any democrat politicians, particularly ones who get away with being tax cheats like Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel.  Yet you'd be all over them if they were republican.  Double standards.

Please show me where FOX was ever critical of a conservative who wasn't George W. Bush in his lame duck period.

Where's the word politician?

You're asking a question about abortion based on what a tiny percentage of abortions are performed for, and such a question I know is typically used as justification to legalize abortion.  Usually there is exception when it comes to saving the life of the mother especially in cases of rape, but the vast majority of abortions are not about that.  Most abortions are performed on irresponsible teenage girls who make stupid decisions as a form of birth control.  A lot of doctors refuse to even give abortions on moral grounds, although liberals want to change that by making it a law requiring doctors to perform abortions when someone wants one.  Your second question of course has to do with rationale of developing a universal health care system and is yet another one of those "lets use this rare scenario as rationale to create socialized medicine".  How about this question: Why is it ok under a free health care system for women with breast cancer to be denied treatment for no reason whatsoever?  Or for elderly people to be denied treatment because they're "useless" in society?  As for the prison scenario, it depends on the prisoner.  Some people just can't be rehabilitated, and this has been proven.  Usually even after rehabilitation, when said prisoner is released, he will commit similar crimes again.  I believe in deregulation because capitalism can self-correct itself.  The way it is set up allows that.  Increased regulation means less freedom, more debt, higher taxes, and overall a miserable lifestyle.  Not to mention how dangerous government becomes when you allow it to become too powerful, as the founding fathers have forwarned.  New York is a perfect example.  First they banned transfatty acids from foods.  Then they required restaurants add a calorie count to all menus.  Now they want to ban salt, or at least regulate it.  How about California wanting to ban black cars based on the false belief that people in black cars use more A/C?  It's stupid. 

The Bush Administration was a bad example of conservatism.  Why don't you take a look at the Reagan Administration?  Or the Coolidge Administration?  Or the beliefs set up by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison?  THAT is conservatism.  While the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was vital in preventing another terrorist attack on American soil, a true conservative would argue that such a bueraucracy is dangerous and would be abused by future administrations with opposing interests, and this turned out to be true with Janet Napolitano now running the department. 

Why don't you take a look at this website?  http://www.drroyspencer.com/  Global warming does not exist in the sense that all the advocates for it believe it does.  Humans can not control the climate.  Who are the so-called experts on global warming btw?  Al Gore?  Hollywood celebrities?  Other liberal politicians?  Members of the Sierra Club?  Where is the evidence that there were actually polar bear drownings in the artic?  How about the funny story from this past September where NASA dropped 90 rubber ducks, each attached to a GPS ice-tracking system, into holes in Greenland's fastest moving glacier to track the melting of the ice.  The ducks were supposed to wash up on the shore but instead got stuck in the ice.  By the way, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government owned businesses) were big failures and they gave their executives bonuses, yet no one complained about them.  The retention bonuses at AIG were part of the stimulus agreement.  A retention bonus is a bonus you get when you're about to be laid off from the company.  Not to mention that $100 million dollars is tiny compared to the amounts of TARP money that AIG gave away to other banks.  While as I said before that the Bush Administration is not the best example of conservatism, under the 8 years of Bush, marginal tax rates were lowered, the government allowed economic prosperity, and much of Al Queda has been defeated.  While the Bush Administration spend a lot, their spending was miniscule compared to the amount of spending Obama has or is planning to spend, and he hasn't been in office for 100 days yet! 

So you're writing off the Obama administration for hiring at least five tax cheats as simply a "mistake"?  And yes, they are violating what they say they stand for.  What they say is a more watered down, sugarcoated version of what their intentions are.  The democrat party is no longer the party of JFK.  It has moved so far to the left in recent years that if they get their way, America truely will be the next Soviet Union.

It doesn't make sense to legalize something or justify it only on the rare circumstances, even if it has been done.  You could say the same thing about nuclear energy.  We're not allowed to have nuclear energy anymore just because of three nuclear plants (out of a million or so in the world) having meltdowns.  However, nuclear energy is cleaner and cheaper than using fossil fuels.

Yes, capitalism is only self-correcting when there is competition.  However, big government apparently doesn't like competition and wants to punish those who are "too successful" or take control of the losers.  And did I not say that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother?  Well, if I didn't make that clear, I'll make it clear now.  However, I don't think abortion should be totally legalized especially just based on the rare circumstances.  I don't understand why liberals are so pro-abortion that they somehow think it's the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution instead of the Right to Bear Arms. 

When Reagan first took office, the top marginal tax rate was 70%.  When he left office, the top marginal rate was only 28%, but the amount of tax revenue collected by the government during that time was much greater than during the Carter Administration.  The reason was people were more prosperous and had the freedom to start businesses, invest, and be more profitable.  50% of the country doesn't even pay income tax.  Even with the "tax cuts for the rich", the rich still pay a huge percentage of all the tax revenue that's collected.  While there was a national defecit during the Reagan administration, the economy soared out of the severe recession of the 1970s.  Why?  Because the private sector (not government) runs the economy.  The national debt really becomes a problem when government decides to run down the private sector, as Obama is doing.  Under both Reagan and Bush Jr., the economy thrived because of the power of the private sector.  If Reagan was such a failure btw, how is it that he was able to win two landslide election victories?  By landslide, I mean 49 states.

Where are you getting this statistic that most Americans go to other countries for their health care?  If that were true, the health industry in this country would be bankrupt.  Most countries with free health care (if not all) don't even allow you access to their health care system if you're not a citizen.  There are programs for people who were laid off to receive medical care, such as the COBRA plan.  There's also medicare and medicade.  The life expectancy of Americans is much higher than a lot of countries that do have free socialized health care, like Mexico for example.  When you nationalize health care, you cripple the quality of the care among other things.  I would rather pay a lot of money to receive treatment from a well-educated, highly trained and competent doctor rather than some lackie that works for the government.  If a doctor who works for the government commits malpractice, would you be able to file a lawsuit against that doctor?  It's similar to having a public defender VS an attorney in private practice to defend you in a court case.  Even though public defenders are free, most people would rather pay a lot of money to have a competent, private attorney defend them. 

Yes, dark colors do absorb more heat.  But I know just from personal experience, I've owned two cars - one dark-colored and one light-colored.  The inside of the light-colored one was no less hotter than the inside of the dark-colored one.  I used about the same amount of air conditioning in both.  Now maybe the surface of a black car is hotter, but the interior of even a white car is hot enough that you're going to want to crank up the AC on a hot day.  

Sure, the polar ice caps may be 14 feet thinner than a few years ago.  But how do you know that they won't be 14 feet thicker in the next few years?  I personally believe that the hype over global warming is far more threatning than global warming itself.  For example, the use of a large amount of crops (which requires more clearing of land) in order to produce ethanol, which means less supply of food.  Or how about having to drive "green" cars that are like lawnmowers?  Anyone who drives an electric car, smart car, hybrid, etc. that gets in a car accident is dead.  I only go by what expert climatologists say.  All the hype over global warming has more to do with social justice rather than protecting the planet.  Otherwise, Al Gore would live on an eco-friendly ranch like George W. Bush rather than a huge power-guzzling mansion. 

The truth hurts sometimes.