Forum: pol
Page 3110
Subject: What appalled me on FOX News Channel today


  Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall - Dude [01629107] Fri, May 09, 2008, 09:23

Thread inspired by this news package which FOX News Channel ran yesterday afternoon.
 
1Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 09:49
I get a very tiny thumbnail--can't even tell what it is.

Has FOX News gone tiny? Is that the problem?

:)
 
3Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 09:53
PD
I should always remember to check my links. The video is linked at this page in the dark gray box in the middle of the page under "FOX 26 News".
 
4Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 09:57
Anyone watching "America's Newsroom" this morning?

Today's installation came at about 9:15am ET today when the female anchor (not sure if that's Megyn Kelly or a stand-in, the photo of Kelly on the web shows a smiling blonde woman, today's anchor is a brunette with darker features) interviewed political analist Wendy Schiller via remote to discuss a comment Obama made on Wolf Blitzer last night; that John McCain is, "losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."

That comment came when Blitzer asked him about McCain's repeated comment that Hamas favors Obama for President.

Obama's full comment:
This is offensive and I think it’s disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I’m not going to run that kind of politics and that engages in that kind of smear I think is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his…And so for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate.
But when Kelly (I'll just assume it's Megyn Kelly) breached this issue with her guest she presented it as if the intent of Obama's comment was to portray McCain as too old. Kelly explained that when you say that someone is "losing his bearings" it usually implies that someone is (she waved her arms around in the air at this point) getting old and crazy. Wendy agreed with this characterization and then countered it by pointing out how relaxed, lucid and with-it McCain appeared on The O'Reilly Factor last night and went on to elaborate on McCain's terrific speaking prowess and where he is superior in this regard to Obama.
 
5Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:29
Obama's own campaign saif they were "flattered" by Hamas, not sure what the problem is.
 
6Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:38
The problem is with FOX' willful distortion of what Obama clearly intended in yesterday's interview.

I'll give you credit for attempting to top them with your own distortion but you fall well short of appalling me since you aren't a major news outlet.
 
7Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:39
When asked about the endorsement, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to JFK: "We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps."

In "endoresing" Obama, Hamas is only recipricating Obama's position that he wants to honor them with a sit down with the POTUS and talk to terrorist leaders and their overlords in Iran. It's an issue. McCain is right to raise it.

Obama and his supporters seem to think that taking issue with any of his positions or having concerns with any of the support he attracts his somehow automatically gutter politics, while at the same time he can make any crack he wants and feign ignorance of the obvious implications. Risable.
 
8Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:44
Hamas is only recipricating Obama's position that he wants to honor them with a sit down with the POTUS and talk to terrorist leaders and their overlords in Iran.

This is Obama's position? You really are trying to top FOX!
 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:46
In "endoresing" Obama, Hamas is only recipricating Obama's position that he wants to honor them with a sit down with the POTUS and talk to terrorist leaders and their overlords in Iran

WTF? Obama has been very clear he doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas. In reaction to Carter's recent visit:

"We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

When a slimeball criminal says they want to sit down and talk with you, MBJ, are we now to assume you are soft on crime even when you say "no"? That seems to be the attitude you are giving Obama here.
 
10Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:48
Seriously, I'd expect post 7 from some other posters here but that's pretty shocking coming from you. OK I admit it I'm at least a little appalled. Obama has never suggested much less stated that he wants to sit down with Hamas. Further, Shiite Iran cannot in any way be called Sunni Hamas' overlords. If you insist on a non-Palestinian entity to pin that designation on, it would be called Saudi Arabia.
 
11Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:53
I think I may have lost my bearing, I was wrong. you are correct; He wants to sit down with the terrorists in Iran and Beiruit - not the one's in Palestine.
 
12Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 10:55
The spaghetti theory at work.
 
13Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:04
Just to keep me straight

Obama's Terrorst List I:

Iran
North Korea
Bill Ayers
Weather Undrground

Obama's Terrorst List II:

Hamas

 
14Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:05
you are correct

Did you actually read or watch news that claimed or implied that Obama wants to meet with Hamas?

He wants to sit down with the terrorists in... Beiruit

I don't think you can support that one either, MBJ, but that sounds more like sloppy wording on your part than the previous mischaracterization which was far more blatent.
 
15Boldwin
      ID: 1945699
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:21
MITH

You have some reason to think Barack isn't so cocksure of his communication skills that he wouldn't rule out talking with anyone? He smells like Jimmy Carter to me in that regard.
 
16Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:26
You have some reason to think

Nope, no reason at all, unless you count his own explicit statements such as pasted in post 9.
 
17Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:29
But then since most Obama detractors are likely to believe that Jeremiah Wright speaks for Obama on issues where the statements of Wright and Obama are diametrically opposed. So perhaps you are inclined to believe that Myboyjack speaks for Obama on issues where the statements of Obama and Myboyjack are diametrically opposed.
 
18Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:32
MITH - You're not claiming that Iran would not support Hamas are you?
 
19Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:33
Bill Ayers
Weather Undrground


Do you need to fill out your list so you put these on separate lines? What's next--triple spacing?

It would be helpful, I think, to at least understand what Obama has said about each of these entities before you try to "keep it straight." Otherwise it is simply a list of FOX News talking points.

You're far too smart, MBJ, to cede your thinking to FOX News. Or any other entity for that matter.
 
20Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:37
Do you need to fill out your list so you put these on separate lines?

Since Ayres isn't the only Weather Underground leader that Obama likes to dine and discourse with (and I can't remember and won't bother to look up names) it's fair.



It would be helpful, I think, to at least understand what Obama has said about each of these entities before you try to "keep it straight."

umm..OK Bill Ayers _"He's just a professor" I think that was Obama's take on him while Ayers was bemoaning the fact that he hadn't bombed more US government builings.
 
21Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:41
MBJ 18
Its no secret that some of the support Hamas receives comes from Iran. "Overlords" is beyond a stretch, however.

I'm really not used to this blatent, misinformed and hostile bias from you.
 
22Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:43
isn't the only Weather Underground leader that Obama likes to dine and discourse with it's fair.

Huh? Who is this guy and where's MBJ?
 
23Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:44
OK - so you just object to overlords - you're right - sugar daddies or "Crazy Uncles" would have been more accurate and appropriate.

I was wr..wr...wr..mistaken to incldude Hamas anyway, so I was off base ot begin with.
 
24Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:46
Fair enough. Now what about the terrorists you claim he wants to sit down with in Beirut?
 
25Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:52
What does #22 mean MITH?

Fair enough. Now what about the terrorists you claim he wants to sit down with in Beirut?

If you're aware of Iran's support of Hamas, I'm sure you're aware of their support of Hezbollah. Is this your Friday obtuse day?
 
26Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 12:11
What does #22 mean
Well I don't know why you didn't bother to list every member of the Iranian government under "Obama's Terrorst List I".

Is this your Friday obtuse day?
Being open to meeting with Iranian leaders means he wants a sit down with terrorists in Beirut? By this logic America's close relationship with the Saudis means we've actually been cordially sitting down with Hamas for decades.
 
27Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:16
Just now they again go with the claim that Obama's comment was a cheap shot about McCain's age. Remote guest this time (don't know his name - I think she called him Charlie) stated as a point of fact that the comment was clearly designed to remind people of Obama's age. Host Martha MacCallum explicitly agreed. They did not present Obama's full quote and did not run the Obama camp's denial that the comment was related in any way to McCain's age.
 
28Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:23
This is offensive and I think it’s disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I’m not going to run that kind of politics and that engages in that kind of smear I think is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his…And so for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate.

Since Hamas endorses Obama, how is it a smear to bring it up? Or are we only allowed to focus on Obama's good traits?

To me, a smear would be a lie.
 
29Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:27
Repeatedly saying a terrorist organization prefers a particular candidate is not a smear because it isn't a lie?

Why are you under the impression that a smear is a lie?
 
30Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:28
How is it a smear?
 
31Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:31
Since Hamas endorses Obama, how is it a smear to bring it up?... To me, a smear would be a lie.

He's saying it's a cheap shot, just as McCain feels that bringing up his age is a smear. Personally I don't care that McCain makes that particular point or if Obama refers to McCain's age, should he decide to do so.

But I do think it's very important to report it accurately. And that's something that FOX News Channel isn't doing.
 
32Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:42
A smear is something said (or written) which has a grain of truth but with which the conxtext is intentionally withheld so as to make the party in question look bad.

A smear is not a lie (a whole untruth). So the fact that the smear contains some element of the truth not only doesn't make it not a smear, but it requires that bit in order to be a smear in the first place.

Its effectiveness can be measured by the fact that a guy like MBJ, who is one of the smartest guys on the boards, was made to think that Obama intends to do something he repeatedly said he would not.
 
33Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:47
A smear is something said (or written) which has a grain of truth but with which the conxtext is intentionally withheld so as to make the party in question look bad.

Hamas endorses Obama.

Is that a smear?
 
34Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:48
But I do think it's very important to report it accurately. And that's something that FOX News Channel isn't doing.

And I'm sure you scrutinize liberal media with the same verocity....

 
35Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 13:56
You'll never hear me deny that the mainstream media generally leans left. But my opinion is that few outlets are as shameless (in terms of bias, their standards for what qualifies as news and blurring the distinction between news coverage and opinion-based programming) as FOX News Channel. Bald faced and brazen for a network with their particular promo slogans, "We report, you decide" and "Fair and Ballanced"
 
36Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 14:01
#33: When repeated by McCain, without any context at all (the main context being: Obama refuses to sit down with Hamas), yes it is a smear.

McCain is saying that "terrorists want my opponent to win" in repeating it. And Obama was right to call McCain on what is a smear (at worst) and a cheap shot (at best), by a guy who stated that he would be running a clean campaign.

Apparently McCain has no game, and even before the Democratic candidate has been selected he's abandoned his stance.
 
37Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 16:44
McCain is saying that "terrorists want my opponent to win" in repeating it.

Is Hamas a terrorist group?
 
38Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 16:48
Sure they are. In fact, they are best know for it.

Ironically, it was our insistence that Palestine hold elections that brought them to power. But that's for another thread.
 
39Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 16:54
OK. So since YOU derived from McCain's statement that "terrorists support Obama" even though his words were "Hamas supports Obama", then I'm trying to see your beef.

Now, not ALL terrorists probably endorse/support Obama, so your inference is incorrect and that isn't what McCain said.

Yet it IS fair to infer that SOME terrorists endorse Obama because Hamas, a terrorist group even by your own admission, endorses him.

So what McCain said wasn't a smear.
 
40Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 17:06
McCain is obviously conveying that a "terrorist organization supports Obama." I don't know how this can be anything else. McCain never intends to say that each and every terrorist group supports Obama--in fact, he doesn't need to for purposes of what he is implying.

It is a smear because it doesn't place in context very much at all--context (such as the fact that McCain & Obama's position on Hamas are virtually identical) has been wiped clean specifically to make Obama look bad.

Slice and dice all you want. It's a smear. Get over it and move on--it is only going to get worse.
 
41Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 17:12
McCain is obviously conveying that a "terrorist organization supports Obama."

And isn't that the truth? YOU even admit that Hamas is a terrorist group. Hamas has stated they support Obama. So how is it a smear in any way to state the truth?
 
42Perm Dude
      ID: 5442688
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 17:24
Now we're going in circles. Gotta get off, sorry. You're either not understanding what I'm writing or intentionally misconstruing it. Probably the latter--this is, after all, Rovian politics at work.

If it wasn't harmful to Obama McCain wouldn't say it. And if it harms Obama less (or not at all) by the addition of context left out, then it is a smear in this case.

Smears aren't lies. Smears are statements deliberately misconstrued and repeated to harm an opponent. You don't think this is exactly what is going on--I get that. I just don't know why (not that I care).
 
43Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 18:15
Would it be a smear for Obama to repeatedly note John McCain's age?
 
44Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 18:45
Is Obama lying about McCain's age?
 
45Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 18:58
Obama hasn't said anything about McCain's age. I asked if he would be smearing McCain if he were make an issue of McCain's age.

Also, as PD points out, a smear does not necessarily mean the same thing as a lie.
 
46FNC
      ID: 58942217
      Fri, May 09, 2008, 21:39
Julie Banderas was in for Megyn Kelly today.
 
47Wilmer McLean
      ID: 374496
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 01:50
Whould it be a smear if McCain talked about Obama's "youth and inexperience?" ;)

I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don't know which, that said if it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state. - Ronald Reagan

 
48Wilmer McLean
      ID: 374496
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 06:35
Even Obama can lose his bearings. 57 States?

 
49Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 08:51
YES-HE-CAN! Hope no one stoops to smearing him for being too old for that!

#47 is a good post. McCain and Obama are falling into their own traps, demanding these very lofty campaign ethics standards that they don't seem to realize they are failing themselves (well Obama isn't doing that with this issue since no one can honestly derive from his comments that he was referring to McCain's age but he's tripped over his own line previously).

I do understand PD's and Obama's issue with the Hamas thing. By repeating the fact that Hamas prefers Obama, McCain is advancing the notion that an Obama Presidency would be friendly to the terrorist goals of Hamas. I understand why Obama would be sensitive about this. One need look no further than this thread to find a highly intelligent voter who follows current events closely enough and yet honestly believed that Obama has stated that he wants to meet with the terrorist organization Hamas, despite Obama's repeated denunciations of that group and also of President Carter's meeting with them. This ties in with the broader campaign to plant the idea that he is a radical muslim a charge that (fittingly for this thread) was strongly patronized by none other than FOX News Channel.

But at some point he has to accept that typical campaign politics can't be avoided all together and that while the greater issue can be pretty offensive, he isn't doing his own any favors by crying foul over every reference to a terrorist group (remember it was also said that terrorists would prefer John Kerry) and then stating that McCain wants the Iraq war to last 100 years.

McCain's age issue is the same type of oversensitive silliness, made worse by the fact that Obama never said or implied anything about McCain's age in the first place.

All that said, I'd rather have two oversensitive pansies occasionally trading charges of unfair campaign tactics than a couple of apes slinging their scat at each other at every turn for the next six months.
 
50Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 10:08
McCain: I'm being forced to tie Obama to Hamas because people are interested in that sort of thing

Age is merely a reflection of experience, IMO. That said, I don't think, in any way, Obama was talking about McCain's age in the "losing his bearings" comment. I think it has to do with the very hard work in a campaign. And obviously the McCain side (including FOX News) are going to run with the comment in the way that they want, rather than the way it was intended. FOX News: If we don't like the news, we change it to suit our purposes, then get all upset about it.
 
51Boldwin
      ID: 1945699
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 10:13
'Over-sensitive-pansy-in-chief'!

Yeesh!

The EU will love us again! Wait, their not going to give up their favorite hobby just cause of that are they?
 
52Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 10:19
Who is oversensitive? Obama? The McCain campaign, and FOX news, are the ones all up in arms these days. Maybe because the GOP candidate is looking at a butt whipping from a black freshman Senator for President, after years of their screaming people into submission on the national stage.
 
53Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 10:46
Until there is a Dem in office who proves that that s/he will work to effectively prevent and combat terrorism, Dems can count on being called terrorist coddlers by the right, despite the Bush Administration's own shortcomings in dealing in administering the War on Terror. It's a charge that was effective against John Kerry and the right isn't going to drop it from it's arsenal.
 
54Boldwin
      ID: 1945699
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 10:47
Read #49 PD.

I'd rather have two oversensitive pansies - MITH

And yeah, with two MSM butt-kissin Dems running in the general election campaign you get to enjoy your unrestrained triumphalism. When McCain gets done kicking the conservative wing out of the party maybe you guys can even go back to admitting you are liberals in public without getting your clocks cleaned after 30 years of keeping that in a brown bag.
 
55Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 030792616
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 10:52
Ah, sorry--I didn't see the reference.

I'm not exactly sure on your fixation about labels. We've seen what can happen to a great country in just a few years with label fixation. I'd think you'd have learned your lesson there. But it looks like you already have your excuses ready-made and are ready to bring them out as needed.
 
56Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 11:50
When McCain gets done kicking the conservative wing out of the party

It wasn't McCain who kicked Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel out of the party, it was self-appointed conservative spokespersons like Sean Hannity who only accepted blind support for our actions in Iraq as a basis for conservatism.

McCain is a dupe for the military industrial complex, a credential which should fit well the conservative wing of the party as you see it.
 
57Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 11:54
Agreed, PV.

it was self-appointed conservative spokespersons like Sean Hannity

Remember that prior to the start of this year the GOP frontrunner and FOX annointed crown prince of the party was Rudy Giuliani. Blaming McCain is a rather bald faced distortion.
 
58sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, May 10, 2008, 13:05
If to those of oyu on the "right", the Hamas statement re Obama is an indictment OF Obama; is McCains choice re the GOP Convention then evidance that he supports the scourge in Burma?


Newsweek
 
59Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 14, 2008, 17:30
Brit Hume.

Bill Hemmer just now announcing the breaking news that John Edwards will endorse Obama. He goes live to Hume in the FOX newsroom for his take on this. Hume's short answer: "Big deal".

He then paused for a moment before discussing some minor momentum benefits from the nomination and finishing up "his take" with a highly ambiguous criticism of Edwards, explaining that some will see this as an example of leadership on Edwards part but that as far as Brit can tell he's just being a follower.

For most of the time that Hume was on screen, FOX had their "We Report You Decide" bug on the bottom right corner of the screen.

Brit Hume is not a Bill O'Reilley type news/entertainment/opinion show host. He is Fox News Channel's Managing Editor and the anchor of their primary 6pm news program, "Special Report". He is supposed to be the newsiest news man associated with the network. His respect for journalistic integrity is a joke.
 
60Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 14, 2008, 18:41
Hume, reporting on this story about Paul McCartney being upset upon learning that his Lexus hybrid was flown from overseas, creating a carbon footprint 100 times greater than if it was shipped. Hume actually chuckled live on the air just now as he said the words 'carbon footprint'.

Whatever you think of Brian Williams or Wolf Blitzer (I am no fan of television news in general) you ever won't see them mock widely held political opinions on the 6pm flagship newscasts they are trusted to anchor for their networks.
 
61Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 02:44
Come on Mith, you don't see the humor in flying a 'Green' vehicle, which is made to save the environment, on a plane that did more damage in one day than car could in 20 years?

What is the big deal about Edwards endorsing Obama? If he had endorsed Hilary, than that would of been a big deal. Edwards is self-serving and a class warmonger, the worse I have seen in my life. BTW, Hume did a panel discussion on the topic.
 
62Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 08:41
you don't see the humor

Yes I understand why you think it's funny. A well-respected news anchor and network managing editor isn't supposed to mock widely-held political opinions, much less politicians. If Edwards' endorsement is such a non-story then why did they break into coverege and report it as a breaking news story in the first place? Hume is the Managing Editor - he has considerable say over such things. And yet 40 min later on Special Report they actually opened the show with the Edwards endorsement.

Its pretty amazing that you are simply outraged over bias at the NYT based on nothing more than where they place info (which everyone else including FOX is also reporting) in an article. Here you have the station's top news person explicitly scoffing at the notion that John Edwards is at all significant and then outright mocking the notion of concern for carbon footprints right on his live 6pm news show.

What is poor Brit going to do when he has to report that his candidate has not only signed on to the carbon footprint idea, but wants to legislate it to the extent that companies that produce more pollution would have to buy carbon credits from cleaner businesses? Will Brit let out a litte giggle as he describes McCain's plan?

Anyone who watches that network as their primary source for news forfeits any right to be taken seriously when complaining about liberal media bias at the NYT or anywhere else.
 
63Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 12:41
Environmentalists should be mocked, when thay do idiotic things. I have always said the Looney Left do more damage to what ever cause they are trying to help, by incompetence and idiocy. But being a Liberal isn't about solving problems, it is about political correctness and being a part of the Leftist religion.

If a small fire broke out and a Moderate and a Liberal notice it, the moderate would simply try to put it out, a Liberal would call his friends and arrange a fund raiser party to call attention to the problem, then have a debate on whether the fire had the rights to exist and if man was infringing on the fire's rights.
 
64Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 12:51
If a small fire broke out and a Moderate and a Liberal notice it, the moderate would simply try to put it out, a Liberal would call his friends and arrange a fund raiser party to call attention to the problem, then have a debate on whether the fire had the rights to exist and if man was infringing on the fire's rights.

so, Jag, since you don't fit under either of the labels above, what would you do?

for starters, you'd kick out anyone with serious firefighting skills if they were an illegal immigrant, or admitted to being gay.

then, you'd throw gasoline on the fire, because somebody (erroneously) told you that gasoline put out fires.

then, as the fire grew out of control, you'd finally get more firefighters in there, but wouldn't send enough, and wouldn't get them enough, or the right, equipment.

and 5 years later, the fire would still be burning out of control, but you'd be smiling and saying "it's working. we just need to stay the course."
 
65Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:00
So we've boiled it down to the heart of the matter - that conservative media is not bound by the rules of objectivity and journalistic integrity because anyone who doesn't agree with their opinion is obviously wrong from the start, anyway!

Makes perfect sense. We Report You Decide. Sure.
 
66Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:33
An illegal should not be a fire fighter. There are millions of Americans wanting that postion.

Your gay comment makes no sense.

You can't compare Hume saying 'big deal' about a story that is arguably not a big deal, with a newspaper that carefully writes propaganda to sway people to their leftist opinion.

2 examples of evironmentalists hurting what they are trying to protect are the push for Ethanol that has increased food prices and the processing can be more damaging to the environment than oil and not allowing the thinning and clearing of trees, so they are wiped out by wildfires.




 
67Perm Dude
      ID: 12447159
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:36
You can't compare Hume ...

That's not actually what is happening here. Hume is laying claim to journalistic stylings without any of the objectivity needed to actually be one. If he wants to be a partisan hack he certainly can be--on the air, even. Some might claim that's all he is.

What he can't do is claim some sort of objectivity while not being objective.
 
68Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:44
You can't compare Hume saying 'big deal'... with a newspaper that carefully writes propaganda to sway people to their leftist opinion

Its the same thing. "Big deal" is propaganda, designed to sway people to his rightist opinion - that John Edwards is a useless lout, or something to that effect.
 
69Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:44
You guys lean left, do you really think Edwards' endorsing of Obama is a big deal? Like I said, if he had gone Hilary, we would having a large discussion about it. This is such a non-story, that Mith had to make it about Hume saying "big deal" rather than the actual endorsing.
 
70Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:48
You guys lean left, do you really think Edwards' endorsing of Obama is a big deal?

It doesn't matter what I think. And it isn't supposed to matter what Brit Hume thinks, either. It Hume's job to tell me that Edwards is endorsing Obama. It's not Hume's job to tell me his opinion of that endorsement.
 
71Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:53
I don't know why I am taking up for Fox, when I am in agreement they lean right. I guess I am just being reationary. At times their slant annoys me also, but the Hume comment is dead on spot.

While Fox can occassionally annoy me, nothing compares to Keith Olbermann and his far left tirades.
 
72Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:55
I'm just glad Mith is around to police the media and I can't wait for his in depth coverage of media outlets that are liberal.

Fox News leans right. And in a related story the sun rose this morning.....
 
73Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 13:58
Shepard Smith does the news reporting and he has some leftist tendacies. Hume's show is comparable to Olbermann with news and commentary, which is why he had a panel discussion on if the Edwards' endorsement was a 'big deal'.
 
74Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 14:02
The more I think about the more I can see why Hume did it. If that was the topic for the panel discussion, his saying "big deal" is a perfect lead in.
 
75Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 14:05
Hume's show is comparable to Olbermann with news and commentary

Wrong. The panel is an opinion portion of a news broadcast - the network's 6pm flagship news broadcast, in fact. Olberman hosts a night time show that is about what Keith Olberman thinks. Like The O'Reilley Factor, Keith Olberman is not a news program.
 
76Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 14:15
They try to give Olbermann's show the appearance of a news report.

You have to admit Hume's comment made a nice lead in and is factually accurate. I am sure every Hilary supporter will agree and they are far from right-wingers.

If this is the best you can come up with to prove Fox's bias, then maybe they are not as far right as I thought.
 
77Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 14:18
An illegal should not be a fire fighter. There are millions of Americans wanting that postion.

Your gay comment makes no sense.


man, my comments went so far over your head, it boggles my mind. i thought they were pretty simple metaphors.

the first - if an illegal is the best person for the job, hire him. would you prefer a very good, heavily trained illegal defending your home from a raging wild fire, or a US citizen who has never been trained to fight fire?

the second - our military has removed a lot of quality people from their positions - including much sought after arabic translators - for their sexual orientation.

by the way, the whole thing was a comparative to the War in Iraq, but i guess you missed that too.

You guys lean left, do you really think Edwards' endorsing of Obama is a big deal?

it got him more superdelegates already, and, he's a friend of labor, which Obama needs.
 
78Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 14:27
They try to give Olbermann's show the appearance of a news report.

Yes they do. In doing so they actually are taking a que from the successful format at FOX News Channel. FNC are the originators of this belending of of the lines between news and entertainment.

You have to admit Hume's comment made a nice lead in and is factually accurate.

No and no. In fact both notions are rather absurd. An anti-Edwards expression is explicit bias, which has no place in a news broadcast, as a lead-in or elsewhere. It exposes We Report You Decide as the bald-faced sham that it is.

Also, the Edwards endorsement does serve several important purposes for Obama's campaign. 1. It got the media to move on to a new topic after Obama's defeat in WV. 2. It might or might not help Obama's appeal to a key voting demo with which he currently seems quite vulnerable. 3. Edwards' 19 pledged delegates now become more likely to move over to Obama. At this stage, 19 delegates is quite significant.
 
79Perm Dude
      ID: 29481513
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 15:01
Edwards' endorsement also helps Obama if Florida ends up getting counted, as he has delegates from the Florida primary while Obama has none.
 
80Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 17:43
I bet the army really misses those 1000s of gay Arabic translaters.

Making goofy metaphors does not help your arguements, it just shows how you have to grasp at straws to justify a philosophy that is wrong on just about every subject.

Why this is no big deal is Ray Charles could see it coming and I know everyone on this forum knew it would happen.
 
81Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 17:49
To be clear, when Hume said "big deal" he didn't mean to simply imply that the Edwards' endorsement isn't big news (which would be odd enough given he led his 6pm broadcast with it even though the news broke only 40 min before, meaning they altered the coverege they'd been panning all day to report it right at the top of the show - but anyway...) he said it with a tone of abject disgust. Anone who whatches Hume knows exactly what I mean, which in itself is an effective indictment of him as a hack of a news journalist.
 
82Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 17:58
Hume may well have a disgust for Edwards and if that is the case, I share his sentiments for that self-serving Marxist.
 
83Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 15, 2008, 18:02
He is free to be disgusted with whoever he wants. When he expresses it about American politicians on the news, he exposes himself as a hack.
 
84Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 14:56
I've had FNC on for most of the day and have yet to hear them make not of McCain's stated position from 2006 that America should sit down with Hamas. They've been chronicling the back and forth between McCain and Obama through most of the day. They've repeated the insistance that Bush's remarks yesterday did not refer to Obama (what does that say about Obama that he thinks everything is about him) with very little mention that Bush's staff admitted that Obama's is part of who the President referred to.

E.D. Hill just finished with a 10 minute hit job on Obama during a phone interview with Juan Williams in which they called him crazy and ripped apart his last response to McCain. But still no mention of McCain's Hamas flipflop.

If they are going to cover this dustup - including the history of statements by the candidates on this topic, isn't McCain's flipflop very relevent?

How am I supposed to be able to Decide if they won't Report?
 
85Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 15:06
you're not supposed to decide, MITH, at least not if you're watching FOX and believing it to be "fair and accurate".

those poor folks had their minds made up for them nearly a decade ago.

sad robots.
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 194141614
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 15:34
for that self-serving Marxist

The actual meanings of words don't really matter much to the extremists, do they?
 
87sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 15:51
nope...only how it comes across as a 4 second soundbite. Truth, relevance, context be damned.
 
88Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 16:15
I had someone chatting me up for the last 30 min or so, so I couldn't pay attention to the TV but I think they did a segment with Chris Wallace in which they discussed McCain's pro-Hamas-sitdown statement from 2006. The chyron referred to Obama calling McCain a hypocrit, so I'm giving them the benefit of doubt.
 
89Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 16:21
What appalled me form the Associated Press today.

Hard hitting serious journalism, devoid of of the tint of favortism, just like MITH like it.

The toughest question for me after reading this "news" piece was: Is Obama really awesome or one in a million awesome or is it just the poeple who vote for him are really enlightened to see just how awesome he is and how hip it is to vote for him because his election will prove that America is finally awesome.
 
90Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 16:30
No argument, MBJ. It's an opinion piece, despite AP or Yahoo (presumably AP) presenting it as news.
 
91Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 16:35
No argument, MBJ

Dang MITH, that's so unlike you; I just wasted my time....:)
 
92Perm Dude
      ID: 194141614
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 16:36
You need a sharper stick...
 
93Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 16:37
Sorry to disappoint. :)

I guess your resorting to that bait means you don't take much issue with my observations here?
 
94Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 17:01
No idea; I haven't warched TV news for a long time, not even CNN/CourtTV.

I know I'd rather have up front, obvious bias like FOX or NPR provudes me over the stealth bias I see in Reauters and AP.

I agree with you that anyone who takes FOX at face value gets what they deserve - or at least what the want.
 
95Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 17:46
America certainly isn't awesome, not yet.

Obama is closer to "really awesome" than "one in a million" awesome.

MBJ

If you haven't decided yet in your primary, is Mike Gravel still on your ballot?
 
96Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 18:13
I'd rather have up front, obvious bias like FOX or NPR provudes me over the stealth bias I see in Reauters and AP.

You're saying that the link in post 89 is biased in a way that is less upfront and less obvious than what passes for news at the "Fair and Balanced" network?
 
97Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 19:03
Zen - What about Gravel makes you think that I'd consider him? That's he's clearly insane? Hey! I don't know if he's on the ballot, but maybe is name would be a good place to lodge my protest vote...I keep hoping my good friend, Gatewood Galbraith will stop his small-thinking attempts at being Governor of the Commonwealth and make a run at President. You should by his book Zen, you'd like Gatewood (assuming you don't already know him)

MITH- I don't think AP is generally acknoweledged as biased in the way that FOX is - again I'm basing this of the FOX website as I don't watch FOX TV news enough to know.
 
98Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 20:05
I don't think AP is generally acknoweledged as biased in the way that FOX is

I don't know. I feel like I know a higher percentage on the left who will acknowledge biased reporting at AP than on the right who will acknowledge it at FOX. I think most people generally agree that MSM generally leans left and would say that the AP is representative of that.

I feel like I've heard many of the conservatives I know declare that FOX is the only news channel that tells the truth or tells it the way it is, and would reject out of hand the idea that FNC's leanings pale in comparison to the bias at other mainstream outlets.
 
99Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 20:40
Yeah, I know of Gatewood Galbraith, haven't read his book.

What about Gravel makes you think that I'd consider him?

I thought the website banner headline: Mike Celebrates California Gay Couples Ruling would make your day!

 
100Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, May 16, 2008, 23:04
...and would reject out of hand the idea that FNC's leanings pale in comparison to the bias at other mainstream outlets.

Err... or the opposite of that.
 
101Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 11:06
Greg Jarret is hosting a discussion now on Obama's statements on Good Morning America this morning and that TN GOP ad featruing his wife's "for the first time in my life I'm proud of my country" statement.

Earlier this hour Megyn Kelly teased this segment as a "fair and balanced" discusson on the topic.

The segment opened up with tape of Obama's statement on GMA, saying the GOP should lay off his wife and that the ad is "low-class" and then Jarret (who is not an anchor this hour on FNC, he's just been brought in to host this discussion) commenting in feigned disbelief, "Oh, come on!" He had two guests, one Obama supporter and one opponent and went on to host a 10 minute discussion in which he sided entirely with the Obama opponent. Further, the Obama supporter's only point was a nonsensical claim that the ad was racist, something Obama never suggested in the GMA interview.

How can you have a fair and balanced discussion when the host is biased toward one side of the discussion and they bring in a moron (or a mole) to represent the other side?
 
102Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 12:03
How can you have a fair and balanced discussion when the host is biased toward one side of the discussion and they bring in a moron (or a mole) to represent the other side?

Has Fox News EVER had someone representing the other side that was not a moron or mole, anyone of note at all? That's not rhetorical, I don't watch that network, but the little I've seen lends me to believe they are extremely dishonest when it comes to choosing representatives of any non-conservative viewpoint.
 
103Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 12:11
Has Fox News EVER had... That's not rhetorical, I don't watch that network

Yes. I don't watch enough to offer a fair guess at how often their discussion or coverage meets a fair standard of non-bias, but I wouldn't claim that every minute of their programming drips with rightist favoritism.
 
104Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 12:49
On that note Zen I just saw an Obama/McCain update from their Washington correspondent, Carl Cameron, who I've seen several times in the past week. He seems to be very much a straight shooter.
 
105Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 13:04
Yes. I don't watch enough to offer a fair guess at how often their discussion or coverage meets a fair standard of non-bias, but I wouldn't claim that every minute of their programming drips with rightist favoritism.

Well, what I was asking is have they ever had pundit on the "left" side of a Crossfire-type show that I would know. Someone who writes for a real newspaper and can stand on his or her own two feet. All I've seen are pathetic foils like that clown Combs who cowers in Hannity's presence.

Say what you want about the major networks, at least they have Bill Krystol, George Will, Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan, etc...
 
106Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 13:11
There is one "Democratic Strategist" (that's how they chyron her) I've seen several times whom I don't recall saying anything particularly mole-ish or foolish. She's a reletively young black woman and I don't recall her name. Also I'm sure I've seen decent leftist representatives on Special Report with Brit Hume, but in my viewing experience they are always outnumbeed 2 or 3 to 1 - not counting Hume.
 
107Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 13:54
Jus caught another segment on Obama that I'd say was not unfair. This was a discussion with the hosts, a pretty young blonde Dem strategist named Kirsten somethingorother (she seemed like a bit of a twit but 5 minutes isn't fair to base a judgement on) and two remote guests. Discussed Obama's defense of his wife which they all agreed was not unreasonable and will likely play well and his 'cant waste resources with the rest of the world's acceptance' statement, the impression of which was split down party lines.
 
108Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 18:55
Jus caught another segment on Obama that I'd say was not unfair.

At what point does Mith get the Boldwin treatment by Tree for babbling on during a thread? Can't somebody hear call a spade a spade?
 
109Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 20:43
Huh?
 
110Tree
      ID: 54261920
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 21:44
Box - From Friday, right up to the post before yours, six different posters contributed, combining for 24 posts. MITH had 12 of those posts.

but, let's look here, which is where the complaints about Baldwin monopolizing the thread really started.

from post 513 onto the end of the thread at post 551, Baldwin made all but 9 posts, and several of those he didn't make were people complaining that the thread was becoming a bulletin board, and was no longer a discussion board.
 
111Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 21:57
People will make up for it when they suddenly discover there is no more freedom of religion.

 
112Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, May 19, 2008, 22:07
I don't see why anyone should be criticized for writing too many posts, as long as it's on-topic and isn't abusive. Please don't drag me into that - or that into this thread.
 
113Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Tue, May 20, 2008, 06:30
Tree: from post 513 onto the end of the thread at post 551, Baldwin made all but 9 posts, and several of those he didn't make were people complaining that the thread was becoming a bulletin board, and was no longer a discussion board.

So at what specific allocation do you decide to go after someone versus letting it slide? Or is it because Boldwin is a conservative?

Mith: Please don't drag me into that - or that into this thread.

Oh, so because it's now YOU trying to make a point it's a big deal. I went thru Tree's link and saw Boldwin (mainly) and I debate Tree and he basically had a temper tantrum and left.

Tree stated in post 548

"any chance you could compile your thoughts and condense them into a couple points - as bili said in post 529, you've made it impossible to discuss...

whether i'm right or wrong, or you're right or wrong, we could all probably learn something from this via a discussion, rather than post after post after post of the same person posting what they feel are the facts?"

Where was your defense of that behavior then? And don't bother using the excuse that you weren't keeping up on the thread. You posted there less than a week before this and let's face it, you live here.
 
114Tree
      ID: 31429205
      Tue, May 20, 2008, 06:46
So at what specific allocation do you decide to go after someone versus letting it slide? Or is it because Boldwin is a conservative?

when people are complaining they no longer care to be involved in the thread because one person has turned it from discussion, and into bulletin board. that has HARDLY happened in this thread, but certainly happened in the other.

also - the rest of your post above conveniently left off the statistical information.

and that's all i'll say on the topic here, because i don't want to derail the thread. if you want to start another to discuss it, feel free.
 
115Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 20, 2008, 09:38
Boxman
so because it's now YOU trying to make a point it's a big deal. I went thru Tree's link and saw Boldwin (mainly) and I debate Tree and he basically had a temper tantrum and left.

So you've decided to have your own temper tantrum in this thread.

For the record I haven't read through that thread in a month. But that doesn't matter.

More to the point, I am not Tree's keeper. Yes of course he's wrong there. And had I checked that thread more recently, I might have bothered to tell him so - or I might not have.

6 weeks ago in the Obama 2 thread, I wrote the following, addressed to you:
I do sometimes call out posters when I think they're out of line. But there are two exceptions I take to this point of yours. The first is that your criticism here is quite hypocritical considering that I have never once seen you call out any righty poster for anything, ever. If you don't think Jag and others have a strong tendency toward open hostility, unwarranted insults and simply abject, often embarrassingly uninformed discourse, you're quite sadly mistaken. I can present many examples where I have openly criticized Tree for poor-taste responses even when taking up my side of an argument. Although I have asked this of you and others in the past I've never seen you do the same. In fact, when I did begin to suggest that posters should do a better job of policing their own side, you were one of the people who jumped on me most harshly, calling me out as a forum cop and other insults. Simply put, you don't have a moral leg to stand on with this "constructive criticism". But I'll tell you what, I'll continue to call out people for poor-taste posts, left and right alike, as I see fit. If you begin an at least semi bipartisan approach to the same, it will be a change I will whole-heartedly welcome, as I do agree, it will help raise the quality of the forum.
What has changed since then? As far as I see, nothing.
 
116Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, May 20, 2008, 09:41
aww, MITH, you like me. you really, really like me.
 
117Texas Flood
      ID: 124212019
      Wed, May 21, 2008, 09:17
I just heard a new political term "Downscale Voters". Dick Morris
was referring to Obama's weakest demographic in the recent
primary's.

Yup thats me, "Downscale" all the way! Racin, Wrasslin, Beer and
BBQ. Maybe if Barack is elected I'll become a little more upscale.
He is all about change right?
 
118Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 21, 2008, 09:40
What are the chances FNC will air this?
 
119Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, May 21, 2008, 12:37
MITH - that clip is similar to the other one i posted. it's impressive stuff there. a total "yea? who cares if the facts are wrong. the american people don't know any better..."
 
120Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Thu, May 22, 2008, 01:32
TF

Would you like some arugula with that?
 
121biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 00:30
Fox anchor suggests we "knock off" Obama.

She was just joking though!

Ain't assassinations Heeeelarious! Guffaw.

I pity anyone that thinks they get news from that channel, and I pity the country because a fair percentage of Americans actually do.
 
122Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 11:07
Most Moderates and Consevatives can see the Right leaning ways of Fox, but the Liberals are oblivious to the far left slants of the NYT, NPR, NBC, etc...
 
123sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 11:17
right leaning ways of FOX???? Hell, they're to the far right OF the far right, and tugging with all their might.
 
124Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 11:39
Strange days when the respective difference between "leaning" and a "far slant" is putting relevant information in the wrong paragraph vs omitting relevant info from a report all together.
 
125Perm Dude
      ID: 544422710
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 11:45
Once again, when backed into a corner, the "conservative" starts pointing fingers.
 
126sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 11:54
re the link in 121: I'm anxiously awaiting the Secret Service arresting Liz Trotta; as well s the Right abandoning her over the comment she makes in that piece. Imagine the uproar if the NYT "laughingly" called for the same vs McCain.
 
127Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 11:59
Mith, you continue to bring up one comment on one topic. There are better examples of Liberal bias in the media, including these 2 items. which the Whitehouse is finally saying enough is enough.

Blatant Liberal Bias


To not mention the 2 bill is shoddy journalism for the NYT, but to doctor an interview, as NBC did, is criminal.
 
128sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 12:22
Jag..."Criminal" is publicly calling for the assassination of a Presidential Candidate.
 
129sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 12:23
actually: delete *publicly* from the above. Calling for murder, publicly or privately, is criminal.
 
130Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 12:26
shoddy journalism for the NYT

Perhaps someone here will do you the service of explaining to you the difference between an editorial and a news article.
 
131Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 13:13
I heard a commentator on Fox News say that the NYT did not mentioned the 2nd bill in their regular reporting, but I can't verify it. I know NPR did not mentioned it, because my Liberal buddy had no idea there was another bill.

I would like to know if you and Sarge are still denying that the NYT, NPR and NBC lean Left.
 
132Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 13:31
I heard a commentator on Fox News say that the NYT did not mentioned the 2nd bill in their regular reporting, but I can't verify it.

Of course you can't, because it's a lie (shocker). We'll make this lie you're telling us about from FNC the latest installation under this thread heading.


I know NPR did not mentioned it, because my Liberal buddy had no idea there was another bill.

No offense but based on the way you recount his opinions here your liberal buddy sounds like a moron. Needless to say, your take on what he's ignorant of and what media outlet to blame that on won't get you far around here.


I would like to know if you... are still denying that the NYT, NPR and NBC lean Left.

In order for me to be "still denying" that the MSM leans left, I would have had to express such a denial at some point in the past. Find where I said what you assert and then ask me again. That ought to keep you busy for a while.
 
133Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 14:08
I don't think we should be calling Liberals "morons", while they are all void of any political sense and may lack any problem solving capability, most are fully fuctional at other aspects of life, with their wild imagination and tunnel vision, they can excel in the entertainment industry and other media outlets.
 
134sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 15:12
<---has decided that unless and until Jag demonstartes a multiple digit IQ, I'm simply going to ignore any further postings of his.
 
136bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 15:48
Absolutely LOVED Jag's scathing response in 133 of post 132. Boy, he sure convince me that MITH is wrong!
 
137Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 16:02
Is 12 a multiple digit?

I am curious to which bill you guys prefer. The McCain bill, IMO, is far superior, not only does it help keep our recruits in the military, which we need in a volunteer military, but it also allows family members to take advantage of the GI Bill.
 
138Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 17:58
Mith may not deny the media is Liberal, but he won't admit it either.
 
139Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 19:16
Yeah I would never do that. Especially not in post 35 in this thread.

Or in post 98 in this thread, for that matter.

Nope, I just can't bring myself to admit it.
 
140biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 19:24
Fat, Lazy and Stupid are No Way To Live Your Life, Son.


Jag's mentor.
 
141Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 19:40
I am proud of you Mith. I didn't noticed your ray of common sense amidst many of your Liberal ramblings. There is hope for you, young Mith Walker, come over to the Right side of the Force.

BTW, I am still waiting on a comment about the 2 GI Bills. I am guessing the slow response is because the McCain version is clearly better.
 
142sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Tue, May 27, 2008, 21:43
or that the topic has less than nothing to do with the thread perhaps?
 
143Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 09:09
<---has decided that unless and until Jag demonstartes a multiple digit IQ, I'm simply going to ignore any further postings of his.

If his IQ is 9 or less, he would not be able to operate a keyboard, or form sentences. Thus, you can quit ignoring his postings effective immediately.
 
144biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 14:58
...he would not be able to operate a keyboard, or form sentences.

One out of two ain't bad. Though I suppose he could be getting his trained squirrel-monkey to do the typing for him when it's not busy beating him handily at checkers.

 
145Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 15:16
This coming from the guy, that names himself after the stuff that turns poop brown and can't wipe his butt without coming up with a handful of shiit.
 
146Perm Dude
      ID: 244362812
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 15:28
Well, that moved the thread along. Nice work, troll.
 
147biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 15:30
Heh. That must have been the monkey. Only one error in sentence structure. Good monkey!

I think I've sloughed off the "respected" label by now, so I can probably stop baiting the monkey.
 
148Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 15:50
PD, stop being a hypocrite. Look at the thread, the Liberals started the smack talk and perpetuated it, which is fine, they are no contest for me in a smack down or a political arguement, but don't accuse me of being a troll, when your boys are the worse offenders. This is what I come to expect from Liberals, not only are they wrong on just about every topic, they are hypocritical about it.
 
149biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 16:03
I thought he was calling me a troll. And I'm not PD's boy. He's way too centrist.

He certainly wasn't calling you a troll. Perhaps your monkey?
 
150Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 16:30
they are no contest for me in a smack down or a political arguement

Updating my tally:
-Post 127 - citing an editorial as an example of news reporting bias
-Post 131 - citing a FNC report that falsely claimed the NYT failed to report the existance of the Graham-Burr-McCain GI Bill
-Post 131 - falsely claiming that I deny MSM generally leans left
-Post 138 - backtracking on the previous claim of denial and replacing it with a false claim that I refuse to admit that MSM generally leans left
-Post 52 in the Walter Reed Thread - asserting that support for Webb's GI Bill (which enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate - as opposed to the Graham-Burr-McCain bill which is cosponsored and supported only by Republicans) is somehow an explicitly partisan position

Yeah, no contest.
 
151biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 16:37
Precisely, MITH. It's a snap to win an argument if your posts are fact and thought-free. Jag's an embarrassing parody of a parody. I lament you spending your time and energy "debating" with Jag, so I figured I'd take it down to his level for a bit to give a rest in running circles around him. Probably not a good idea, but it's hard to resist. Empty calories.
 
152Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:39
#145

Jag, I know it's easy to lose your kool in here but conservatives cannot get away with moments like your #145.

At least one guy in here actually feels more at home when you reduce this place to a sewer.

Throw something that actually hurts.
 
153Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:44
Funny B has no apparent issue with the quality of the entries listed in post 150 but the poop joke is so far over the line it prompts him to call out a fellow righty for the first time in 10 years.
 
154Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 22:15
This place is a trip. You've been going at it for ten years? Who's winning? Have they always been winning?
 
155Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 00:52
Mith, you admitting the MSM is Liberal is not a political point and reading all your Liberal posts to verify your opinion on it would be the equivalent to waterboarding for me and I know you are against that, or was it PD or Sarge or Tree or Walk or Biliruben or Biba or Seattle Zen, hell I may have to reread the entire forum so I don't make a mistake again.

I said in my post I couldn't verify that the NYT failed to mentioned the 2nd bill, it was a 3 second sound bite and just because you found one story where it was mentioned does not mean there could not of been another.

How do you know the 2nd bill would not have bipartisan support? Reid did not allow it come to a vote nor did they debate the 2 bills. It another example of the Democrats playing political games at the expense of our soldiers.

Building 7, the Conservatives have been kicking Liberal ass here for 10 years. The Libs may say different, but they will be wrong again, as usual.
 
156Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 04:09
B7

Tho liberals outnumber, for the most part here they do a reprise of the 'Black Knight' sketch, even funnier because of their incomprehension of the fact.
 
157Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 06:17
Funny B has no apparent issue with the quality of the entries listed in post 150 but the poop joke is so far over the line it prompts him to call out a fellow righty for the first time in 10 years.

Hang on Deputy Dog. You don't exactly take Tree, Zen or Sarge out back whenever they say something stupid.

What's funny to me is that I still remember you passing off Seattle Zen's behavior by linking to a thread where he admits his own drug addiction.
 
158Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 07:44
B7
#154 is a perfect case in point.

Boxman
It might not happen as often as you think it necessary, but it happens more often than once in a decade or, as in your case, never. Why do you continualy dog me for failing to behave in a manner that you yourself never do? If you want to be a leader around here, try doing it by example.

Further, I don't know anything about any addiction but I do remember the link you refer to. Its unfortunate that you choose to react so hatshly to my attempt to help you understand where Zen was coming from.
 
159Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 09:30
Hang on Deputy Dog. You don't exactly take Tree, Zen or Sarge out back whenever they say something stupid.

good lord, how many times are you going to trot this argument out, when it's been disproven about a zillion times? i know MITH and i have gone at it several times.

heck, just a few minutes ago, in a different thread, i responded to something SZ posted that i thought was out of line
 
160Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 09:33
It is rather amusing that he once again absurdly claims that moral high ground immediately after Baldwin refers to Monty Python's Black Knight. For a moment I though he was being cute.
 
161Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 15:48
NBC's Norah O'Donnell sets everyone straight on what the election is about
 
162Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Thu, May 29, 2008, 18:52
Boldwin:
You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Liberal.
I am Boldwin, King of Conservatives.
I seek the finest and the bravest partisans in the land to join me in my court at Fox News. Come, Boxman.

Tree:
None shall pass.

Boldwin:
What?

Tree:
None shall pass.

Boldwin:
I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Liberal, but I must cross this bridge.

Tree:
Then you shall die.

Boldwin:
I command you, as King of the Conservatives, to stand aside!

Tree:
I move for no man. I am the greatest Liberal of all time.

Boldwin:
So be it!

Boldwin and Tree:
Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc.
[Boldwin chops Tree's left arm off]

Boldwin:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.

Tree:
'Tis but a scratch.

Bolwin:
A scratch? Your arm's off!

Tree:
No, it isn't.

Boldwin:
Well, what's that, then?

Tree:
I've had worse.

Boldwin:
You liar!

Tree:
Come on, you pansy! No one can defeat me.
[clang]
Huyah!
[clang]
Hiyaah!
[clang]
Aaaaaaaah!
[Boldwin chops Etzy's right arm off]

Boldwin:
Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--

Tree:
Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.

Boldwin:
What?

Tree:
Have at you!
[kick]

Boldwin:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Liberal, but the fight is mine.

Tree:
Oh, had enough, eh?

Boldwin:
Look, you stupid basterd. You've got no arms left.

Tree:
Yes, I have.

Boldwin:
Look!

Tree:
Just a flesh wound.
[kick]

Boldwin:
Look, stop that.

Tree:
Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!

Boldwin:
Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[Boldwin chops Tree's right leg off]

Tree:
Right. I'll do you for that!

Boldwin:
You'll what?

Tree:
Come here!

Boldwin:
What are you going to do, bleed on me?

Tree:
I'm invincible!

Boldwin:
You're a looney.

Tree:
The Great Liberal always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[Boldwin chops Tree's last leg off]

Tree:
Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.

Boldwin:
Come, Boxman.

Tree:
Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow basterds! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
 
163Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 13:33
This thread is the perfect example of how low this forum has sunk since it was found by Boxman and Jag. Jag is nothing more than an ape throwing his refuse about and pissing himself, thinking it is humorous and intelligent. Boxman loves it and joins in. Polite company point out such behavior is abhorrent, yet it has continued for over a year. Boxman, who enjoys Jag's destruction of decorum, has the audacity to complain to MITH and Perm Dude that they don't chastise other members of these boards when they say something he doesn't like. He points his fingers at everyone while pissing on the couch. Classy.

Boxman, you have a huge, gaping hole in your soul that you try to fill with hatred, anger and malice. You only are happy when you get other people to snap back at you in anger. You enjoy destroying what others have labored to create. You do not have an intelligently curious fiber in your body

Humans know when they are not wanted and will leave when all they receive is negative feedback.

I will not respond anymore to your posts, Boxman. I will not mention your name and I want the same of you. If you still want to spread your pathetic attitude towards the world around here, I can't stop you.
 
164Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 13:48
What a hypocrite! A hate filled diatribe about someone. who isn't even close to being as offensive or hateful as the poster. Zen you are the most disingenuous person I have ever seen in my life. Walk is the only Liberal here, who adheres to any kind of decorum.
 
165Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 13:53
This guy, who posts left-wing cartoons constantly, has the nerve to castigate a conservative for cracking a joke! Zen, you are a caricature of what conservatives deem as a Liberal.
 
166Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 16:57
I will not respond anymore to your posts, Boxman.

You respond to ANYONE'S posts? Oh, political cartoons count.(?)
 
167Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, May 31, 2008, 17:00
I thought pot made people happy and mellow?
 
168Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 56118297
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 06:44
I just watched the morning anchors trash MSNBC for being too liberal.

OK more hilarious than appalling.
 
169Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 09:10
Humans know when they are not wanted and will leave when all they receive is negative feedback - SZ

The hole in that argument is that liberals don't want any dissent from political correctness.

That argument is a better explanation for why this board can't retain conservatives or even moderates. The only ones this board could ever retain are those immune to lockstep booing.
 
170Texas Flood
      ID: 10531316
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 09:27
I watched that segment too. It was more about Keith Olbermann
openly rooting for Obma over Clinton. It was about Olbermann
trashing Steve Doocy 's son, it was about Olbermann calling
Gretchen Carlson stupid on Olbermann's show. It was
about how the hard working, reporter and story teller
Tim Russert is now Olbermann's lap dog. It was about how
Olbermann being a blogger for the Daily Kos could not be
objective when reporting the news. It was about how some NBC
executives are less than happy with Olbermann's lack of
objectivity when it comes to reporting the news, and in general
being the face of NBC news.

Olbermann wore out his welcome at ESPN and he'll do the same
at NBC,

The Fox News team made no mention of NBC being too liberal.
Their comments were aimed directly at Olbermann.










 
171Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 09:30
He's a posterboy for 'The Peter Principle'. Funny at ESPN, a disgrace discussing anything important.
 
172Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 56118297
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 10:14
The Fox News team made no mention of NBC being too liberal.
Their comments were aimed directly at Olbermann.


TF if you saw the same segment then you're mistaken. I agree the gist of the segment was about Olberman (and events and comments on his show in particular) but I do recall specific references to MSNBC being liberal (I believe they said 'NBC', meaning MSNBC'. When was the last time anyone here remembers any network criticizing The O'Reilley Factor for rightist bias? Like The Factor, Oberman's show is a show about what Keith Olberman thinks. It's not a news program - even if Tim Russert happens to appear as a guest. Bias is the point. Just like on The Factor.

There were also some factual errors in the segment, notably the point that NBC Network can't claim to reserve it's network broadcast shows like Nightly News for their unbiased political news since all of their political coverage is on MSNBC. Of course anyone who has seen Nightly News or Meet the Press knows this isn't true at all. Even the Today Show covers politics.
 
173Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 10:55
That argument is a better explanation for why this board can't retain conservatives or even moderates. The only ones this board could ever retain are those immune to lockstep booing.

absurdity, and, typical of a lie coming from the extreme right.

if anything, the left-leaning folks here are incredibly diverse, and do just the opposite of anything lockstep.

i realize you and boxman both cling to your assertion like it's a cross, but whereas you, boxman, and jag rarely cross each other, there are repeated examples here of different members of this group calling each other out - and i know this first hand, because i'm usually the one being called out. :o)

as for why this board can't retain conservatives, i suggest you look within. when the loudest voices are just screaming and hollering without much substance, you're not going to attract others of similar ilk.

do you honestly believe that a conservative checking out this board will say "well, gosh darn, that Jag guy really makes a coherent argument, and i need to join his side" or "that Baldwin, wow, he really knows how to make his point and have a discussion without attempting to take it over and claim it as his own, and drive away any dissenting voices..."
 
174Texas Flood
      ID: 10531316
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 11:24
Mith, I mentioned it was MORE about Olbermann. I'm sure they
did mention that NBC was more liberal, they usually do. I have
no problem with NBC or MSNBC. I really dislike Olbermann.

I think a better comparison to Olbermann would be Sean
Hannity, who seems to spew the same stuff every night. You can
almost predict what Hannity is going to say in any given
situation.

I think O'Rilley is a hard working journalist who asks tough
questions, but gets pretty over baring at times. On the opposite
side I like both Tim Russert and Chris Matthews.
 
175Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 04, 2008, 14:28
I don't like Olberman, either. Can't agree with you on O'Reilley. My wife's uncle (a died in the wool conservative in NH whom I respect an awful lot) stopped watching The Factor after this episode.

He says O'Reilly made McQaid out to be this soft-on-crime liberal which couldn't be further from the truth.
 
176Perm Dude
      ID: 2256610
      Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 02:05
A great rant on FOX just making up their smears whole hog:



Love the last minute and a half...
 
177Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 10:06
I missed this one. Fortunately the blogs were all over it.

The terrorist-fist-jab:

 
178Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 12:02
Mediabistro:
TVNewser has learned beginning Monday Live Desk with Martha MacCallum will be expanded to two hours, airing from 1-3pmET. MacCallum will also be getting a co-anchor and a new set. Trace Gallagher joins as co-anchor, while continuing to fill in for Shepard Smith on Studio B and Fox Report. Also starting Monday Live Desk will originate from the FNC newsroom.

America's Pulse anchored by E.D. Hill goes away, but Hill stays with the network in a capacity to be determined. Hill has been with FNC since 1998.
Few talking heads return to regular on-air work with the network after being banished to the dreaded capacity to be determined.

That's what you get when your first criteria for female talent is that they look terrific in short skirts.
 
179Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:14
Bimbo E.D. Hill's attempted apology yesterday:



Josh Marshal notes that her show is being cancelled. He suggests, "Maybe because she wasn't pushing the terrorist card hard enough?"
 
180Boldwin
      ID: 43561110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:18
Is that not over the top sexism, MITH?
 
181Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:26
No, I don't think it is.

Look at EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of Fox' female daytime anchors. There's no denying what their primary prerequisite is.
 
182Boldwin
      ID: 43561110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:41
And I do so love the free market. You can have Candy Crowley.

You just make it too easy for Fox to trounce your lib MSM.
 
183Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 11:57
Now who's sexist?

You might not think it's sad when leggy blondes who evoke "terrorist fist jabs" trump real journalists who are less appealing to the eye. But weren't you just a moment ago also whining in another thread that Obama supposedly beat Hillary because he's better-looking?
 
184Perm Dude
      ID: 435511110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:02
Calling someone in the media a "bimbo" is sexist? I think most all news readers are bimbos, male or female.
 
185Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:02
Recent news package run on FOX News Channel:


Woman loves her breast implants - except that they aren't big enough.



And I do so love the free market. -Baldwin
 
186Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:42
Damn it, Mith, you always post a link. I WANT A LINK TO THAT STORY!
 
187Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 12:46
It's in post #3, Jag. The video package they ran on FOX is there as well. Have at it.

Doubt you'll find that one on CNN.
 
188Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:20
This is why I love Fox News, unbias reporting and soft core porn.
 
190Boldwin
      ID: 43561110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:27
But weren't you just a moment ago also whining in another thread that Obama supposedly beat Hillary because he's better-looking? - MITH

Why would I whine because Obama's looks melted the witch?
 
191Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:40
I took it as criticism of the priorities of Dem voters. If you think it's apropriate to base a vote on comliness then so be it.
 
192Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:41
Obviously you think it's legitimate to base one's choice of news source on the right combination of full-body camera shots and short skirts.
 
193Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:44
No, but it helps.
 
194sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 14:54
So you'd watch Ru Paul do the news and be happy regardless of the substance of the content?
 
195Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:02
No, but I would watch MSNBC, if they had Jessica Alba reporting the news in a thong.
 
196Boldwin
      ID: 43561110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:04
As if Sarge's offering wasn't unappealing enuff someone here offered up Nancy Grace as a hot news babe. OMG!OMG!OMG! *life-threatening dry heaves*
 
197biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:07
You'll notice that was posted by "kimmbelina".
 
198Boldwin
      ID: 43561110
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 15:12
gallaudet.edu
 
199Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 18:21
Speaking of MSNBC, I see where Keith Olbermann beat Bill O'Reilly for the first time ever in the ratings.

O'Reilly must be livid LOL.
 
200Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 18:55
That was back in September and it was only in the 25-54 demographic.
 
201Texas Flood
      ID: 23515922
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:12
Was O'Reilly actually doing the show that night? He often takes
Friday's off.


 
202Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:13
He also usually has a guest host on Friday.
 
203biliruben
      ID: 33258140
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 19:20
More than you wanted to know...



Olbermann still lagging significantly in the overall numbers, but the trend is up. The important demographic, they're running neck and neck. ;)
 
204Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 11, 2008, 22:30
Keep in mind these are Nielson ratings.
 
205Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 08:45
About 8:10 or so this morning they were talking about McCain's flub on the Today Show yesterday. They put up a chyron, "DEMS ATTACK MCCAIN - call GOP candidate out of touch". They played the statement:
"MATT LAUER: “If it’s working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”

SEN. MCCAIN: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way."
Gretchen Carlson: "maybe it could have been said in a slightly different way but in John McCain's defense you have to play the whole entire interview of what he said to get the gist of what he said, which brings me back to that hundred year thing that Barack Obama hammered him on."

Steve Doocey chimed in, "So yesterday, you've got this 'he's confused thing', also, John Kerry said that, uh, "John McCain: out of touch", also yesterday you have Harry reid saying, "big temper". Drip, drip, drip, you add it up, they're trying to portray him as an old guy who is cranky. And [he was very cutsey here] maybe he is, I don't know."

Studio guest Andrew Napolitano introduces the Kerry statement, "Here's John Kerry, Senator John Kerry of Massachusettes yesterday, using - well you decide - is it a code word for being old when he says, "out of touch and inconsistant?" Then they play Kerry's audio. Here's what Kerry said:
"It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistant with the needs and concerns of Americans, and particularly the families of troops who are over there. To them the most important thing in the world is when they come home.
Then they introduced their "Question of the Day", which they called the "Barack Barb": "Is "confused" code for "old"?

Does anyone here think that McCain's statements are less newsworthy or less worthy of discussion than the notion of whether those Democrat responses are subtle suggestions that McCain is old?

Should that be their "question of the day" and if so, should it be subtitled "Barack Barb"?

Pretty sure you won't see anything like that on CNN. Or anything like it in the NYT.
 
206Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 09:13
And I do so love the free market. You can have Candy Crowley.

You just make it too easy for Fox to trounce your lib MSM.


Pretty revealing, Baldwin.
 
207Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:35
HOLY CRAP.

Seriously. You can't make this up. SERIOUSLY. Check the graphic:
 
208Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 15:40
The outrageous chyron appears at 7 seconds in and returns at the 1:00 mark.
 
209Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Jun 12, 2008, 16:02
Michael Calderon at Politico:
Since Salon's Alex Koppelman caught Fox News characterizing Michelle Obama as "Obama's Baby Mama," there's been an uproar over use of such an offensive term.

“A producer on the program exercised poor judgment in using this chyron during the segment,” Fox's Senior Vice President of Programming Bill Shine said in a statement to Politico.

In addition to being insulting, the phrase "baby mama" is also inaccurate. The Urban Dictionary defines "baby mama" as"the mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved."

Although Shine doesn't name anyone responsible, the show's producer is Jessica Herzberg. A Fox staffer said that others internally were bothered by describing the potential first lady and very accomplished women — as the senator's "baby mama."

Unfortunately for the network, this comes just days after Fox's E.D. Hill addressed her use of the phrase "terrorist fist jab" on-air in reference to the famous Michelle-Barack fist bump (or pound) made just before his celebratory speech in St. Paul.

 
210Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:01
Sullivan
One point about Fox News' decision to label Michelle Obama as her husband's "baby-mama": isn't it remarkable that a "conservative" news outlet would actually view a married black couple who have brought up two apparently great kids in wedlock as effectively unmarried...

It's at that point that you suspect that what motivates the conservatives at Fox is not a concern about the black family or a belief that role models of good African-American marriages should be celebrated and supported. It's that the poor state of the black family can be used to marginalize and demonize African-Americans to garner ratings and support Republicans. It's really disgusting, but sadly unsurprising.
 
211biliruben
      ID: 52561217
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:43
Sadly, this isn't really surprising. If you can't beat them down and marginalize them, kill 'em.

re 121:
One of Fox's faithful viewers:

Kahle said words to the effect of, that 'if Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, get elected, hopefully they will get assassinated.

This is a very serious issue. Too many racist nut-jobs taking Fox anchors at their word, too little Secret Service.
 
212Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 13:55
One point about Fox News' decision to label Michelle Obama as her husband's "baby-mama":

Is this what happened? MITH quote from Fox in the previous post would make it appear otherwise.

One of Fox's faithful viewers:

You must have used the wrong link, bili; I didn't see the Fox viewer reference. Actually, I'd be surprised if the guy gets TV reception at all with his house completely enveloped with tin foil.
 
213Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 14:04
MBJ

MITH quote from Fox in the previous post would make it appear otherwise.

It's fair to characterize it as FNC's decision. They gave that producer the authority to use her judgement for what is an apropriate chyron. She and her on-air decisions represent the network. FNC is responsible for her decisions.
 
214Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 14:12
So an individual employee's on air statement that is rejected immediately by the Company still stands as the "decision of the company" - present tense.

OK.
 
215Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 14:19
present tense.

The grammar of italicized excerpt you pasted into #212 doesn't indicate any tense, past or present. But the incident does, it indicates past tense, because it happened in the past.

Fox News' decision to label Michelle Obama

He isn't calling it their current decision. The reality is that they decided to so label her this past Wednesday. They aren't deciding to so label her now.
 
216biliruben
      ID: 52561217
      Fri, Jun 13, 2008, 14:28
I used google maps to get a satellite image of Kahle's house, MBJ. You're right about the tin-foil, but it's been shaped into a giant antenna and pointing directly at the Fox transmitter on a nearby hill. It's the only station he gets.

Incidentally, before moving to the area from Seattle, he was a Birkenstock wearing peacenik, who smoked dope 9 times daily. Since moving to Pennsylvania however, he was forced to give up the dope due to high enforcement issues, and his reliance on FOX as his exclusive news source has turned him into a racist, sexist gun-toting nut-job.
 
217holt
      ID: 341542412
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 21:16
I've got 2 shotguns and a handgun here in my house. I guess by default I'm also racist, sexist, and a nut-job. I should be ashamed of myself.
 
218Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 21:27
I should be ashamed of myself.

That realization is long overdue ;)
 
219Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 13:24
The sponsors at Fox News thank you for your frequent viewing. And for your efforts to get other viewers to watch.
 
220Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 22:21


Remind you of anybody around here?
 
221Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 02:09
He's an illuminati neocon.........Not a problem

All wars....................He's a transvestite?
 
222Perm Dude
      ID: 1463718
      Thu, Jul 03, 2008, 02:39
FOX & Friends digitally alter photos of their critics.

Apparently that show has no grownups working there.
 
223Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 09:46
On the website right now:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
 
224Boldwin
      ID: 588192222
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 10:44
Bill's comments on Palin or 'Bill has better political antenea than you Palin haters'.
 
225Perm Dude
      ID: 49822228
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 10:45
Yes, we're "haters" who point out she's unqualified. Dehumanize much?

Why yes, you do.
 
226Boldwin
      ID: 588192222
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 10:48
Quit foaming and click on the link. Sheesh.
 
227Perm Dude
      ID: 49822228
      Tue, Sep 23, 2008, 10:52
I saw that already in my local paper. Clinton was commenting on her political skills. No where does he say she's qualified.

Her political skills won't do her any good so long as the McCain lawyer team keeps her under wraps.
 
230Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 10:32
Megyn Kelly on FNC just now reacting to a story about new facial recognition software being used to catch identity theives in which the remote guest suggested that some civil libertarians might be concerned with the "big brother factor" and the number cameras going up in public places:

"you know I'd relly like to know where that term 'big brother' comes from."
 
231Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 11:18
Haha, hilarious.
 
232Building 7
      ID: 3111252013
      Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 18:45
Good lineup tonight on Hannity and Colmes tonight:
Karl Rove
Ann Coulter
Dick Morris
Not sure if Colmes is still around.
 
233Razor
      ID: 181051618
      Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 18:54
They could come together and talk about how to restructure the GOP so that it does not keep getting trounced in elections, but introspection is a foreign concept to them. So what are the going to whine about? The "failed policies" of a President who has not even taken office yet?
 
234weykool
      ID: 2842717
      Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 19:06
They could come together and talk about how to restructure the GOP so that it does not keep getting trounced in elections, but introspection is a foreign concept to them. So what are the going to whine about? The "failed policies" of a President who has not even taken office yet?

Or you could tune into MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC to watch them gush how Obama has done more to save the planet and the US than all of the other presidents before him combined.
 
235Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 19:09
They could come together and talk about how to restructure the GOP so that it does not keep getting trounced in elections, but introspection is a foreign concept to them. So what are the going to whine about? The "failed policies" of a President who has not even taken office yet?

You could always watch and find out, then post it here.
 
236Pancho Villa
      ID: 51546319
      Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 22:34
Or you could tune into MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC to watch them gush how Obama has done more to save the planet and the US than all of the other presidents before him combined.

Ya see, that's a lie, even though I'm sure you meant it as a satitical bit of Coulter-style humor. But it's still a lie.
 
237weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 04:49
There is more truth in #234 than #233...so why not go after the bigger lie?
 
238Seattle Zen
      ID: 51241111
      Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 13:22
Back to the title in this thread...

This is pretty appalling: A Fox News producer who covered Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign for the cable network is facing child porn charges after federal agents discovered photos and videos on his computer depicting "children under the age of ten being sexually abused by adult men and women."

I strongly urge you not to read the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant, it is extremely graphic and disturbing.

It's one thing to have an employee arrested for this sick shit, it's inexcusable, however, to hire someone who was convicted of this sick shit while he was in college.
 
239Baldwin
      ID: 3112216
      Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 13:47
Finally found something truly appalling.
 
240Perm Dude
      ID: 6259179
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 12:06
FOX News manipulates Biden video .

Dishonesty. Thy name is FOX News.
 
241Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 13:33
wow. that is indefensible...

nonetheless, i'm sure someone will try. or, not bother, since all they do now is lob false bombs, then run away.
 
242Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 13:37
The acknowledged that error on the air maybe 20 min ago, with the comment, "when we make mistakes, we own up to them".
 
243biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 13:42
How could that conceivably have been a mistake?

"Woops!" How did that 2 seconds get in there? Those sound bites are slippery little suckers!"
 
244Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 13:52
It was almost certainly deliberate, but there's no telling at what level the infraction occurred. The producer likely had one or more of his/her underlings research quotes that fit the message and pull them from the archives. So the producer could have been deliberately twisting the record (or instructing the production assistant to do so). A PA who isn't a total moron probably wouldn't do that on his/her own, tho maybe I could see a PA repeatedly being sent back to the archive for more damning soundbites and "creating" that Biden SOT to satisfy a demanding boss.
 
245biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 13:56
Wow.

That's about has overly charitable an explanation as I could have imagined!

I guess what distinguishes the good side from the slimy-evil-fcukers.

 
246Boxman
      ID: 3821468
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 13:59
Another "vast right wing conspiracy" perhaps.
 
247Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 14:18
Well, maybe Darth Murdoch personally edited the piece psychokinetically from the throne room of his star destroyer.

Really I don't think my suggestions are very charitable at all. Obviously, distorting the record for the purpose of supporting a trifling political point is simply atrocious behavior for a news organization. I left open the possibility (certainly not the most likely scenerio) that the most egregious behavior might have occurred at the henchman level, but the buck still stops with the producer.
 
248Baldwin
      ID: 10258919
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 17:13
What Mith said. Not acceptible.
 
249Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 17:35
What appalled me on FNC today:

Glenn Beck. Dear God.
 
250Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Tue, Mar 17, 2009, 17:46
 
251Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 17:07
Glenn Beck's target demo is obviously fans of The Colbert Report who don't understand parody.

And his ratings are stellar.
 
252Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 11:15
 
253Pancho Villa
      ID: 1936118
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 12:03
I have no problem with these tea parties, as protests are an integral part of our national identity.

I do find it curious that most of those promoting these protests were, not so long ago, calling Iraq war protesters anti-American traitors. I don't recall any national news organization giving full support to the war protesters the way 'fair and balanced' Fox News is giving this 'grass roots' effort, which, of course isn't grass roots at all when Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and even the anchors at Fox are so transparent in their organizational roles.
 
254Razor
      ID: 41323216
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 12:14
Hilarious video. Has Fox moved past just regular plain ol' bias and moved into outright propaganda?
 
255dwetzel on BB
      ID: 590182120
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 12:32
Razor, your question assumes that at one point they were merely slightly biased.
 
256Tree
      ID: 61411921
      Sat, Apr 11, 2009, 13:42
watching that video, combined with the two weeks i just spent back in Texas, makes me realize just how marginalized and well, how fringe, the Right has become.

i hung out with a lot of old friends from college, high school, and earlier when back home.

one of the reasons i left texas when i did was because of how conservative and scary it was becoming - even 20 years ago. i feared, returning, that many of all my friends would be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, and be very judgmental.

to my shock, nearly all of them were Obama supporters, and leaning left. one, a pretty religious christian (Bless all Ye Who Enter Here kind of stuff PAINTED in the kitchen), believe Obama will help this country on the right path, and it's the first time he ever voted for a Democrat.

another - my "big brother" who played a role in my upbringing as a teenager - is also a strict republican. he's the VP of an energy (formerly oil) company, makes more money than i can even imagine, gives lot of money to conservative causes, goes to church every sunday, and is disgusting with what the republican party has become.

he can't believe any governor would turn down stimulus money if it's going to help the people right now. he can't believe how religious and war- and fear-mongering the government has become.

and this is someone who is a conservative and a strict republican voter.

it's just so interesting to see how fringe some on the right are. they're a tiny segment, just really loud about it.
 
257Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 11:36
My hat is off to Shep Smith.


BRAVO.

Trace Gallagher, I'll note, cannot bring himself to say whether torture is right or wrong. His own words on that particular question: "I won't go there". Does anyone believe for a moment that it's Smith, and not Gallagher, who's position better reflects the American political right today?
 
258Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 12:16
we are america. we do not f*cking torture. we don't do it.

amen.
 
259Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 13:12
What passes for Fair And Balanced coverage of the issue of whether to investigate and possibly prosecute officials who ordered and facilitated the torture of detainees in American custody:

 
260Perm Dude
      ID: 213592312
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 14:01
"the definition of torture is nebulous"

Give me a break.
 
261Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 14:35
Thanks for pointing this stuff out about Fox News. I'm going to watch Fox News a lot more now, so I can see these things for myself. I encourage all readers to do the same.
 
262Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 14:50
You're welcome, Building 7. If this thread results in turning some on to propaganda and shameles bias for their "news coverage", so be it. I'll continue to shine a light on them.
 
263WiddleAvi
      ID: 343531513
      Thu, Apr 23, 2009, 18:45
You gotta love Faux News putting the tag 'Prosecuting Patriots?' as the tag line towards the end of the video in 259
 
264Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 10:26
What are you missing if you rely on FNC as your primary source for news?

 
265Perm Dude
      ID: 4845611
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 12:05
Nice!
 
266Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 12:22
What was I supposed to get from that? Besides that his lips were moving.
 
267Perm Dude
      ID: 4845611
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 12:26
Did you watch it?

When FOX asks open-ended questions which are already answered in the non-edited versions of the speeches they quote, we've got a bias problem on our hands.

We also have a problem with fake "journalists."
 
268Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:19
No doubt you enjoy questions like 'What enchanted you about the presidency in your first one hundred days?' instead?



Like a republican ever got an obsequious bootlicking softball like that.
 
269Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:19
Yes I watched it.
 
270Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:21
And you have got to be kidding if you think real reporters never revisit questions.
 
271Perm Dude
      ID: 4845611
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:25
Real reporters don't edit out the answers to questions they are asking.

It isn't a matter of softball questions or not. It is a matter of how source material is handled and questioned. As if I were reprinting this thread, deleted your #268, then asked my liberal co-anchor: "Wonder why Baldwin doesn't point out the softball questions Obama gets asked?"
 
272Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:34
I assume post 268 is sarcasm intended to fully support my post # 264. What other inference could I gather from Baldwin's best immitation of the distortions exposed in the video in that post?

Baldwin commented:

No doubt you enjoy questions like 'What enchanted you about the presidency in your first one hundred days?' instead?

And here's what the reporter actually asked:

During these first 100 days what has surprised you most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?

Further supporting my sarcasm theory is that Baldwin surely remembers the dustup over the Bush Administration's mole in the press corps, Jeff Gannon, who, as I'm sure B recalls, would be called on the the Press Secretary whenever he needed a softball and come through with questions like (paraphrasing), 'how ever do you deal with these unhinged democrats'?
 
273Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:39
Obama mouths the words 'respects the constitution' even as his priorities, judging by the order in which he answered in the unedited version belie that boilerplate. Boilerplate because he knows he has to lie and placate the half of the public who doesn't think the constitution needs rewriting.

Oh, and media outlets always use the full and unedited droning on and on full committee speech in their headline news? It's called a sound bite. They all do it.

That 'one trick pony' Algore would have it pointed out that he has made global warming his career...what an outrageous suggestion. An obvious lieing edit. Not.
 
274Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:40
I am sure both reporters in question would perform any service whatsoever for their love interest on the stage.
 
275Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:45
If #272 was meant to indicate that Jeff Zeleny of the NYT most resembles a male prostitute, I will so stipulate.
 
276Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:48
Obama mouths the words 'respects the constitution' even as his priorities, judging by the order in which he answered in the unedited version belie that boilerplate. Boilerplate because he knows he has to lie and placate the half of the public who doesn't think the constitution needs rewriting.

I see. And the job of the 'we report you decide' media is to make that determination for the viewer and so abridge the President's comments for their benefit. Gotcha.

That 'one trick pony' Algore would have it pointed out that he has made global warming his career...what an outrageous suggestion.

Uh... well, no. He would respond to the question about whether he profits from the legislation with the admission that he does invest in the technology and the important point that he puts any profit right back into the effort.

I guess you will argue that omitting that portion and leaving only the snarky part of his response allows the FNC viewer the full context of what Gore said.
 
277Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:51
Or if #272 was meant to point out that the NYT has become as credible as Talon News, I will also stipulate to that.
 
278Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:53
What is the value of keeping your mug on the evening news waaaaay past your 15 minutes? How does he divest himself of that?
 
279Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 13:57
Just summing up today's banter in the "What Appaled Me on FOX Today" thread before Baldwin takes us off on his next tangent:

Mith: FOX edits out important excerpts from video they show on air to change the context of quotes and better support the network's anti-left agenda.

Baldwin: I don't get it.

PD: FOX lies to you.

Baldwin: Watch this video of a NYT reporter asking Obama this "What enchanted you" softball.

Republicans don't get softballs.

Mith: I'm not sure that a 4-part question in which only one part is what you describe is necessarily a softball.

And Jeff Gannon provided the Bush Administration with softballs.

Baldwin: Jeff Zeleny is a faggot.
 
280Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:06
Ok, Talon News serves up softballs. Which was run out of Jeff Gannon's kitchen table.

The MSM does not serve up softballs like 'What enchanted you about your first one hundred days' to a republican ...

And you know it.
 
281Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:06
#264. Al Gore claims to be working on the global warming issue for over 30 years. 30 years.....is anybody buying that? The crisis had not even been invented yet. What a liar.


 
282Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:07
But feel free to tell the board that the MSM isn't biased beyond belief leftward. Every liberal does it.
 
283Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:08
B7

Yeah but back then it was known as 'The Coming Ice Age'.
 
284boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:13
It isn't a matter of softball questions or not. It is a matter of how source material is handled and questioned. As if I were reprinting this thread, deleted your #268, then asked my liberal co-anchor: "Wonder why Baldwin doesn't point out the softball questions Obama gets asked?"

I don't know if this is common practice for real 'journalist' but is pretty common practice here to link to articles then post "highlights" of the article that are not really representative of the article.
 
285Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:15
That's about the same year he was inventing the internet. You're right , 30 years ago the crisis was global cooling.
 
286Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:26
The MSM does not serve up softballs like 'What enchanted you about your first one hundred days' to a republican ...

They don't serve up that as a question to Obama, either. It was a 4 part question in which 1 of the 4 parts was fluff. Big deal.

Asking the president, during the Q&A portion of his 100th day press conference, what so far impresses, humbles and troubles him about being the POTUS, is entirely legitimate. Adding to that a 4th part about what has "enchanted" him is obviously fluff, but so what? It's sort of a "fluffy" event, the 100th day press conference, don't you think?

You think Bush never held a light-hearted news conference? If I could find you a transcript of the press corps asking Ari Fleischer (or one of the other press secretaries) what's for lunch during Q&A, would that satisfy you? I know for a fact I've seen that question asked by the WHPC during Bush's tenure. BFD.
 
287Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 14:38
pretty common practice here to link to articles then post "highlights" of the article that are not really representative of the article.

Being 'representative of the article' isn't necessarily that important unless the omitted arguments within the article challenge the point being supported by the the pasted excerpts. For example, I might oppose John McCain for president and link an article in support of him simply to point out a Sarah Palin quote which supports some point I might make about her.

However it's terrible form to post out of context excerpts which might support my point when viewed alone while other parts of the piece not pasted into the post challenge those points. Baldwin is the most frequent offender, for example recently citing the lone negative sentence in an otherwise higly favorable column about Bush's bicycling as an example of how the media relentlessly bashed Bush in an analogous comparison with President Obama.

And of course another terrific example is in post 268 above, which I've already pointed out.
 
288Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 16:53
Obama was clearly even embarrassed by that shameless question...but not MITH.
 
289Perm Dude
      ID: 4845611
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 16:57
What's your point? That some in the media toss softball questions?

How in the world does this, in any way, refute the evidence of FOX News manipulating what Democrats say in order to manufacture news about them?

If this was a liberal organization taking snippets from a Republican you'd be up in arms.
 
290Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:02
Balderdash. Soundbites are soundbites. We'd all like to get every favorable point scored in committee on the evening news, but are you kidding me? Public Radio with an hour to give a subject, compared to half a minute if that on the evening news, rarely gives unedited committee testimony. And certainly rarely reports the testimony I want reported.
 
291Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:11
I decided to check the record to see how long it would take me to find a question asked by the White House Press Corps during the Bush Administration at least as fluffy as the portion of teh 4-part question that has Baldwin's panties all bunched.

I decided to start with a briefing from about the same point in Bush's presidency, just after the 100 day mark. And lo and behold, we strike gold on the very first try. From the 5/4/01 briefing:
Q On a much lighter note, you can put your Yankees hat back on if you'd like. We see the President at these sporting events. He clearly has a good time. He's bringing the T-ball field to the White House, and they'll have the game over the weekend. What about behind the scenes? Is he a sports-page-first guy in the morning, and when he says he's in bed reading the briefing books, is he really watching Sportscenter? (Laughter.)
Since it's just a transcript and not video, I don't know to what extent Fleischer was embarrassed by that shameless question. But I'm sure Baldwin is completely mortified as he reads this.
 
292Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:13
Balderdash. Soundbites are soundbites. -Baldwin.

Making sure I've got that one easy to find. I'm certain it'll come in very handy sooner or later.
 
293Perm Dude
      ID: 4845611
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:14
These aren't "soundbites." These are videos deliberately edited so as to allow FOX to raise questions answered in those same unedited videos.

Your excuses sound tired.
 
294Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:15
Oh, and media outlets always use the full and unedited droning on and on full committee speech in their headline news? It's called a sound bite.

actually, it's not.

an example of a sound bite would be a reporter doing a story about Obama's first 100 days in office, and then, featuring an audio or audio/visual clip of Obama talking about his first 100 days.

when there is a speech that was given earlier in the day, and a reporter asks a question, practically rhetorically, after the fact and tailors part of the speech to make it seem like it answered that question, that is called inventing the news. it's hardly an example of a sound bite.

#264. Al Gore claims to be working on the global warming issue for over 30 years. 30 years.....is anybody buying that? The crisis had not even been invented yet. What a liar.

um, what?

scientists have been researching the Greenhouse Effect for almost 200 years now, as it was first discovered in the 1820s. it wasn't seriously studied until the latter part of that century, but that is certainly much longer than 30 years ago.

while serious ozone depletion started 30 years ago, the research into global warming is something that goes back a couple centuries.
 
295boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 17:27
the research into global warming is something that goes back a couple centuries.

reference this.



best i could find not anything like what you reported, but theoretically gore could have been concerned about man made green house effects, but i doubt it since most early evidence was not really understood till the early 80's and i am sure that if you went back to then I bet you will never seen gore mention anything...
 
296Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 18:04
The point is better illustrated in transcription. FNC talent in italics, video clips in blockquote and the portions omitted by FNC are in red.

Clip 1: The FNC reporter stated that Gores, "financial windfall came up at last week's Capitol Hill hearing":
Rep. Blackburn: Is the legislation that we are discussing here today - is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?

Gore: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit, The Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswoman, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issu for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.
Clip 2: This is a segment where Hannity claims to have caught Obama breaking a campaign promise to allow "no earmarks". Hannity asks, "Do you see anything they can do to maybe get Barack Obama to live up to his [inaudible - "promises" maybe?]? Lets go to the videotape and let's show our audiance at home (now, maybe it's just a campaign promise) no lobbyists in his administration, no earmarks:
Obama: The truth is, our earmark system, what's called porkbarrell spending in Washington, is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform. Which is why I didn't request a single earmark last year. Why I've released all my previous requests for the public to see. Why I pledge to slash earmarks by more than half when I'm president.
Obviously, the omitted portoion debunks Hannity's distortion of what Obama said on the campaign trail.

Clip 3: The last one is a news package. I don't recognize the reporter giving the voiceover, but the script would have been written by a producer, anyway: "Especially in light of this description of how The President hopes his nominee will interpret the Constitution:
Obama: I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying what peoples' hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. I will seek sopmebody who is dedicated to the rule of law. Who honors our Constitutional traditions. Who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the apropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for Constitutional values on which this nation was founded.
Reporter track continued: That aggrivates those who believe justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent.

Again, obviously, the omitted portion shows that the part of the clip FNC did use in the package was taken wildly out of context to in order to support their blatant and comicly denied anti-left agenda.
 
297Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 19:17
He always includes some boilerplate conservative rhetoric meant to fool the middle and then plays false to it like he meant to all along.

What a futile place this place will be if we have to take every lie he makes to suckerpunch the right into compromise, as if he actually means it.

In fact that is exactly the Orwellian trick he is building. His words are so completely bereft of reliability that they make discussion impossible. Words have ceased to have meaning when there is no truth. All that remains is misleading emotionalism.
 
298Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 19:31
Clip #1

What does Gore make per global warming speech? Does he donate it?

Clip #2
Last year Sen. Barack Obama, submitted a laundry list of federal funding requests, known as earmarks, to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 112 earmarks totaling more than $330 million in taxpayer funds. - Clinton News Network
Do you really want me to start a count of all the waivers he has sought to his 'promise' to not fill his administration with former lobbyists?

Clip #3

There isn't an ounce of credibility to this promise. This is just to forestall and tar any attempt of the republicans to treat his nominee the way dems always treat republican nominees.

You really believe a strict constructionist that would satisfy a republican could even make it onto the short list?

Do you believe anyone not willing to be guided by international law has the slightest chance of even making it on the short list?

There isn't any chance he means what he said there. Fox was right to ignore such an obvious
lie.

When will dems ever look in the mirror and realize that they are fooled by style over substance every last time?
 
299Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 20:40
What does Gore make per global warming speech? Does he donate it?

My goodness you must know how pathetic this is. Gore's honesty is irrelevant to the issue of whether FOX is giving you an honest depiction of what happened. It's not any less irresponsible to distort the cotext of what a liar says than what an honest person says -- it's still bogus reporting.

Here's a more extensive transcript of Laura Ingram's O'Reilly Factor report on Gore's recent financial gains.

Show returns from the cropped videoclip to Ingram, who asks her audiance, "Did she get the question actually answered?". Look at the full exchange between Gore and Blackburn:
BLACKBURN: So you're a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now, they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?

GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.

And Congresswoman, if you're -- if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.

BLACKBURN: Sir, I'm not making accusations, I'm asking questions that have been asked of me and individuals -- constituents that were seeking a point of clarity, so I am asking you for that point of -- point of clarity.

GORE: I understand exactly what you're doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.

BLACKBURN: And, well -- you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? Does all of it go to a not-for-profit that is an educational not-for-profit --

GORE: Every penny that I have made --

BLACKBURN: Every penny --

GORE: -- has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I've been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there's something wrong with being active in business in this country?

BLACKBURN: I am simply asking for clarification --

GORE: I'm proud of it.

BLACKBURN: -- of the relationship.

GORE: I'm proud of it.
Now look at the clip FOX showed, as transcribed in post 296 (remember, they omitted the portion in red).

And now try to fathom the shameless audacity of Laura Ingram as she sarcastically asks if Blackburn ever got an answer to her question.

Do you really want me to start a count of all the waivers he has sought to his 'promise' to not fill his administration with former lobbyists?

and

There isn't an ounce of credibility to this promise.

Same issue. You're defending biased, bogus "journalism" with by trashing the subject of their lies. Whether you're right or not has nothing to do with whether the journalist is a lying hack.

If you can't bring yourself to face the actual topic of the discussion, why do you bother taking part in it? Even you can't possibly think you're making persuasive arguments. Is it that seeing the left raise a legitimate issue gets you so bitter that you must do whatever you can to stifle or distract from it, all shame be damned? Is that what ankle ferrets do?
 
300Perm Dude
      ID: 21453619
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 20:53
Baldwin and the Far Right are so desperate--they sooo want to make this about Gore.

Pathetic. They don't even have faith in their own opinions. They have to look the other way, justify, dodge, or strawman when faced with evidence that the facts which back up their opinions have been doctored.

 
301Tree
      ID: 41371322
      Wed, May 06, 2009, 21:21
the research into global warming is something that goes back a couple centuries.

reference this.


Joseph Fourier...

...and Global Warming/Greenhouse effect

yes, they're from wikipedia. but the sources are cited and noted within.
 
302Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 05:04
MITH

He makes millions a year as a global warming snake oil salesman which he does not donate. Well over 100K per speech I read somewhere. If you can believe him, he makes or will someday make, [no telling if they make any donatable profit now] money in green tech business now.

For him to pretend he is a selfless philanthropic true believer in global warming giving all his money away, when in fact he is a profiteering globalist hack knowingly scamming the public to raise taxes to support global government, and who is living off glabal waming hysteria mongering.

He is a vampiric globalist whose public figure corpse walks again with snakeoil for blood.

I'm glad there is one media outlet he hasn't charmed. 'You look flushed my darrrrrling, look, look into my eyes'
 
303Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 06:05
Algore

Cap-And-Trade: Al Gore's Cash Cow
Posted 04/29/2009 06:57 PM ET


Global Warming: At the cap-and-trade hearings, it was revealed that not everyone will suffer from this growth-killing energy tax. A congresswoman wanted to know why sea levels aren't rising but Gore's bank account is.

When Gore left office in January 2001, he was said to have a net worth in the neighborhood of $2 million. A mere eight years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. It seems it's easy being green, at least for some.

Gore has his lectures and speeches, his books, a hit movie and Oscar, and a Nobel Prize. But Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., was curious about how a man dedicated to saving the planet could get so wealthy so quickly. She sought out investment advice we all could use in a shaky economy.

Last May, we noted that Big Al had joined the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers the previous September. On May 1, 2008, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

Last Friday, Gore was the star witness at the hearings on cap-and- trade legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Blackburn asked Gore about Kleiner-Perkins, noting that at last count they "have invested about a billion dollars invested in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation that we are discussing here today."

Blackburn then asked the $100 million question: "Is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?" Gore gave the stock answer that "the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge."

Last May, we also noted that on March 1, Gore, while speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green investments that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "subprime carbon assets" such as tar sands and shale oil.

He also is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue with a clear conscience. It's a scheme that will make traders of this new commodity rich and Bernie Madoff look like a pickpocket. The other founder is former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood.
 
304Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 07:32
Yeah, great, Gore is a bum. Put it in one of the various Global Warming threads or someplace else apropriate and maybe I'll weigh in. In this thread about appalling FNC behavior, you guys are only a distraction from the topic of the conversation. Like I said, shame be damned, right?
 
305Razor
      ID: 371502414
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 09:15
Baldwin and the Far Right are so desperate--they sooo want to make this about Gore.

Well, post 302 proves you right.

There is no good argument why Fox News chose to edit the clips in such a way to purposely leave out answers to the very topics under discussion. That, of course, did not stop Baldwin from hopping on and trying to make an argument, which never seemed to address this journalistic integrity issue. Instead, we got the "Al Gore is a globalist" card, which I assume also means that Gore deserves to be covered in a disingenuous way.
 
306boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 10:13
Joseph Fourier...

...and Global Warming/Greenhouse effect

yes, they're from wikipedia. but the sources are cited and noted within.


interesting, the link i provided was more informative i think. Fourier only hypothesized the idea of the green house effect, he did not actually show it or what gases would cause it. I guess you could also say that ancient creates started atomic theory because they hypothesized the idea of the atom.

Yeah, great, Gore is a bum. Put it in one of the various Global Warming threads or someplace else apropriate and maybe I'll weigh in. In this thread about appalling FNC behavior, you guys are only a distraction from the topic of the conversation. Like I said, shame be damned, right?

sorry you are right these posts don't belong here.
 
307DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 10:22
No way to defend the indefensible, so they have to change the subject or admit that they are *gasp* wrong.

Jingle the keys some more, guys.
 
308Perm Dude
      ID: 21453619
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 10:49
Ironically, their slam against Gore: He makes money.

Suddenly the GOP is anti-capitalist.
 
309Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 12:39
 
310Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 18:52
Ironically, their slam against Gore: He makes money.

Suddenly the GOP is anti-capitalist.


No, Being the world's highest paid/ highest profile lobbyist for a scientific hoax and a global tax...

...and then lying about it and claiming it was all non-profit work...

...is both inexcusable

...and not something a news organization should spread as if it were the truth.

Granted it would have been even better reporting to document all the ways he does profit from it, and then show him on air lying about it.
 
311biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, May 07, 2009, 19:40
Granted it would have been even better reporting to document all the ways he does profit from it...

Well, that would actually constitute investigative reporting and, you know, facts. Not Fox's strong suit, even in the circumstances where they actually exist beyond in the tangible, earthly world instead of Boldwin's imagination.

I happen to find Gore's environmental arguments lacking in nuance, but I doubt that anything quoted in 299 was a lie.
 
312Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Fri, May 08, 2009, 15:22
Do some google searching into Gore's new improved lifestyle. You of all people on this board aren't really this naive. Not in your heart of hearts.
 
313Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Fri, May 08, 2009, 15:27
He set up a company [in England] to guide investment dollars to profit from a hysteria he is the biggest proponent of.

These big money investors will benefit from insider knowlege of government's plans regarding environmental policy while you and I will end up paying bigtime.
 
314Perm Dude
      ID: 33417810
      Fri, May 08, 2009, 15:44
Generation Investment Management

Pretty up-front to me. Of course, if you believe that global warming is a "scam" then it is no surprise (to me) that any kind of company which invests in green technology and corporations are a scam.

 
315Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, May 21, 2009, 15:54
Question: Is it blatant treason for an American journalist, in addressing a foreign head of state and national ally from a highly sensetive part of the world, to explicitly question whether the current American government cares about his nation's best interests? Or are blatant attempts to undermine American foreign policy in interviews with leaders of former Soviet Republics just good old-fashioned partiotic journalism?

Here's an excerpt from Glenn Beck's recent interview with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili:
GB: You have been close to President George W Bush. He has supported you over the years. Have you had contact with our white house now and President Obama?

MS: I had a few phone calls with President Obama and I have to say that we have strong support from the United States. You know, The United States has called us a 'strategic ally' in the late months of the previous administration and the new administration has confirmed it.

And I think the way this country's approach [to] our neighbors [who] go to Washington and tell Washington, OK, let's have a tradeoff, abandon Georgia and maybe we'll give you something in exchange, maybe better access to Afghanistan, maybe some other strategic deal or something else.

But the point is - and I think this is clearly understood by this administration, by all of our friends in Washington - abandoning Georgia would mean, as Russia would want, abandoning freedom in a huge part of Eurasia, of Europe.

GB: I'm not quite so sure though that this administration is willing to pay the high price for it's ideals. They are looking to reset a relationship with Russia, we have President Obama going over to meet with Russia and broker all kinds of deals. What gives you the assurance that we won't throuw you under the bus for a new sort of relationship or a reduction in nuclear weapons.

MS: Well I think first of all that's exactly what, two days ago, Vladimir Putin said. He said he clearly addressed Americans and he told them, if you - he told you - if you want to have a real reset, forget about Georgia. But you know, I think people in Washington understand that forgetting about Georgia, first of all, is against every American principle of supporting freedom and democracy. And that's, I think, clearly understood also by the presidential administration.
 
316Boldwin
      ID: 133532810
      Thu, May 21, 2009, 16:18
Liberals should just avoid the word treason.
 
317Mith
      ID: 2894309
      Thu, May 21, 2009, 16:23
So that's one for the "good old-fashioned partiotic journalism" column. Thanks Baldwin.
 
318Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 17:17


Oops. For, like, the 20th time.
 
319biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 18:03
Man. They should move Fox News to comedy central.

 
320DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 18:57
You know, you do it once or twice it's a mistake. You do it that often, someone might suspect you're up to something.
 
321boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jun 25, 2009, 10:23
That's great...
 
322Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Jul 15, 2009, 11:26
South Carolina's The State has pulled together sympathetic conservative media emails received by Sanford's office while he was out.

I don't think the story is so much about conservative media bias, because that has been self-evident all the time. I do think that the deeper story is how quickly media, of any sort, are willing to bend over in return for access. Glenn Greenwald has been all over that issue for years now, but it comes through very clearly in looking over this piece.
 
323Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 09:30
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fox News: The New Liberals
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests
 
324Tree, in Texas
      ID: 41371322
      Mon, Sep 07, 2009, 21:03
more of the same...

Fox to Skip Obama's Prime-Time Address
 
325Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 13:10
Fox news ratings now > CNN + MSNBC combined

Whine and complain all you want, Foxnews is the cable news that people want to watch.
 
326Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 13:14
At the risk of drawing conclusions, is it a safe assumption that MSNBC and CNN draw most of their viewers from the left?

Is it also safe to assume that the left tends to have a lot more younger people?

Do younger people tend to use the internet to get their news and updates?

Can we draw the conclusion that with the left using the web a lot more that ratings may drop for stations that tend to lean towards the left?
 
327tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 13:22
the amount of time spent by me on cnn.com and msnbc.com is iimmeasurably larger than the amount of time I watch either of the related television stations....

that being said, there is little doubt now that fox news is mainstream media defined, and any cries from the right about the msm are as hollow and empty as nearly every other lie they try to pass off at the truth....
 
328Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 20:57
I don't understand post 325. Is B7 saying that any issues tree or anyone takes with that particular media outlet are moot because it gets better tv ratings than it's competitors?

Why in the world should I care more about their ratings than the pathetic joke they pass off as journalism? I'm not supposed to take issue with a mainstream media outlet deliberately spreading partisan hyperbole and fearmongering because it gets good tv ratings?
 
329Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 21:34
That's an argument that has been made elsewhere, but the fact that CNN & MSNBC are cable-only news outlets while FOX is a regular network show appears to be left out of the equation.

Also, it isn't clear that popularity should allow a sliding scale for the truth.

Finally, FOX News is a division of FOX. The fact that FOX News is popular doesn't have much bearing on whether FOX should show the address. This is like saying that American Idol is popular, so FOX should only show the Republican rebuttal to Obama's SOTU address.
 
330boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 14:15
I am not sure what the big deal is. The other networks would be smart to follow Fox's lead and not show the presidents address if people want to watch it they can find in on 20 other stations and for those who do not have cable they can watch it on PBS. Do i really need 50 channels all showing the address? NO i don't.
 
331sarge33rd
      ID: 17681812
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 14:45
You think for one second, FOX would decline to carry a Republican Presidents address? Historically, the President is accorded the respect of being THE only thing on when he addresses the people. It is after all, NOT a trivial thing.
 
332Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 14:53
It is a courtesy that the broadcast media always extends to the President of the United States. It's an expression of respect and priorities and a statement that says that if the POTUS addresses the nation during prime time, that what he has to say is more important than whatever entertainment programming the nets might otherwise run.
 
333boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 16:27
I decline to watch all presidents, why watch something that i can read about tomorrow.

It is a courtesy that the broadcast media always extends to the President of the United States.

this was logical explanation back when there only 3 networks and PBS, but do we really need or want every channel showing the president? personally i am surprised this idea has not caught on sooner.
 
334Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 16:46
personally i am surprised this idea has not caught on sooner. - boikin


You think for one second, FOX would decline to carry a Republican Presidents address? - sarge33rd
 
335Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 16:56
this was logical explanation back when there only 3 networks and PBS

Your saying the advent of new media trivializes traditional courtesy and respect for the president?

No, boikin, the point isn't that we need every channel showing the presdent.
 
336boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 18:15
Your saying the advent of new media trivializes traditional courtesy and respect for the president?

In some ways it does, I do not see you complaining that all your local radio stations or the internet have not shut down to prod cast the president.

we need every channel showing the presdent.

what does this mean, we need? if that is so maybe you should complain to radio and the internet while you are at it.
 
337boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 18:17
You think for one second, FOX would decline to carry a Republican Presidents address? - sarge33rd

that was fox's mistake, Maybe NBC should have done it then.
 
338Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 18:36
These are, of course, public airwaves. FOX should be more accomodating, IMO.
 
339Mith
      ID: 1871267
      Wed, Sep 09, 2009, 19:01
I do not see you complaining that all your local radio stations or the internet have not shut down to prod cast the president

I'm not aware of any such traditional courtesies that have so eroded. And I haven't argued that all live broadcast media should air the address.


what does this mean, we need?

You tell me. You're the one who asked, "but do we really need or want every channel showing the president".
 
340boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 09:43
In an ironic twist i ended up watching part of speech of fox news because i saw it was being replayed when i got home last night.

I'm not aware of any such traditional courtesies that have so eroded.

did you know the every president since FDR gives a weekly radio address and only a limited number of stations carry it anymore? where is your out rage about that?

 
341Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 10:22
only a limited number of stations carry it anymore? where is your out rage about that?

Perhaps it's because I don't pay much attention to the radio but I'm not aware of any radio stations that used to carry the weekly address, are still in operation, and today no longer run it.

I also don't know very much about how corporate network radio is structured and how that structure may have changed over the years, not to mention whether there have any relevent changes in national and regional radio broadcasting in that time.

But to respond to what I think is the point of your challenge, if you could show me that some radio station which traditionally broadcast the Weekly Address stopped doing so at some point in favor of the radio equivolent of So You Think you Can Dance (or whatever show it was) then yes, that is shameful - whoever the president is or may have been at the time.
 
342Tree, in Texas
      ID: 41371322
      Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 10:27
did you know the every president since FDR gives a weekly radio address and only a limited number of stations carry it anymore? where is your out rage about that?

actually, it didn't become weekly until Reagan started doing it. Prior to that, it was semi-regular.

When GW Bush was president, he introduced a podcast feed. Barack Obama's weekly address is uploaded to youtube by the White House.

as for your comment about a limited number of radio stations carrying it, that is nothing new. it has ALWAYS been that way, so your point is kind of moot.

 
343Boldwin
      ID: 08311010
      Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 12:57
It is a courtesy that the broadcast media always extends to the President of the United States.

Networks Refuse to Broadcast Reagan's Plea - New York Times

Thus sealing the fate of the Contras.
 
344Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 13:15
Here's the full article from post 343, for those who aren't afraid that clicking on a NYT link will give them herpes.

And yes, refusal to air the president's address - in Reagan's case twice in 4 months - was a disgrace.
 
345boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 15:26
well that pretty much contradicts this theory It is a courtesy that the broadcast media always extends to the President of the United States.

You do realize that more people have access to prod casts now that at any point in our history? I do not think one station is going to be missed.
 
346Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Sep 10, 2009, 16:21
Boikin

Take out the word "always" and my point is essentially the same.

I do not think one station is going to be missed.

I'm not sure what is the matter with you that you seem unable to grasp that my issue is one of principle and respect and not about access. I have not been unclear.
 
347Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Sep 21, 2009, 11:49
FOX reprimands field producer after video of her rallying the 9/11 protest crowd during a station live shot.

I know, shocker, right? But what I don't understand is why the producer caught on video in that link deserves a reprimand but not Griff Jenkins for his behavior in this on-air clip:

 
348Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 11:45
The champion of the teabaggers:



How can I take seriously anyone who takes this guy seriously?
 
349biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 14:18
Giggle. PETA's gonna have a field day.

City Council of Beck's home town balks at his proposed "day".
 
350Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 14:24
Why do you keep watching?
Why do you punish yourself?

I don't like CNN or Oprah.
Therefore, I don't watch those shows.
 
351Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 14:34
Why do you keep watching?

Because I believe part of being informed is knowing how both the right-leaning and left-leaning media resent events.


Why do you punish yourself?

In the case of Beck, it's unintentional comedy as often as it's torture. At it's best (which is well represented in post 348) it's like watching the Colbert Report with the additional hilarity that the talent, producers and viewers all fail to catch on that it's satire.
 
352biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 14:56
I actually don't watch Beck, but I can see why MITH does. The reason I'm interested is that he appears to be one of leading voices inciting the ignorant mobs. His anti-establishment rhetoric is like crack for those that feel disenfranchised by our current, and to some extent even our last, leadership.

I think we ignore these clowns at our own peril. One person's lying baffoon is another person's messiah.
 
353Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 15:29
keep your friends close. keep your enemies closer.
 
354Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 16:01
Clearly, the GOP has lurched far off its rails:

Forty-two percent of Republicans say President Obama was born outside the United States, while only 37 percent say he was born here.
Story

It is no longer enough, for those who claim some sort of moderate stance, to simply make sure they criticize both Democrats and Republicans equallly.
 
355Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 16:20
This should take into account how many moderates no longer self-identify as Republicans, leaving only the whackos, racists and a handful of libertarians.
 
356biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 16:24
Census Worker hanged. Had "FED" written on his chest.

Probably stumbled into a meth operation or something, but maybe not. This sort of sentiment is scary. A spike in gun purchases of 31% is scarier.

I would lay even odds on a large domestic terrorism plot being carried out or discovered within the next year. I will hold Beck and his ilk partly responsible for inciting it.
 
357Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 16:41
there are many reasons why i have decided i need to learn how to fire a gun. post 356 is one of them.
 
358biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 16:43
You planning conducting the census? Packing heat?
 
359Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 17:16
i just really believe there are too many nutcases on the far right, and i believe they think violence is the solution to their problems.

i think if the leadership on the right doesn't tone down their rhetoric, we are heading for violent times the likes of which we've never seen on our own soil.
 
360biliruben's lawyer..
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 18:56
And y'all get on Boldwin for being paranoid...
 
361biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 18:58
Is it paranoid when the really are out to get you?

Cue the dueling banjos...
 
362biliruben's lawyer..
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 19:21
OK, let's see how paranoid you guys are: You give me the odds that he was killed by "right-wing, anti-government fanatics".

Also, bili, he was not found "hanged". He was on the ground when he was found. (First hanf onformation) The media reports have been ludicrous in their efforts to sensationalize this story and give it some national context. What a shame.
 
363tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 20:09
"hanged" or on the ground, he was killed for doing his job - a clerical one at that - with national overtones due to the "fed" that was written/carved/whatever on his body...
 
364biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 21:22
Probably stumbled into a meth operation or something...
 
365biliruben's lawyer..
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 22:14
tree - how do you know why he was killed?
 
366Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 22:52
Just because he was stumbling into an area of anti-establishment types doesn't mean he was killed because he was a census worker. It certainly could have been because of an illegal meth lab, or some other criminal activity he stumbled upon.

Those of use not of the wacky right need to be careful about jumping to conclusions, otherwise we have no credibility when we criticize those who take shreds of information and build up theories merely to match our own biases.
 
367astade
      Sustainer
      ID: 214361313
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 23:04
bili, i think you need a new lawyer ;)
 
368DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Sep 24, 2009, 23:48
I'm pretty sure the killer was trying to win the heart of MMA fighter Fedor Emilianko (this is known in the business as "pulling a Hinckley") but ran out of ink.
 
369Texas Flood
      ID: 57802511
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 12:01
target="_blank">Stunning

Does Beck make some good points here?
 
370Seattle Zen
      ID: 238441010
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 12:19
Does Beck make some good points here?

No. Try as he might, no. Thanks for showing the picture of the teacher, just had to make double sure that she was black.
 
371Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 12:45
Obviously the "equal work means equal pay" is something that doesn't belong in that kind of song taught to children in a public school. That would be a very good point for Beck to make but I don't think he bothered. That could have led to an interesting discussion about whether this is similar to a mock Q&A session that Ronald Reagan had with school children broadcast live into TV classrooms across the country in which Reagan fielded planted questions from the students about such topics as why tax cuts are always good for America.

Instead he went on about how the video needed a giant statue and tried to somehow tie it in to the NEA and corruption in Washington, all the while rehashing the same demonization of the concept of teaching children to respect and honor the president of the United States that we saw at the beginning of the month. Funny, respect and honor for the President of the United States is something I vividly remember being taught in school when Carter and Reagan were in the White House. Now they call it "indoctrination". And they managed to dig up a single school teacher from New Jersey who stepped over the line to prove it.
 
372Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 12:50
 
373biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 13:11
Spoofing Glenn Beck is redundant.

I found the first one funnier.
 
374biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 14:08
Just because no one wrote a bad children's song about W, the conservatives are all up in arms.

Here you go. Bark with fear, or teabag your neighbor, or whatever floats your boat:

(To the tune of On Top of Spaghetti)

On top of the Countwy, I knew how to appease,
I lost my poor legacy, when our country fell to it's knees.

It started pretty well for me, giving the rich much more,
Selling out to the corporations, and stomping on the poor.

We rolled into Baghdad, getting revenge for Daddy Bush,
But 5 hard war-years later, my legacy was mush!

The housing bubble was as tasty, more money for Cheney and me,
And deregulating industries made everything seem free.

The bubble finally popped though, and everyone took a loss,
And then there was outrage, when trillions I did toss.

So if you want your legacy, not covered with sleaze,
Don't torture and profiteer, or send the economy into a deep freeze.
 
376Texas Flood
      ID: 57802511
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 14:15
So that song does belong in public schools?
 
377Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 14:21
Who said that, TF?

That's a rather different question from what you asked in post 369.
 
378Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 14:25
Barack Obama's indoctrination campaign continues with this terrifying message directed at those dirty Jews.

 
379biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Fri, Sep 25, 2009, 14:26
I'd be fine with that. I like to give teacher broad latitude in the curriculum. ;)

Seriously, Beck could have made a useful, if relatively small point there, but he missed his opportunity in his desire to whip up the hysteria he feeds on.

A teacher, for black history month, writing a amateurish ode to the first Black president, and one she obviously loves, is hardly the end of the the world, or a sign of the next Communist Youth Organization. No matter how much Beck quakes in his boots and pees his pants on the air.
 
380Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 11:18
School children sang song of praise for GW Bush too.

How outraged were Texas Flood and Glenn Beck on that day?
 
381sarge33rd
      ID: 11858268
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 11:49
that's different. /sarcasm
 
382Texas Flood
      ID: 57802511
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 12:17
Uh, they were singing the praises of people throughout the land,
Bush, Congress, FEMA. Seems to me that the tune was a little
more bi partisan than the recent ode to Obama


I'm really not outraged by anything our pathetic politicians do.
Our country is completely fuvck up and its been a bi partisan
effort.

Now we have the Obama youth movement all they need are the
brown shirts and daggers. Obama has already designed the
logo!
 
383sarge33rd
      ID: 11858268
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 12:35
Up until that last paragraph I was pretty much in agreement. Then, you went right off the cliff.
 
384Texas Flood
      ID: 57802511
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 12:39
I did that because I knew it would put someone over the edge! It's
what Baldwin might have said. Haven't seen him here for awhile
and thought he might be missed. The Liberals here need a target
or they would have no reason for being here;}.
 
385Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 12:40
TF, were you always a crazy person or did you suffer a severe blow to the head that made you this way?

I'm really not outraged by anything our pathetic politicians do.

What does this have to do with anything that any politicians have done? Are you saying that this teacher was acting on orders from the president?

all they need are the brown shirts and daggers

What in the world are you talking about? A teacher in New Jersey has her students sing a song about Obama and according to you this is but a couple of fashion accessories short of the Hitler Youth?
 
386Texas Flood
      ID: 57802511
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 12:54
Actually no. I was simply making a statement about our
outrageous politicians in general. The last comment was made
entirely to incite. Now you can name call and make personal
attacks for the rest of the day it should make you feel better.
 
387Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 12:59
I was simply making a statement about our
outrageous politicians in general.


Oh, OK. My apologies for assuming your rantings were coherent and for not recognizing the value in your pointless incitement.
 
388Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Sep 26, 2009, 13:09
More outrageous political indoctrination from the president!
 
389Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Sep 30, 2009, 17:17
re, 360, biliruben's lawyer:
And y'all get on Boldwin for being paranoid...

based on the recent conversations discussing a coup in this thread, feel like retracting that statement?
 
390Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Wed, Sep 30, 2009, 21:11
White House calls it like it is

Rhetoric: Beck said Vancouver lost $1 billion when it 'had the Olympics.' ... Reality: Vancouver's Olympics Will Not Take Place Until 2010.
 
391Boldwin
      ID: 34803016
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 04:44
You do an hour show and never make a mistake in an off-the-cuff, on-the-fly remark.

Maybe he was thinking of...
Some cities weren't as successful when it came to funding the Olympics. In 1976, Montreal hosted the Olympics and it was a financial disaster. A new Olympic Stadium was to be built for the occasion and it was estimated to cost only $134 million (Canadian).

However, by the time of the Olympics, the stadium was only half-built and cost $264 million (Canadian). The stadium was finished after the Olympic games were over, but still needed constant repair. After all repairs, renovations, loan interest, inflation, and construction costs were calculated, the entire project had cost $1.61 billion (Canadian). It took 30 years for Canada to pay off the debt.
 
392Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 08:10
The show is scripted.
 
393Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 08:16
You do an hour show and never make a mistake in an off-the-cuff, on-the-fly remark.

if it happens, once. fine. but what's being established here is a pattern from Fox.

and you're right, perhaps Beck confused 2010 with 1976, and perhaps he confused a west coast, English-language Canadian city with an east coast, French-language Canadian city.
 
394Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 09:17
Beck's idiotic flub masks a larger issue that I have with his comments: is he really arguing against bringing the Olympics to the U.S.? As an Atlantan, I can tell you that the 1996 Olympics, despite being notably poorly run, was a huge boon to the city and its impact is still felt 13 years later.
 
395Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 09:34
He's be calling it a matter of national pride if a Republican was in office.

He's even more stupid about it, however, saying that Obama shouldn't be going overseas because we are still at war in Afghanistan.

I want to talk to you about two Copenhagens.

The first is in Denmark, which President Obama leaves for on Thursday, looking to bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago and joining his wife Michelle who already made the flight there.

But, in doing, so he's forgetting at least two things:

First, the troops that are coming home dead from Afghanistan. And, while he's found the time to talk to everyone but the Food Network and FOX News about his Chicago White Sox, Obama has only had one meeting with his national security advisers to discuss the 66-page memo from General Stanley McChrystal from August, which says troops are urgently needed.

But let's put that off to the side.


Apparently the first Copenhagan is one in which Beck desperately wants the focus to be on whether Obama is meeting with his generals. And it sounds an awfully lot like "Don't talk about that stuff--talk about the stuff I believe you are politically weaker on!"

Beck is unserious for many reasons, but mostly because of his drama queen attempts to hold a moral high ground without the coherent or even consistent political underpinnings from which to do so.
 
396sarge33rd
      ID: 1193318
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 09:38
Beck's posture here has nothing to do with the Olympics, and everything to do with opposing Obama. If Obama came out and publicly stated that the sun appears to rise over the eastern horizon every morning, Beck would make an argument contrary to that statement.
 
397Pancho Villa
      ID: 4891818
      Thu, Oct 01, 2009, 09:43
Beck doesn't care about Olympics making or losing money, regardless of where they're held.

His schtick is to come up with ways to demonize Obama on a daily basis. It's like people who go to see Gallagher, the comedian. They don't go to hear Gallagher tell jokes, they go to see him smash watermelons. People don't watch Glenn Beck for detailed political insight, they watch him because he slams Obama.

The intrinsic problem with this approach to politics is that there is no analysis. It starts with a goal - oppose and demonize everything Obama says and does - and with that as a pretext, develop the daily show to fit that mold.

 
398Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Oct 08, 2009, 12:01
 
399Perm Dude
      ID: 438132822
      Wed, Oct 14, 2009, 13:45
Stewart slaps FOX around a bit. Easy pickings:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Queer and Loathing in D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorRon Paul Interview
 
400Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 13:38
Hours after I linked this American Prospect entry in the Limbaugh/Rams thread, FNC's Special Report proved the writer's contention that while the right was focused on debunking racist things Limbaugh didn't say, they pretty much ignored Limbaugh's record of racist commentary.

You'll note that at about 2 minutes into the linked news package, they followed a the part of the report about the circulating of a pro-slavery quote (apparently falsely attributed to Limbaugh) with a clip of Rick Sanchez on CNN acknowledging (and not challenging) Limbaugh's denial of making the pro-slavery statement and noting "that does not take away the fact that there are other quotes which have been attributed to Limbaugh which many people in the African American community and in other minority communities find offensive".

The Sanchez clip was followed immediately by the voiceover reporter going on to debunk the other apparently falsely attributed statement, that MLK assassin James Earl Ray deserved a Medla of Honor. The structure of the package is obviously designed to lead the viewer to believe the "other quotes" Sanchez refers to are the apparently debunked James Earl Ray quotes. Throughout the piece, not even passive acknowledgement is made by any FOX talent that Limbaugh has ever made a racially controversial statement other than his infamous McNabb comment on ESPN. The only reference was in the CNN clip they played, which was set up by the voiceover to look dishonest.

Further, during the "The Panel" portion of the show in which Limbaugh was discussed, Brit Hume accused Sanchez of not apologizing for their report of one of the apparently falsely attributed quotes, and lliterally scoffed at the notion that there are other offensive quotes made by Limbaugh.
 
401Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Oct 17, 2009, 13:17
Correcting a mistake from yesterday - Hume wasn't on Thursday's Special Report panel, it was Charles Krauthammer who made the statements I attributed to Hume:
Look, he has been libeled. These accusations, which are truly outrageous, without a basis, broadcast on CNN and Rick Sanchez has apparently not apologized or even withdrawn. He sidestepped and said, well, there are other accusations. That's disgraceful.

And the comment he made about McNabb I don't think makes him any more racist than the comment Larry Summers made about women in the sciences made him a sexist.

And is this all you can pin on Limbaugh who has been on the air three hours a day for 20 years? The total number of words there has to exceed the Bible and Shakespeare combined, and all you got on him is the Donovan McNabb? I think this clearly is a case where a club, the NFL has decided, it does not want an outspoken conservative, and you can't say that. It's obviously about ideologies, so you blame it on racism, which is a false accusation, and I think they ought to apologize to him.
Now how exactly is this displayed omission of relevent important crucial facts from both a report and a discussion panel during a news network's flagship daily news program anything different from a blatant bald-faced lie?

I'm typing this from my second job at the CBS Broadcast Center where across the street maybe 40 teabaggers have gathered to demand that "Mainstream Media" live up to the standards of FOX News.

LAUGH. OUT. LOUD.
 
403Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Oct 17, 2009, 13:34
And yesterday they continued the discussion on the panel, with the followup report that Rick Sanchez had taken responsibility and explicitly apologized for reporting the apparently wrongfully attributed Limbaugh quotes.

Krauthammer went on to explain that an explicit apology just wasn't good enough - whill continuing to acknowledge some of the most crucial facts associated with this story - that Limbaugh does really have a long history of making racially offensive statements.


 
404Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sat, Oct 17, 2009, 19:58
Fox News isn't even pretending anymore

Want proof that journalism has devolved into entertainment? Watch "the communications arm of the Republican Party"

According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, “72 percent of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79 percent of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69 percent think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75 percent believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. Almost needless to say, all of these things are categorically false.
 
405Building 7
      ID: 43735169
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 08:25
Mattinglyinthehall #401: I'm typing this from my second job at the CBS Broadcast Center where across the street maybe 40 teabaggers have gathered to demand that "Mainstream Media" live up to the standards of FOX News.

So, you are being paid by Fox's competitor to come to this forum and spread dirt about Fox News. I didn't realize CBS was so desperate.
 
406bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 10:57
Are you subconsciously obtuse, or as most would believe as evidenced by your apparent intelligence, purposefully obtuse? Do you actually expect anyone to believe that CBS is paying MITH to come on this forum so that he can spread dirt about FOX?

In your world, is it not possible to have an open mind independent of your employer?
 
407mith
      ID: 38959189
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 10:59
B7

I've been critical of FOX (and occasionally CBS, for the record) since long before I took my 2nd job. Further, you ass, even though my job is at the CBS Broadcast Center, I'm not an employee of CBS.

Moreover, even if I did work for CBS and was paid to criticize my employer's competetors, what would be so wrong about that, as long as the criticism is honest? I'm pretty sure I've seen just about every FNC on air personality so criticize NBC and other networks and I'm also pretty sure you've never expressed a problem with that behavior from those FOX employees.
 
408mith
      ID: 509101810
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 11:10
By the way, it speeks volumes when someone completely ignores an on-topic and thorough indictment of exactly the type of media bias that every FNC apologist ardently denies - in favor of posting some cockamamy "kill the messenger" BS accusation.
 
409Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 11:23
I was rolling through the TV listing yesterday, and came across a FOX show (I don't remember the name of it) dedicated to demonstrating bias in the media.

I literally LOL.
 
410Building 7
      ID: 43735169
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 11:52
Calling all moderators. Please clean up mith's mess in #407. How many warning's does this guy get.
 
411Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 11:59
wow. for a guy who loves to spread angst about living in a "big brother" world, you're quick to call for big brother.

i'm noticing more and more in this board that for all the disrespect liberals get for being whiny, there is a lot of whining from those who seem to lean to the right...OH NOZ111!!!! CALL THE MODS!!!! SOMEONE CALLED ME AN ASS!!!111!!
 
412bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Sun, Oct 18, 2009, 12:32
re 410 - I take back what I said about "your apparent intelligence".
 
413Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 09:10
Looks like another NYC liberal has shown up and approves of mith violating the forum standards. This should not come as a surprise as Tree is the number one violator of forum standards. And don't worry about any moderators showing up. I've been insulted over 100 times and no moderatot has ever done anything about it. Even after calling the alleged moderators out on it, repeatedly. If there were moderators, Tree would have been suspended about 2000 insults ago.
 
414bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 09:41
Such concise responses to the question I asked in 406.
 
415biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 09:54
It's obvious that it matters much more who said something than the content of what is said, in these sad times.
 
416Mith
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 09:54
Boldwin would probably have been "suspended' well before Tree.

Anyway, if the mods are failing to do their jobs, I'd suggest that B7 contact the forum administrator. His email address is linked in the fine print at the bottom of this page.

Good luck.
 
417Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 10:32
Guru gives wide latitude to this forum, and has said so both in the forum and in emails to me.

Calling someone an "ass" who appears to be being deliberately provocative doesn't fall into the necessary cleanup area, IMO.
 
418Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 11:04
Looks like another NYC liberal has shown up...

nice to see you sticking to the MO of your fellow party members by tossing out a phrase like "NYC liberal"...

but sorry, pal, you're wrong. my political beliefs were honed right in the heart of Texas, where i grew up.
 
419Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 12:47
Maybe he was talking about bibA, who is pretty damn far from New York, as I recall.
 
420Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 09:00
I'm not going to be joining mith in the gutter. Personal insults add nothing to the discussion. Besides, since there are ten times as many liberals here, I would be receiving ten times as many insults.

I wrote a new stanza to kumbaya for you liberals to sing:

Someones leaving lord, kumbaya
Someones leaving lord, kumbaya
Someones leaving lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya
 
421Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 10:02
Sounds like someone's been watching too much Beck.
 
422biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 11:05
Someone's watching Lord, Kumbaya
I'm a nihilist Lord, Kumbaya
I'll teach him to rant against, Kumbaya
I'm not for anything,
Kumbaya.


 
423Boldwin
      ID: 2799184
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 15:57
Charles Krauthammer was exactly perfectly on the mark.

And MITH's reaction to it was a low moment for him.
 
424Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 16:26
They just can't stand the fact that Limbaugh has unapologetically made racist statements, so they attack the low hanging fruit in the hopes people can't see him for what he is: A blowharding, thin-skinned entertainer who personifies celebrity-driven politics.

Of course, the GOP would never allow themselves to be led around by a celebrity, would they?
 
425Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 17:10
exactly perfectly on the mark

Sure, if "the mark" is to disingenuously protect El Rushbo from the unquestionable truth that is his long history of racially offensive statements.
 
426Boldwin
      ID: 2799184
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 19:14
You don't have a clue about Rush's character then and further if he had the slightest flaw in that department it would be out there in the record after spilling his guts in public for 20 years, three hours every day.
 
427Boldwin
      ID: 2799184
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 19:15
Really MITH, how many hours of Rush have you listened to this year in total? Zero prolly.
 
428Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 19:43
Probably 0.75. Doesn't matter. Certainly more than you heard from Jeremiah Wright prior to last year and you needed far fewer examples of his questionable statements to decide you knew everything you needed to know about him.
 
429biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 19:48
Baldwin - Do you really listen to Rush, and think his character of a high quality?
 
430Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 19:49
game, set, match.
 
431Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 19:52
if he had the slightest flaw in that department it would be out there in the record after spilling his guts in public for 20 years, three hours every day.

There might be a slight flaw.
 
432Boldwin
      ID: 2799184
      Tue, Oct 20, 2009, 21:48
Bili

Do I think he's inheriting God's Kingdom? Nope.

Do I think he's perfect? Of course not.

Do I think he has better character than anyone in the MSM? Absolutely.
 
433biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 03:31
A wealthy, hypocritical, lying drug-addict openly spending day in and day out doing all he can to divide racially, ethnically, economical our nation by spewing hate, has a higher quality character than a reporter risking his or her life reporting from the front lines of Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan?

I am having trouble finding common ground on that one.
 
434Boldwin
      ID: 2799184
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 09:37
I think he's way honest, wealth isn't a character flaw, anyone can get addicted to prescribed pain-killers and drugs do errode character while addicted. But he's not now addicted so shut up about it. And he did not create the culture war. Resistance to the 'hell-in-a-handbasket' character slide of this world is not a bad thing.
 
435Boldwin
      ID: 2799184
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 09:39
And if they had taken Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather out and shot them for their wartime commentary I would not have been surprised.
 
436Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 10:08
anyone can get addicted to prescribed pain-killers

what a cop-out, bull$hit response. i simply don't buy it. he choose to abuse them. i've been on painkillers before for some medical issues, and i was never addicted to them, nor did i have any desire to become so.

But he's not now addicted so shut up about it.

uh, yes he is. once an addict, always an addict. he may be a recovering addict, but anyone who has ever struggled with addiction of any kind will tell you he or she is an addict for life.

 
437Boldwin
      ID: 2799184
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 10:13
I've never taken Oxycontin and I would be very afraid of doing so. I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone in that situation, or knows the length of time Rush was on them legitimately, how addictive that extra time spent may have been. Everyone's body chemistry is different and tendencies to become addicted vary widely.

You can take your mindless generalities and go smoke them with SZ.
 
438Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 10:36
I actually agree with Baldwin on Rush's addiction. What neither he nor Rush does, of course, is to extend those addiction sympathies to anyone who isn't a Republican. And that is a character flaw on both their parts.

Rush's addiction neither adds to, nor takes away, from his intentionally racist statements, regardless of whether other statements are being misattributed to him. And regardless of whether some fake comparison with "MSM" gives Rush some kind of edge.

Doing so just shows the reflexive posture of "relativity" that the far right goes into when confronted by the truth of some of themselves. First deny, then offer tepid and off-subject comparisons.

Under no circumstances apologize or accept errors.
 
439DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 14:02
"I've never taken Oxycontin and I would be very afraid of doing so. I don't think anyone has the right to judge someone in that situation, "

You realize we're going to paste this right in front of your face from now on if (when) you decide this particular morality doesn't apply to someone you DON'T like, right?
 
440Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:18
Feel free. Who do we know who accidentally became to their prescription painkiller? MJ? Did you see me holler?
 
441Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:26
Rush's addiction neither adds to, nor takes away, from his intentionally racist statements, - PD

There aren't any.

All you have is the weight of liberal opinion. You have no quote. The McNabb incident was no more than pointing out that Jackie Robinson received a tad more lionization than anyone else with the same stats. It's a real fact.

As people who need to deal in reality and separate out the media hype machine we should be the MOST appreciative of commentators cutting thru the crap to deliver the real valuation of performance vs the hype. Even the black commentator who was with him had no problem with his comments until liberals got to him days later.

 
442mith
      ID: 489312116
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:31
Rush has made way too many racially offensive statements in just the past few years to so flippantly brush off.
 
443Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:41
The McNabb incident was no more than pointing out that Jackie Robinson received a tad more lionization than anyone else with the same stats.

what!?!? Robinson was lionized because he broke the color barrier, not because his stats, although garnering over 1,500 hits in 10 MLB seasons is nothing to sneeze at.

Limbaugh said people wanted McNabb to succeed because of the man's skin color - that's racism.

comparing football players to bloods and crips, which is something else Limbaugh did, is hardly an innocent statement.

playing a song on your radio show called "Barack the Magic Negro" is pretty racist.

let's go over some of the other things Limbaugh has said and done:

As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." A decade ago, after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

In 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."

In a similar vein, here is Limbaugh's mocking take on the NAACP, a group with a 90-year commitment to nonviolence: "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

When Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the "Movin' On Up" theme song from TV's Jeffersons when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting "ax" for "ask"-- when discussing black leaders.


hmm, what else could he possibly have said?

When a Mexican won the New York marathon, Limbaugh said, ''An immigration agent chased him the last 10 miles.''

and then there was that recent comment about America needing segregated buses.

Limbaugh's history of racist actions and comments is undeniable and indefensible, but it won't surprise anyone when a bigot comes to his defense nonetheless.
 
444Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:44
You have no quote.

In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering. This was, of course, a lie.

This one has a little homophobia thrown in as a bonus

Here are ten more that don't exist

Snopes breaks some of these down

Liberals got to him, eh? Can't take responsibility for your own words anymore, eh?
 
445Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:48
It should also be said that the McNabb comment said absolutely nothing about Jackie Robinson.
 
446Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:49
I suppose Limbaugh's continued reference to Native Americans as "Injuns" is not racist either?

The problem with the Wacky Right is not only do they not know when they are wrong, they don't know when they lost, either.
 
447Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:51
Your first example is exactly what happened in today's post-racial America. It's not racist at all. It was an exact representation of what happened.

And your last statement simply ignores the true point I made. It's about the bazillion'th time some liberal here on the board substituted sneering [knowing his fellow lefties wouldn't call him on his vacuous sentence] for legitmate debate.

 
448Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:52
I suppose Limbaugh's continued reference to Native Americans as "Injuns" is not racist either? - PD

Correct.

 
449Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 17:57
It should also be said that the McNabb comment said absolutely nothing about Jackie Robinson. - PD

It said something about the media...it said 'fact check' time. The media has their thumb on the scale when they evaluate McNabb. And in fact he doesn't impress most years. And especially that year, and any other year when he doesn't get surrounded by a nearly perfect 'no-holes' team.

 
450Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 18:02
Well, there you go. "Colorblind" apparently means "factually blind" to the far right. Well, only when it is applied to "their" side.

It is only the Left and the "MSM" who use race baiting, if you listen to them. Of course, if you do, you would believe all sorts of factually inaccurate statements, according to several polls I've seen.

Luckily you are down to just over 21%.

The more your "side" airs its views, the smaller it gets.
 
451Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 18:03
Your second point, he's uncriticizable because of his race. If that's not the explanation explain why late night TV didn't dare joke about him for a year.
 
452Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 18:29
we've already established facts matter little to Baldwin any more.

at this point, is only value to this board is sheer entertainment value. i fear the day he finally leaves, because while the quality of posting will go up, the entertainment value will plunge.

i really do look forward - daily - to what tomfoolery comes out of his keyboard in his daily avoidance of reality, fact, and common sense.
 
453Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 18:51
Would your life have any meaning if I left? What else would you do with your life if you weren't hanging off my ankle like a rabid pomeranian?
 
454DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 19:39
"If that's not the explanation explain why late night TV didn't dare joke about him for a year."

If he were uncriticizable because of race, then clearly he would STILL be uncriticizable, because AFAIK he hasn't undergone any Soul Man level surgery that I am aware of. The mere fact that he is no longer uncriticizable means clearly that it was NOT because of race, but because of some other factor, because if it WAS because of race, then it would STILL be because of race.

This is very very simple logic. I don't expect you to understand.
 
455Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 19:54
 
456Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 19:56
Dwet

He is still handled with kit gloves. He will never get a tenth the late night mocking a GOP president will get.

 
457Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Oct 21, 2009, 19:57
Would your life have any meaning if I left? What else would you do with your life if you weren't hanging off my ankle like a rabid pomeranian?

i've still got pro wrestling, saturday morning cartoons, and Sarah Palin when i need my daily dose of dumbing down. your imbalance and unintentional humour would be missed, but yes, life would go on.
 
458Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 17:54
Mickey Kraus with a sharp piece on FOX and the criteria of measuring whether something is a "news organization"
 
459boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 18:14
Maybe he should write his next piece on CNN and there hours of coverage of silver inflatable floating around the skies of Colorado or maybe he should write about how stories like this are not being covered. Wake up "news organizations" lost their creditability years ago. I mean look even colbert report and the daily show are consider news outlets.
 
460Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Fri, Oct 23, 2009, 18:40
Yeah, all the daytime cable news outlets got pwned on that balloon hoax (including FOX). It is almost laughable how much those shows influence political debate, when the number of actual viewers during the day is around zero (literally--the ratings register barely a pulse).
 
461Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Fri, Oct 30, 2009, 19:04
Jon Stewart with body blow after body blow. It is almost too easy:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis
 
462WiddleAvi
      ID: 895017
      Fri, Nov 06, 2009, 11:03
Jon Stewart doing his best Glenn Beck

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis
 
463Pancho Villa
      ID: 401025128
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 09:26
The Fox News folks must really be getting tired of Jon Stewart making them look like fools, as well as busting them for making up news.

When contacted by Yahoo! News about the matter, a Fox News spokesperson declined to comment, but added that Hannity will address the issue on his show airing Wednesday night.

UPDATE: At the tail end of Sean Hannity's show Wednesday night, at approximately 8:55 p.m. EST, the Fox News host had the following message concerning the controversy:

"Although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right... It was an inadvertent mistake but a mistake nonetheless.”


An inadvertent mistake? No, it was a calculated falsification designed to support that day's subject matter, truth be damned.
 
464Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 09:34
Wow, totally unacceptable. I can't believe they try to pass of what they do as "journalism."
 
465Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 09:59
Is there such a thing as "advertent mistake." I hate it when people apologizing try to hedge in them.
 
466sarge33rd
      ID: 551039129
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 10:39
Truth is, FOXNews isn't news at all. It's an editorial; all day, every day. 24 hrs of 'opinion' pieces, presented in an fashion so as to attempt to emulate news.
 
467boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 10:45
Does any not find the irony funny of a editorial news channel playing a news channel on tv being called out by actor playing a news anchor on tv? What is next law and order calling out CSI for not doing proper detective work?
 
468Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 10:50
i think the difference here is that Stewart doesn't make any false pretenses about what he is about, or what his show is about.
 
469DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 10:52
This is much more like Law and Order calling out the NYPD for crappy detective work.

And being right.

Remember, Fox News presents itself as an actual news channel.
 
470Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 11:00
Remember, Fox News presents itself as an actual news channel.

Really? I've always been under the impression it was a sitcom about idiotic news anchors that changed actors every hour or so.
 
471Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 11:00
Exactly, tree.

That doesn't mean he doesn't take his job seriously, but he's a comedian. Who happens to be very good at pricking the pompous news media. FOX happens to be an easy target with their ham-fisted attempts at "news" but he's gone after others as well, most notably his Crossfire interview which led to their cancellation:

 
472sarge33rd
      ID: 551039129
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 11:18
except that according TO FoxNews; 15 hrs of their daily 24 hr news programming is NOT news at all. *shrug*
 
473WiddleAvi
      ID: 895017
      Thu, Nov 12, 2009, 16:13
Did anyone see South Park last night. Cartman does a great Glenn Beck/Fox News. Pretty funny.
 
474Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 10:14
The GOP Publicity Channel caught pumping up crowd sizes through wrong footage. Again.
 
475DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 11:46
Oh, come on. I'm sure it was an accident.

Again.
 
476Frick
      ID: 9103036
      Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 12:04
Do any other networks do similar tricks? Or do they do it and not get caught or reported on?
 
477DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Nov 19, 2009, 12:52
Probably the latter, which of course doesn't make the practice any more legitimate.
 
478Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 17:06
FNC seems to be getting serious about fixing the parade of errors.

 
479Frick
      ID: 9103036
      Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 19:35
I wasn't saying that the practice was legitimate or that Fox should get a pass because other networks do it.

On the flip side, you also can't ignore when other networks do it and say that it is only the result of Fox catering to conservatives.

 
480Perm Dude
      ID: 154552311
      Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 19:55
The problem is that a series of errors on a station which prides itself on being "fair and balanced" makes them look unprofessional.

This doesn't seem to stop them from making other errors (such as saying the public option will be "funded by taxpayers"). But baby steps is better than none.
 
481Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 23:57
No terror attacks on Bush's watch! But Ft. Hood is a terror attack on Obama's watch!

[Plus bonus awkward walk back]
 
482Boldwin
      ID: 211082514
      Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 01:20
Of course the public option will be funded by taxpayers. Who did you think was going to pay for the insurance of the vast majority of the currently uninsured?
 
483Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 01:22
Premium payments. Read the thing in the original non-FOX language.
 
484Boldwin
      ID: 211082514
      Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 01:25
And you'll be paying the majority of mine, you dufus.
 
485Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 02:01
Heh. Gotta love the First Amendment. Idiots are permitted to demonstrate their attributes for all to see.

The public option is a net savings in the health care bill. It will save the government money, and be paid for entirely by those who enroll in it and pay premiums. Now, you might be against those things (who knows? It's OK for you to to check with Michael Steele before responding). But you can't continue to call "Black" as "White" without getting a little blowback for either being an idiot or acting like one while on these boards.
 
486holt
      ID: 308491916
      Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 04:17
So the public option on the table now doesn't do anything to help those who have no disposable income for health insurance? It's just for those who actually can pay a sizable premium?

What I don't understand about all the health care reform ideas is that they try to tackle too many objectives at once. Why not first try to tackle the issues that actually cause medical bills to be so high. Then once that is addressed, move on to the next problem.

For example, hospital expenses need to be lower, malpractice insurance needs to be much lower, too much cash is being siphoned by pharmaceutical companies... I'm no expert here. I'm sure there are other similar problems. Why not go after some front line issues like these first? Honest question.

BTW, purely anecdotal, but a doctor I know here in town has the problem each morning of deciding whether to drive his $180K Porsche or $130K Aston Martin to work each morning. Not saying he hasn't earned it, but holy crap. He isn't paying a single dime of his malpractice insurance. His patients and the taxpayers are.
 
487bibA
      ID: 3510191216
      Tue, Dec 01, 2009, 14:20
Maybe a minor point, but one I object to. O'Reilly inaccurately asserted several times on his show that two judges were responsible for the Seattle cop killer being on the streets, because they had set his bail at $15,000. This is in fact incorrect. The guys bail was set at $150,000, and he was released from custody after posting a 10% bond of $15,000. Had they actually set bail at $15,000, he could have posted a bond of $1,500.
 
488Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 23:49
Beck in trouble for his gold endorsements?

Seems like a clear conflict to me. The guy can believe what he wants to, but when he promotes the industry on his show without disclosing his financial interest, this is a no-no. No matter what your political persuasion.
 
489Bauxman
      ID: 2110171217
      Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 09:58
I wonder if any liberals have ever had conflicts of interest?
 
490Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:46
i'm sure they do. and the same rules apply. and it doesn't even matter if they're american or not.

but without Beck, we don't have to wonder. he does have a conflict of interest.
 
491sarge33rd
      ID: 551157128
      Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 12:55
not to mention a contractual violation.
 
492Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 13:56
The natural end to the path the Wacky Right trods in which education = "elitism" is that you get graphs like this, on FOX:



You also get people who deliberately dumb themselves down in order to get jobs there:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

 
493Bauxman
      ID: 2110171217
      Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 16:16
i'm sure they do. and the same rules apply.

Oh.

So how many threads have you guys started covering that?
 
494sarge33rd
      ID: 551157128
      Sat, Dec 12, 2009, 16:18
THIS thread, wasnt started reference Becks conflict of interest. IT was started, references Foxspews phoney claims of "fair and balanced". Once another network exhibits 95% BS content, I have no doubt we'll start a thread dissing them as well.
 
495sarge33rd
      ID: 11119137
      Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 08:19
Re the Rasmussen Poll (mis)cited in 492 above:

Climate emails not fraudulent

Any bets we won't see/hear about this on Fauxnews?
 
496Bauxman
      ID: 2110171217
      Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 10:01
ALL ABOARD THE SPIN MACHINE!!!!

WHEEEEEE!!!!

WHEEEEEE!!!!

WHEEEEEE!!!!
 
497bibA
      ID: 3510191216
      Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 10:23
ALL ABOARD THE SPIN MACHINE!!!!

WHEEEEEE!!!!


Yes, yes, you want us all to watch Fox.

Funny thing is, I would bet a majority of "liberals" on this site do watch it occasionally, in order to see what the right is currently putting out there, and to make an attempt at having an open mind. On the other hand, most conservative Republicans I know would not be caught dead watching MSNBC, and even "know" that the news on major networks and PBS is slanted in favor of either socialism or terrorism.
 
498sarge33rd
      ID: 481132139
      Sun, Dec 13, 2009, 10:32
496 = The rights best, of an intellectually stimulating post.

True or False?
 
499Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 22:54
 
500Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 00:28
Wow, that really appalls me, too.
 
501jedman
      ID: 552262217
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 12:58
This might be the only time SZ and I agree on something, but Hume had no place saying that,whether he believes it or not. Is he an expert on the Buddhist faith, has he studied their doctrine?
 
502Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 13:16
The point is not whether he is factually correct or not about the tenets of the Christian or Buddhist faith, it's whether he should be proselytizing on air. This is an alleged news channel, after all.
 
503Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 15:00
I'm guessing that Tiger's mother, who is Thai, is likely a Buddhist, and that's the origin of Tiger's faith.
So Hume is not only dissing Tiger, he's dissing Tiger's mom.
 
504Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 15:09
By and large, Buddhists don't do the kind of things that require the large scale, public forgiveness. Hume not only disses Buddhism, but assumes those who follow its tenets require the same type of forgiveness that his brand of Christianity does.
 
505Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 17:29
I saw that live yesterday and I have to admit I cringed when I heard it. Of all the things happening in sports, thats what he comes up with.
 
506Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Jan 11, 2010, 14:32
Fox News confirms Sarah Palin is joining as a contributor
 
507Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 08:03
I won't be satisfied until Coulter gets a permanent place at that table.
 
508Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 09:36
I won't be satisfied until Coulter gets a permanent place at that table.

Nothing says 'fair and balanced' better than Ann Coulter.
 
509Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:22
I didn't say anchorwoman.
 
510Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:24
So what would you see as different than what Coulter is doing right now?
 
511Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:25
Guest commentator vs in-house commentator.
 
512Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:29
But this might restrict her ability to go on more shows, I would think. Particularly shows on other networks.
 
513Biliruben movin
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:35
I'm not sure. Does even fox want to sink so low as to
embrace that nasty little racist as one there own?
 
514Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Tue, Jan 12, 2010, 12:48
Stupid question.

 
515Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 06:37
I saw last night on Fox that the Wall Street Journal says that 4 million people will lose company health care after this bill gets going. Now thats appalling
 
516Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 06:50
Did WSJ report that figure or was this something that was taken from the WSJ opinion page and reported on FOX as if it is fact?
 
517Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 06:59
Presumably the claim is based on this report from a CBO report last month. It's a net figure estimating 3 million to 4 million. That's unfortunate, but the point of the bill is to get more people covered overall, and no one denies that it does that. Overall, it's still a huge net gain in the oerall number of people covered.
 
518Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 07:24
Yeah, its still 23 million people short. Thats unfortunate.
 
519Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 07:48
LOL, well if that's you're primary issue with the thing it conflicts rather strongly with some of your other stated issues. I have to imagine that's one of Obama's bigger issues with it as well.

See that, you and he are kindred spirits.

:)
 
520Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 14:52
What hasn't appalled me on FNC today:

Their coverage of the Haiti earthquake. A memo must hae gone out to the producers and talent, because I've had it on most of the day and I've yet to hear even one word of their coverage - specifically the presidential administration's reaction and response - politicized in any way. Kind of a strange thing to compliment a news network for, but I can honestly say that I don't believe I've ever seen them report anything about the president that they didn't choose politicize.

So bravo to FNC for resisting their natural urge and behaving like a responsible news organization.
 
521Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 17:05
Whats even more amazing is I am the first person in this forum to offer prayers in the other post. I saw this before I went to work and figured I would wait til I got home to see the comments. Simply freaking amazing.
 
522Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 17:28
They are throwing around figures like 100,000 deaths. Too terrible to wrap my mind around.
 
524Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 17:30
You're criticizing (amazed, no less?) forum members for their lack of public expression of prayer?

I didn't publicly express a plea to God for the well-being of earthquake victims at this particular forum so I must be one uncaring SOB, huh?

Is this your attempt to fill the void FNC left in their coverage of the earthquake?
 
525Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 17:40
I thought there would be more of a response. I dont think you are an uncaring sob, just amazed there wasnt more of a response for 16 hours.
 
526Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 17:41
I guess I feel the way u feel about FNC.
 
527Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 17:58
What in the world are you talking about? I praised FNC in this forum today for doing the right thing in spite of themselves. You exploited a catastrophe to criticize people you don't even know for not being religious enough.

And believe it or not, rotoguru.com might not be the only place where some of these people express their opinions.

And other people might just believe the strength of their faith or the effectiveness of their prayers aren't tied to how public their expressions are.

Simply freaking amazing.
 
528Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 18:12
Wow, I must have worked to hard today. I am deeply sorry, I read that completely wrong. If somebody wants to delete my post521 525 and 526 please do. My bad Mith.
 
529Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 18:13
You might be able to do that yourself--click on the "seld edit this thread" link at the top of the thread and see if you have to option to delete them.

You won't if you posted them from a different computer, however, so just pipe up and I can delete them from the mod program.
 
530Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 18:16
Big of you to apologize. And maybe I come off a bit too strong as well.
 
531Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jan 13, 2010, 18:16
er, that is "self edit" not "seld edit" sorry.
 
532Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Jan 26, 2010, 11:24
Fox News Finishes Week #1 in All of Primetime Cable

 
533Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 12:13
Poll: Fox most trusted name in news


Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday. A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

The spin begins now:
 
534Seattle Zen
      ID: 1410391215
      Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 12:16
From 533:

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

Yeah, this appalls me.
 
535Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 12:44
FOX did indeed change the game. Their model won out.

They are the new mainstream.

They are the zeitgeist, in spite of what some insist that word means.
 
536Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 13:56
I posted somewhere about that, that the poll should be of no surprise. Those who watch FOX news trust it without question, and highly distrust other sources.

It is probably worth noting that the poll is limited to TV news only. There is not only nothing about other sources (online, radio, newspapers, etc), but there is no indication of what percentage of people got their news from this one source or from others.
 
537Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 21:43
i agree that the poll comes as no surprise. The explanation for these results, of course, is simple.

 
538Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 22:59
The photo in post 537 is fake.
 
539Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Jan 27, 2010, 23:15
yes it is. i was gonna get to that, after letting it gel for a bit.
 
540astade
      Sustainer
      ID: 214361313
      Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 00:16
thanks for responsible posting, Tree.
 
541The Reason for FOX
      ID: 28055812
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 10:23
Even though I am not a regular FOX news watcher. This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Recently on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following:

"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil ! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA ! Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".

We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting.

Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign.

If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks!

Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this.

Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this.

Wall Street Journal

I'm sure this is easily explained away. I'm guessing an attack on the stupid things FOX states will be the response.
 
542Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 11:08
Just to be clear, that is an opinion piece, not a news piece, from the WSJ.

Also, this is a lie: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country...

Both have a huge hole in their argument: While the article rightly notes that environmentalists opposed Bush's drilling plan, it neglects the fact that at the time Obama was one of the Gang of Ten (5 moderates from each party) who suggested a compromise energy bill which would specifically allow offshore drilling.

In other words, the opinion piece leaves one with the impression that Obama was against offshore drilling. In fact, he stated in 2008 that he was not opposed under clear conditions (such as the states themselves agreeing to the drilling, and sharing in the revenues). Indeed, the article notes that now that the 2007 lawsuit has been settled and clarified (in April 2009) that oil leases will proceed.

So what's the problem? Nothing at all. But it doesn't stop a little bit of Obama slapping over literally nothing.
 
543Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 11:33
I'm game. Tell me what conceivable reason the USA should be on the hook for that deal?
 
544Tree, on lunch
      ID: 570552512
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 11:44
The entire thing is inaccurate, and if you're going to use an article written six months ago, there's probably enough out there to fact check it, and sure enough, there is.

the entire thing about Obama making a loan to BOEC was shown to be bogus several months ago.

your easy explanation is that it was a bold-faced lie. again.

 
545Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 11:45
I'd never heard of this Petrobras deal before. But rather than rely on a show about what Glenn Beck thinks or a WSJ opinion piece about what someone on their editorial staff thinks, I poked around to find some actual facts about it.


Very quickly, I came across the EX-IM press release announcing the Petrobras deal. Anyone who reads it will see that the funding was actually supposed to go to the purchase of American goods and services.

Now, I don't know a lot about international trade. I don't know whether it's good business to support a foreign ally's government industry by lending it money that will be used to purchase American goods and services. On the surface the loan would seem to help American businesses while it earns interest.

And if Glenn Beck and the WSJ opinion page cared about covering that story so that their watchers/readers have a strong grasp of whats happeneing with that deal, they might include some of that information. Or at least information about what the US is supposed to gain from the deal, rather than hysterical screaming like "We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!".

You're right tho, buddy, you can't count on that kind of farcical pseudo-journalism on broadcast news every night the way Beck delivers it.
 
546Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 11:48
From Tree's link:

The Ex-Im Bank also would like it known that no loan has yet been made, and that the "preliminary commitment" could eventually result in either a direct loan or a loan guarantee. Either way, the Ex-Im Bank states, "no taxpayer dollars are involved." The bank is self-sustaining
 
547Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 11:58
A) It was a WSJ piece so why are you banging on Beck?

B) "independent, self-sustaining federal agency" - Ex-IM press release

Yeah, AIG was self-sustaining until it wasn't. Somehow the USA taxpayer isn't on the hook for that?

 
548DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 12:02
They're banging on Beck because if you carefully read the first paragraph of 541 (bold mine):

"Even though I am not a regular FOX news watcher. This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Recently on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following:"

If Beck's a journalist, he ought to do more than go the sloppy "The WSJ is reporting" angle, especially when it's so easily disproven.

If he's just an opinion hack, then I guess he can do whatever he wants, but then it's equally OK to dismiss him out of hand as an opinion hack when he actually tries to do something semi-journalistic.
 
549Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 12:31
I still see no call for that issue being brought up at this point. I don't think anyone finds it interesting to hear me 'debate' Tree 2.0 so g'day to you, Dwetz.
 
550DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 12:46
"I still see no call for that issue being brought up at this point."

Ooooookay... whatever. You ripped people for bringing Beck into it out of context. It's perfectly within the boundaries of debate to point out why you're wrong about it being out of context.

"I don't think anyone finds it interesting to hear me 'debate' Tree 2.0 so g'day to you, Dwetz."

Normally I think I'd take that as an insult, and I know that you meant it as such, but just this once I think I'll take it as a compliment. Good day.

 
551Tree, on lunch
      ID: 570552512
      Fri, Feb 05, 2010, 13:57
unfortunately, youtube is blocked at my job, so i can't see if there's a video on the Glenn Beck show with this feature.

there are, however, comments from factually-challenged Sarah Palin...

"So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than $2 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobas, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources?" she asked on her Facebook page.

 
552astade
      Sustainer
      ID: 214361313
      Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 00:01
At first, since this thread was dormant for a week, I thought Tree was responding to my smart ass comment. I was surprised to see the change in direction.

This is one of the few times, I can actually chime in with first hand knowledge. Our company (owned by a US company), profited heavily from the discovery of the Tupi field. The find was a huge win for Brazil (specifically Petrobras) but more importantly allowed for foreign companies to lend their expertise in such deep water offshore drilling.

I won't go into the specifics but we specialize in the machinery that is used for such oil/gas exploration and production.

I will be following this topic in the thread very closely.

 
553Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 06:49
548 - DWetzel
If Beck's a journalist, he ought to...

FTR, Beck regularly acknowledges - boasts, actually - that he is not a journalist. He's just some guy on TV with no qualifications whatsoever to deliver information about current events who is caught in shameless lies, half truths and disingenuous extrapolations every day.

And he is paid huge piles of money to do so because he is the fastest rising star in rightist punditry.

He is a major symptom of a very nasty condition which has infested and ails the political right these days.
 
554DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Feb 06, 2010, 09:02
Fair enough. I guess it's at least refreshingly honest that he admits he isn't trying to be honest.
 
555Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Tue, Feb 09, 2010, 09:19
Mr. astade: What do you think of the ambiotic theory of oil creation. Where oil seeps up from the middle earth and fills in caverns and whatnot, and can be replenished. As opposed to the dead fossils theory that turn into oil. Dinosaurs and other fossils that turn into oil over time. We may have reached peak oil under the second theory, probably not under the first.
 
556Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Tue, Feb 09, 2010, 10:05
The middle of the earth is a molten core in which there are no caverns for oil to fill.
 
557Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Tue, Feb 09, 2010, 10:31
Abiotic Snake Oil

Here's my question - if the stuff replenishes itself (whether from caverns in "Middle Earth" - someone get Sauron to turn the valve back on! - or whatever the theory is) quickly enough to effectively dispel the notion of peak oil, then why are there dried up oil fields in Texas and elsewhere around the world?
 
558Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Feb 09, 2010, 11:00
Are we seriously entertaining this theory? It probably comes from people who don't even believe dinosaurs existed.
 
559astade
      Sustainer
      ID: 214361313
      Tue, Feb 09, 2010, 23:36
At the risk of hijacking this thread...

B7, abiogenic petroleum seems to miss the mark. Granted, I am not a geologist, but everything I've ever heard/read about it seems that it was a theory that misplaced the source of hydrocarbons. Activity in the mantle (or even the earth's core) may have had some effect on where we had easier access to such chemicals, but my understanding is it had little to do with its source.

Regarding peak oil, it's very tough to say where exactly that maxima lies. I could definitely be bullish because I'm biased but with new surveying technology and the ability to drill to great depths, I think the jury is still out. Perhaps with the emergence of NOC's (national oil companies) the supermajors will not be able to sit on reserves like they used to and further exploration will give us a better picture.

 
560Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 15:04
George Packer has a very smart piece on political writing among the beltway journalists. Going far beyond "horse race journalism," what passes for opinion pieces these days are not attempts to get at the truth of statements, but about the perceptions surrounding the effectiveness of tactics and posture.

This isn't a FOX News thing, though they appear to have sharpened it and made it a corporate process (after all, FOX News is, essentially, a political opinion media outlet). But part of what makes the current political climate so poisonous is the focus on perceptions.
 
561Boldwin
      ID: 121501617
      Tue, Feb 16, 2010, 19:24
MITH #557

There is no telling how fast it replenishes but there is indeed evidence that it does replenish. There is also tremendous evidence that it comes from depths far far deeper than any dinosaur deposits.

In fact there have been numerous super sized fields discovered this decade by drilling deeper that raise real doubts about peak oil assumptions.

And smart rich people and countries are betting on it.
Specific examples cited are the impressive recharging from below, not the sides, of the Eugene Island field (wells in deep decline exhibiting sharply increased production; recovery far in excess of estimated remaining reserves) off new Orleans; the White Tiger oil field in Vietnam( discovered by a Russian company, Vietsovpetro) in fractured basement granite; the Panhandle-Hugoton field (high helium content) in Teaxs-Oklahoma, the Shengli Field and Songliao Basin in Northeastern China( supposedly mantle derived natural gas), and the well known Chimaera natural gas seep in Turkey. This seep has been known to be continuously active for thousands of years and represents the largest cataloged emission of abiogenic methane on land. The vast amounts of methane released by the biggest mud volcano eruptions are allegedly greater than found in the most abundant natural gas fields in commercial production. The presence of considerable amounts of hydrocarbons not associated with tectonic structures is also presented as evidence and, of course, the enormous methane hydrate deposits found all over the world are asserted to be of abiogenic origin. Finally, theory advocates aver that the impressive record of recent ultra deep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico supports their idea.
 
562Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Mar 02, 2010, 10:03
Gregg Jarrett: FNC news anchor/liar:
Very interesting, what used to be called the nuclear option is now kind of a warm and fuzzy phrase, 'reconciliation'. Completely different image than the 'explosion' of 'nuclear option'. Only in Washington can they do that.
What a lying piece of dog$hit.
 
563Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 22:10
more dishonesty and deception...
 
564Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 22:34
Just wrote about that in the Palin thread. Apparently Fox dropped the LL Cool J interview in a snarky response to him.
 
565Boldwin
      ID: 362262121
      Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 23:16
What is dishonest about it?
 
566Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 23:43
did you read the linked article?
 
567Boldwin
      ID: 362262121
      Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 23:44
I'm speaking to MITH.
 
568Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 08:31
Due credit goes to FNC, in spite of themselves.
Fox News has pulled Sean Hannity from his starring role in a tea party rally just one week after Rupert Murdoch said the network should not be supporting the tea party movement.

Hannity was set to broadcast Thursday night from a tea party rally in Cincinnati, but was rushing back to New York Thursday evening after network executives learned of the plan and said it was unacceptable.

"Fox News never agreed to allow the Cincinnati Tea Party organizers to use Sean Hannity's television program to profit from broadcasting his show from the event," Bill Shine, the network's executive vice president of programming, told the Los Angeles Times. "When senior executives in New York were made aware of this, we changed our plans for tonight's show."

As the LAT notes, Hannity was listed as the headline of the Cincinnati rally.

"Sean Hannity rushing to NYC, cancelled broadcast from Cincinnati Tea Party. Crowd disappointed," fellow speaker Jonah Goldberg tweeted late Thursday afternoon.

Last week, News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch said before a Washington, DC crowd that Fox News should not be supporting the movement.

"I don't think we should be supporting the Tea Party or any other party," he said. Earlier this week, the network published an article to its website that was semi-critical of the tea party.
 
569Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 08:52
Boldwin 567

I hadn't seen your question until now. It's dishonest because reconciliation had never been called 'the nuclear option' until the weeks leading up to that post. The "nuclear option" was the term that Trent Lott and Senate Republicans used to describe their own threat to change the rules of the Senate to eliminate the use of the filibuster in the confirming of judicial nominees.

Around that time, FNC anchors and hosts began collectively referring to reconciliation as "the nuclear option" in an obvious concerted effort to make it sound more sinister, give the phrase legs and help turn the public against the idea. That yellow journalism was disingenuous and annoying enough.

But Jarret took it a step further and actually claimed that reconciliation had historically been referred to as the scary sounding "nuclear option", and then, on top of that, called the integrity of the left into question for not adopting the term that FNC insisted on misusing.
 
570Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:02
Was it 'yellow journalism' when the MSM applied to changing the rules on fillibuster? Something I might add that Reid has said they intend to look into after the midterms. You didn't think the Slaughter option could be termed going nuclear? These guys were definitely unstable they were so desperate.
 
571Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:20
Was it 'yellow journalism' when the MSM applied to changing the rules on fillibuster

I assume you meant, "MSM applied [that term] to changing the rules on fillibuster".


The media (mainstream and otherwise) applied that term after Trent Lott and the National Review coined it.
In March 2003, the Mississippi Republican Trent Lott was troubled by the Democrats' use of the threat of a filibuster, or Senate-stopping ''extended debate,'' which prevented a vote on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Charles Hurt of The Washington Times wrote that Lott told him of a plan that might allow Republicans to confirm a judge with a simple 51-vote majority -- rather than the 60 votes needed under the present rules to ''break'' a filibuster. Lott ''declined to elaborate, warning that his idea is 'nuclear.' '' This led Michael Crowley of The New Republic to ask rhetorically: ''What might Lott's 'nuclear' option be?''
 
572Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:24
You didn't think the Slaughter option could be termed going nuclear?

By a biased news organization? Of course it could.

It become a blatant and completely shameless lie when you introduce the claim that reconciliation has historically been called that and then use that lie to demand that anyone using less harsh language to describe reconciliation is guilty of historical revision.

Go ahead, defend that. Or try again to excuse it with a predictable "they do it too" response.
 
573Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:32
Just to be clear, we are not talking about simple reconciliation. Every bill that get's signed by the president has gone thru reconciliation AFAIK. In this case it was predicted that the senate would freeze solid until the midterms if the Dems tried it.

Is the Christian Science Monitor part of the Fox News conspiracy to lie about this?
 
574biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:38
The actual nuclear option would melt it, but quick.

Go Nuclear!

Having a dysfunctional Senate is not in the public's best interest. Nuke 'em high. Nuke 'em low.

Just nuke 'em.

Unfortunately the dems are pacifist pussies.
 
575Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:40
The rubber Greenpeace boats are already circling biliruben.
 
576Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:50
Is the Christian Science Monitor part of the Fox News conspiracy to lie about this?

#1 That's a blog entry couldn't you at least find a news article if you're going to cite CSM as a source?

#2 That blog entry is proof that the smear was effective. You'll be able to find plenty of examples, even some from the left, I assume.

#3 Jarrett said, "what used to be called the nuclear option is now kind of a warm and fuzzy phrase, 'reconciliation'." Nowhere in that blog entry is the claim that budget reconciliation had previously been referred to as the "nuclear option", much less that the left had changed the name of what was previously called that to "reconciliation".

It's a lie, and a particularly pathetic and shameless one at that, even from FNC.
 
577Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:53
The GOP has simply run out of terms in which to alarm people by. "Nuclear option," "socialist," "extremist" and so on have to get re-used.

Here's a handy thing to remember, whenever these terms get used: Every single time they are used by the GOP to refer to the Democrats in some slamming way, the GOP has done whatever it is themselves, probably multiple times, and accused the Dems of being anti-American at the time for suggesting they should do whatever it it.

Today's GOP: The Shallow Party of the Hypocritical Soundbite.
 
578Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:55
Ok, so you came to this decision that Fox bears sole responsibility for that appellation because...?
 
579Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 09:59
Here's a handy thing to remember: Whenever a liberal starts talking about hypocracy he is asking you to give free passes to liberals for conduct he wants to execute conservatives for.
 
580Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 10:02
One of our assertions is provable, however...

Tip #2: When caught in a rhetorical or political corner, conservatives will cry to the refs about "liberals" getting away with the same thing.

I sincerely hope this trend continues through the midterms. Americans are notoriously disliking of voting in whiners.
 
581Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 10:13
#1 That's a blog entry couldn't you at least find a news article if you're going to cite CSM as a source? - PD

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0307/Reconciliation-why-healthcare-reform-nuclear-option-is-deadly...

...not Christian Science Monitorish enuff for you? Wow.
 
582Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 10:21
I think you'd do better for your own citing reputation if you could distinguish between "MITH" & "PD."

I'm just sayin'...
 
583Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 10:27
Fox bears sole responsibility for that appellation


I did write, "Around that time, FNC anchors and hosts began collectively referring to reconciliation as "the nuclear option" in an obvious concerted effort to make it sound more sinister"

But I can't say that I know just where it started. I know that watched FNC absolutely run with it (as in, describe it that way in just about every report on the topic) and that it immediately began to come into more popular use.

But I wasn't complaining so much about the appellation of the term (the leftist media does it to). I brought the topic here because that lying piece of dog$hit Jarrett took a cheap but effective misnomer/smear and claimed that "nuclear option" used in this way wasn't an appellation at all, but what it actually "used to be called" (his words) and that Congressional Democrats were the ones guilty of trying to change the way the process looks to the public by changing it to what is "now kind of a warm and fuzzy phrase, 'reconciliation' (his words).

And then, the kicker:

Completely different image than the 'explosion' of 'nuclear option'. [uh, yes Gregg, a stark difference indeed] Only in Washington can they do that.


Not a talk show host. Not a corrsepondant. This man steaming pile of animal excrement wrapped in a necktie is a FOX News Channel News Anchor.
 
584Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 10:33
not Christian Science Monitorish enuff for you? Wow

As I've already indicated, the fact that it's a blog doesn't matter. Like I said, you could find plenty of examples. I was just surprised at your laziness in linking a blog entry rather than a news article.

But it is in fact a blog entry, so it doesn't reflect the journalistic standards of a CSM news article, so you can put your "Wow" away.

Since you're apparently unaware, "The Vote" is CSM's politics blog.
 
585Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 10:34
 
586Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 13:01
Yeah, well get over it. The bloggers on the staffs of these papers are getting their own assistants, to the shock of their old line reporters. Oh yeah, they count.
 
587Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 13:09
they count.

OK whatever. If you insist they are to be counted as further evidence of teh effectiveness of teh "nuclear option" smear campaign. BFD

Doesn't change a thing about the pile of excrement that is Jarrett, you know, the topic of the current discussion, about who's statement you asked, "What is dishonest about it?", which is what prompted this discussion in the first place.

Straw men about the viability of blog entries as object news reporting don't fool anyone, and unless you have anything else to add on the actual topic, will serve just fince as a concession on your part that the man is every bit the scumbag I've said.
 
589Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 13:11
You haven't even begun to prove the use of that term is objectionable, let alone peculiar to Fox News.
 
590Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 14:20
Neither of those things was really the point.

I extended you the courtesy and respect of answering your two-week-ild question after failing to see it when it was fresh. The least you could do is show the self respect to accept that I've answered it and not pretend we were talking about something else.

You do know you're still not fooling anyone, right?
 
591Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 14:26
...prove the use of that term is objectionable, let alone peculiar to Fox News...

Talk about changing the targets!
 
592Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 18:35
Evan Bayh said this would have stopped the senate from operating and he retired to prove how seriously he thot the procedures were killing the functionality of the Senate...

...but you can call Jarret and others dogs**t for pointing out that these procedures were the nuclear option instead of merely the business as usual garden variety warm and fuzzy reconciliation.

You do know you aren't the MITH we all used to know, right? PD either...unhinged.
 
593Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 18:42
That's not exactly what he said. What he said was:

"My concern is that if reconciliation is used, that will really destroy any prospects for bipartisan cooperation on anything else for the remainder of this year," Bayh said. "That would be a regrettable state of affairs, something I think the American public would not react well to."

source

Most of us in the center left recognize, however, that there exists no bipartisan cooperation. In fact, the GOP exists as a testament to non-cooperation.
 
594Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 18:52
Late to the debate, but an excellent post on the current conservative echo chamber

Daniel Larison at American Conservative Mag drills down a little more:

In movement-world, Iraq had little or nothing to do with what happened in the 2006 midterms–it was spending and earmarks! In movement-world, the financial crisis was caused pretty much entirely by the Community Reinvestment Act and the GSEs. You might have never known that the Federal Reserve, FASB 157, and Bush’s “ownership society” housing policy even existed if you relied on mainstream conservative media, because these things might implicate the “wrong side” in contributing to the disaster. Critical thinking, self-criticism and a willingness to revisit and abandon assumptions were all notably absent. As movement conservatives see things today, Obama either rejects American exceptionalism or simply loathes America (and in some circles the debate is simply over where he learned this loathing), and he is doing all he can to weaken America and hasten American decline. Their new political stars and leading pundits spout nonsense on foreign policy, and they make blustery proclamations of the uniqueness and superiority of American social mobility and economic dynamism that are flatly untrue. There is an impulse to self-congratulation and hubris in all of this that tends to hamper clear and critical thinking.
 
595Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 19:01
You might have never known that the Federal Reserve, FASB 157, and Bush’s “ownership society” housing policy even existed if you relied on mainstream conservative media, because these things might implicate the “wrong side” in contributing to the disaster. Critical thinking, self-criticism and a willingness to revisit and abandon assumptions...

Unless you understood the Tea Party, which is all about revisiting the notion that Bush and the Republican leadership were even on 'our' side.
 
596Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 19:20
Self-loathing will get you far...

:)

The Tea Party is not "all about" Bush at all. It is all about stopping Obama.
 
597Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 20:40
If they trusted the republicans they wouldn't need the Tea Party.
 
598Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 21:29
but you can call Jarret and others dogs**t

If you insist on including yourself in with that appellation, so be it.
 
601Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 00:02
DWetzel -

Hey, I just want to ask you to consider a change in your persona on these boards. You have been a regular poster now for quite a while, yet all I have gathered about you is that you loath every word Baldwin types. You are liberal, but I don't know what causes you are really behind. That's because nearly all your posts are reactive. You don't seem to link to stories that you have come across that lead you to think about... well, I don't even know what interests you.

Please take this polite suggestion to heart. Ignore Baldwin for a week. Create a thread about a issue that drives you. Tell us why. Share something.
 
602DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 01:00
I'm sorry you feel that way, though I think that you would find that I have in fact done that a number of times. See the climate change thread, or the health care thread.

And yes, I do loathe most of what he types, because it is fact-free, pure hatred, and has no place in an honest debate (which I would very much like to have). And yes, I react too strongly to that stuff sometimes. We all have our human failings, that's mine. That, unfortunately, is not likely to change. Ironically, I had written, and then decided not to post, about three different posts today, so I am learning. I'm just pointing out, again, how appalling it is that he feels free to call people unhinged and whip out the profanity and yet whine about someone basically quoting him. We've been over this about twenty times on here, too. I know I'm right on this. But nothing changes.
 
608Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 11:15
Honestly I still have no idea what is riling you up about Jarrett.
 
609Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 11:18
Anyone else unable to figure out #569?
 
610Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 11:19
I'm disappointed, DWetzel. Your "human failing" is knowing that you are acting improperly and refusing to stop your behavior.

We have all given up asking Baldwin to stop posting garbage, because, as you noted, nothing changes. I hoped for better from you.
 
611Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 11:24
Maybe this is what you don't understand:
In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic.

the nuclear option is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion by Vice President Richard Nixon

Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003 - Wiki
Jarrett was correct and you are going ballistic and slandering people to great excess without any valid reason.
 
612Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 11:42
I'm not interested in an unsourced sentence in a Wikipedia article, especially one that is such a disaster as that one, much moreso than a typical wiki page. Take a look at the discussion and history pages for that entry.

If you want to prove me wrong provide just one example of "nuclear option" being applied so generally, prior to the 2009/2010 healthcare debate.
 
613Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 11:55
There are few examples of the Congress actually throwing out the republic and reconstituting the country as a classic democracy instead. Even when Democrats threatened to never again allow a conservative on the supreme court, republicans were afraid to go there.
 
614Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 12:05
From the same Wiki article Boldwin posted, just two paragraphs down from his excerpt:
During the 111th Congress, political pundits opposed to various Democratic legislative initiatives began erroneously referring to the budget reconciliation process as the nuclear option; thus, further conflating two very distinct procedures.[7] Reconciliation allows issues relating to the annual budget to be decided by a majority vote without the possibility of filibuster. Before late 2009, the term nuclear option had been used only to refer to the procedure outlined below.
I'd still advise trepidation relying on a Wiki page like that, but I'll take a sourced explicit statement over an unsourced ambiguous one if B insists on his link.
 
615Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 12:15
Yeah, no doubt you can smell the dueling contributors's gunpowder before the page even loads.

Still anything that turns the country from a republic to a classic democracy is explosive enuff for the term. Downright seismic.

Try implimenting the Slaughter rule. Before too long there would be no bills passing between the chambers. Nuclear.
 
616Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 12:30
Still anything that turns the country from a republic to a classic democracy is explosive enuff for the term. Downright seismic.

What you fail to understand is that I'm not interested in debating with you whether or how apropriate the term is.

The point, again (I cannot explain why I bother) is that after FOX and the political right's campaign to get 'nuclear option' to catch on as a term to describe the use of budget reconciliation to pass most of the Healthcare bill, Jarrett explicitly claimed that 'nuclear option' is how the procedure has previously been described, and that Congressional Dems' use of "reconciliation" was a revision. That is a lie.

And I'll note that when challenged to support Jarrett's claim that 'nuclear option' had previously been used that way, your response was an excuse fore why you would not be able to find any such usage.

Yawn.
 
617Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 13:26
The 'nuclear option' is using new parliamentary rulings to overturn procedures which are longstanding features of a republic. It is essentially substituting 'heat-of-the moment' 'mob rule', something the FF were quite fearful of, for the slower deliberations of the republic as the established form of government.

The specific procedures, filibuster and reconciliation, are only different examples of procedures which can be abused or overturned by a 'nuclear option'.

Jarrett was correct and you are wrong.
 
618Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 13:28
I think we will find out what other nukes you'd be willing to countenance and insist the press turn a blind eye to.
 
619Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 14:01
Jarrett was correct and you are wrong.

The moment you provide a shred of evidence to support him I'll consider taking you seriously on this.

 
621Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 14:08
There is no evidence if you insist on defining your way to victory. I suppose you see me in the same light, however after the Republicans take back the House in six months and consider tailoring the rules so that the Dems might as well go home for the session, we'll see if you still insist on defining the term so narrowly.
 
622Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 15:28
we'll see if you still insist on defining the term so narrowly.

Holy crap. Again. I am talking about the historical definition of the term.

I have not disputed that the term has been successfully dumbed down to your preferred more ambiguous meaning by the political right. Congratulations.

Now will you please put your straw man away?

Here's all you have to do:

Find just one example prior to the healthcare debate of the term, "nuclear option" being used to describe anything other than getting around a filibuster of judicial nominees, and you win.

Meanwhile...
Weekly Standard 5/20/05
Yet there's still a chance the moderates will be able to strike a deal that would prevent Republicans from ending the filibuster of judicial nominations--the infamous "nuclear option,"

National Review 11/16/04
The Senate Majority Leader indicated that he is inclined to support the so-called "nuclear option," in which the Senate—now with a more muscular Republican margin of 55 to 45 (44 Democrats plus one independent)—would vote to change its procedural rules so that a simple majority (51 senators), rather than the current super majority (60), would be required to bring a nominee's name to the floor for a decisive vote.
Washington Times 4/29/05:
From the outset, Mr. Reid and other Democrats have said they won't entertain any offer that doesn't begin by removing the so-called "nuclear option" from the table. That option -- now termed the "constitutional option" by Republicans -- is a rare parliamentary procedure that would thwart filibusters against judicial nominees.
Pat Buchanan @ WorldNetDaily
Thus, all the sound and fury of the establishment and media over the "nuclear option" being considered by the Republican Senate.

What does that option entail? If a federal judicial nominee is approved in committee and sent to the floor, he or she will get a vote. A minority bloc of senators will not be allowed to kill every Bush appellate or Supreme Court nominee by talking it to death.
WND 5/11/05:
According to Dobson, the Lott deal with the Democrat leadership would prevent Majority Leader Bill Frist from invoking the constitutional option – sometimes referred to as the "nuclear option" – to stop the Democrats' continued filibuster against the president's conservative judicial nominees.
Geoff Metcalf @ Newsmax 4/18/05:
The so-called ‘nuclear option' is a rare parliamentary procedure that would bar the filibustering of judicial nominees. It would also correct the previous Democrat-fueled abuse of power.
 
623Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 15:41
How about this excerpt from a Krauthammer article pasted in the "Filibustering Judicial Nominees" thread:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems intent on passing a procedural ruling to prevent judicial filibusters. Democrats have won the semantic war by getting this branded "the nuclear option," a colorful and deliberately inflammatory term (although Republican Trent Lott, ever helpful, appears to have originated the term).
Still not enough? OK. How about the very first sentence typed into the subject field of that thread, by some guy named BOLDWIN:
Do we really not have a thread about the so called 'nuclear option'? [Making rule changes so judicial nominations can't be filibustered]


Whooops!
 
624Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 15:54
Game, set, match. Now back to horrible untruths on FOX.
 
625Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 18:04
wow.
 
626sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 19:57
I bow to MITH's apparently unending patience, unparalleled persistence, and virtually unrivaled willingness to research in depth.
 
627Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 21:27
Bruce Bartlett with more on the echo chamber (aka "The Closing of the Conservative Mind") with a real-life example.
 
628Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 22:09
Just reread the wikipedia entry for 'nuclear option'.

 
629sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 22:11
628 translated: What I said then, has no bearing on what I am saying now. Pay attention to what I just said, for now. But don't worry about it tomorrow 'cause it might change again. Though if it does, I'll be right then too.
 
630Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 22:24
Ha! "Just read the entry that can literally be changed by anyone at anytime."

History is against you on this one Boldwin. Just move on. The GOP clearly referred to filibuster as the "nuclear option" and, in fact, used it over and over and over again in just that way.
 
631Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 23:08
Yeah, well where was this skepticism towards wikipedia when the climatologist scammers were running roughshod over it?

Neither I or wikipedia ever said the term wasn't applied to the fillibuster. It simply has a larger meaning that applies both to the Republicans in 2005 and to Dem plans in 2010...
In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. - Wiki
Thus you can quote times when it was applied to the filibuster in 2005 till the cows come home, because it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about limiting the definition of the term to that.
 
632Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 00:12
Oh now--no one is saying they the GOP and its apologists aren't using it both in 2005 (by themselves) and 2010 (also, by themselves, in a new context).

In fact, that is the point: That 5 years later, the GOP is unironically calling this the nuclear option.
 
633Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 03:10
If anyone thinks Boldwin has anything resembling a fair point I'd love to hear you out. Otherwise this one is settled as far as I'm concerned.
 
634Boldwin
      ID: 11301223
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 04:45
So is Dick Durbin. So are people of all stripes. Wiki's definition stands. This is not some nefarious plot. This isn't something only a resurrected Daniel Webster could sort out.

In fact, that is the point: That 5 years later, the GOP is unironically calling this the nuclear option. - PD

No, the GOP isn't saying this is THE nuclear option as if nothing else would qualify. Where do you get that? That is a ludicrous charge.

This isn't rocket science. It's abusing the rule making authority of the majority in a way so egregious as to 'blow the place up'. Dems toyed with three different rule making abuses that would all have qualified. In the end they didn't trigger all of them but I expect all but the slaughter rule will be used in this presidential term.
 
635Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 08:46
Just one person. Anyone?
 
636DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 08:52
I see, after taking a nice relaxing day away from the forum, that direct personal attacks are not being deleted, but the request to remove the personal attacks are. And here I thought I was doing the right thing by walking away from it and not escalating it further and asking for it to stop.

So, what gives?
 
637Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:46
Funny, we didn't have any escalatiion of insults in this thread at all yesterday.
 
638DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:55
You sure had about 30 posts on Friday before I even got here. But I guess those were all my fault too, right?
 
639sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 09:59
relax DW. Its Sunday. lol Take it easy. ;)
 
640DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 10:07
I'm trying. And I probably will have to take an extended vacation from this. It's just disappointing to see that the civility policy, which I had limited hopes for but had a lot of trust in the people involved, has turned out to be nothing but a smokescreen. I guess it's because I'm not nearly as involved in things like the baseball leagues or whatever, but I feel like there's a point where a clique of "yeah, those people do behavior X to attack you, but it's OK because we know them even though we say the behavior is wrong when YOU do it". All while engaging in exactly the same behavior themselves.

Which, to bring the post on topic, seems to be pretty much exactly in line with the "nuclear option" discussion. It's OK when we want to use the "nuclear option", but if you want to do it, hoo boy, it's against the very principles of America and you're all evil treasonous commies for even thinking about it.
 
641sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Sun, Apr 18, 2010, 10:18
hell DW, THAT position, is the very foundation of todays rightwing.
 
642Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 13:52
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bernie Goldberg Fires Back
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party
 
643Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 14:18
Ha! "FOX News--You're the Lupus of News"
 
644Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 14:47
re: post [636] < digression > Here is what gives.

There was not a single email sent to the moderators about any post(s) in this thread in the past week. From you, or about you, or about anyone else.

It is ineffective (and unconstructive) to complain about uncivil behavior if no one (particularly the complainant) ever reports the abuse(s).

There is indeed a new policy. And there is a proscribed method for addressing abuses. If you care about having the policy enforced, but only complain about apparent infractions without ever reporting them, then you are failing to take ownership of the problem just as much as those who dish out the abuse.

I'm getting weary of hearing continued complaints about bad behavior when I meander through these threads, and realize that none of that behavior has ever been directly reported.

I probably have a shorter leash than the other moderators who spend more time here. I've offered to assist in managing and cleaning up offensive posts. But you have to meet me halfway. If you don't first report something, then you have no right to complain about its failure to be deleted.

If you do report it, and it doesn't get resolved to your satisfaction within a reasonable time lag, then feel free to raise your beef. But until then, quitcher bitchin'.

< /digression >
 
645DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 14:49
To be fair, I did (in a since deleted post) state that I was unable to send an email at that time, etc. etc. So, someone with moderating authority did see it.

So, yeah, I'll quit my bitching--but please, and I mean this respectfully, get the full facts please.
 
646walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 15:05
Please read out minds, find out if we are offended, and spend the good part of your day reading every post to determine if it should be deleted.

NOT.

Thanks Dave.
 
647Texas Flood
      ID: 7101698
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 15:41
If it wasn't for Baldwin many of you would have nothing to post
about. There is a group of about 5-6 that takes the bait every
time ole Baldy posts. In some sort of way the guy seems to
make life meaningful for some of you.

If it's really that upsetting perhaps a block user feature could be
installed, and you could be spared the rantings of a madman
(my apologies to the real madman).




 
648Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 15:56
[645] (I was about to respond, but I would have been obliged to report and then delete my own post...)
 
649DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Apr 21, 2010, 17:45
:)
 
650Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Apr 24, 2010, 00:22
Another satire piece taken as real news by FOX
 
651Mith
      ID: 482583111
      Tue, May 25, 2010, 08:41
They edited out applause from military cadets in their video of Obama's West Point speech.

When I saw the headline I assumed Think Progress and Media Matters probably got this one wrong. News broadcasts are crunched for time and speeches and public statements are often pared down to a few key soundbites. Typically they'll include just second or so of any applause to note a reaction to a statement but obviously there's no reason to waste 10 seconds of valuable time with a clapping audiance, unless the story happens to be about the applause.

But FOX didn't clip out any portion of the applause video to cut running time. They left all of it in - but cut the audio, making it look like the crowd refused to react as the president paused for 9 or 10 painfully silent seconds after he announced that we are poised to end the combat mission in Iraq this summer.
 
652Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Tue, May 25, 2010, 09:39
re #651

Fox News = manufactured truth
 
653bibA
      ID: 27515513
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 14:18
Even Beck can't be this stupid. I figure it must be some kind of play for power by Murdoch.

Beck blames Fox owner for 9-11
 
654Boldwin
      ID: 564353010
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 18:40
This has been worrying me for quite some time. Saudi's buying up ownership and influence in the only actual news outlet on TV.

Conservatives are really skating on thin ice with only one source and what happens if it gets corrupted?
 
655DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 18:57
The truth will come out?
 
656bibA
      ID: 1055518
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 19:05
B - Are Saudis any more or less capable of encouraging a search for the truth than others?
 
657Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 20:38
Are Saudis any more or less capable of encouraging a search for the truth than others?

Given the lack of real independent press freedom, free speech or freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, I wouls say they are clearly less capable of anything resembling a search for truth.
 
658Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 21:03
the only actual news outlet on TV.

So Glenn Beck is actual news?
 
659Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 21:11
Maybe he means the Goldline commercials.
 
660bibA
      ID: 2540520
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 21:40
they are clearly less capable of anything resembling a search for truth.

There is that all inclusive "they" again. One assumes you mean all Saudis, no matter how well educated, no matter how much of the world they have experienced and learned from. So this guy who is the second largest shareholder for Newscorp is less capable of searching out truth.
 
661Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 21:54
Yes - As a member of he ruling class of one of the most oppressive,illegitimite, backward and corrupt regimes in the world, he is less capable of searching for truth. Even if his family is composed of billionaires, he is less capable of searching for the truth.
 
662Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 21:59
Al Jazeera is less slanted than Fox News.
 
663Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:00
As a member of he ruling class of one of the most...

Is he? I just skimmed the link but there was something in there about him being self-made. Maybe I misread it.
 
664Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:01
Al Jazeera is not Saudi.
 
665Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:01
And based on what I've seen of Al Jazeera (admittedly not a lot) I'd tend to agree with 662.
 
666Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:06
He's a nephew of the King, MITH.

Also, regarding al jazeera, a big part of its success in the Arab world is the perception that it's something other than the government propganda fed to the citizens of places like Saudi Arabia. I don't watch a lot of Fox or Aljazeera, but I wouldn't argue whether one was any more slanted than the other. They both seem to carry a chip on their shoulder and go out of their way to tint their news coverage to cover a perceived imbalance for their respective viewerships.
 
667Boldwin
      ID: 54526518
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:07
So ridiculous there's no point refuting it. BTW were you aware the female announcers had to quit en masse lately?
 
668Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:07
Al Jazeera is broadcast throughout the Arab world, so when it's stated they are clearly less capable of anything resembling a search for truth, Al Jazeera is a big part of that equation.
 
669Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:12
Let me say that I peruse Al Jazeera online occasionally, and their English version may(or may not)be more muted than the Arab version for public relations purposes.
 
670Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:13
Does Qatar (apparently where Al Jazeera is headquartered) have a significantly better human rights record than SA? I have no idea.

Also, it seems likely enough that Al Jazeera English will have a more western-friendly presentation than the Arabic language network(s).
 
671Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:14
Pancho - I don't know what you mean. Aljazeera is not a Saudi company, nor is it Saudi owned. What does a company in Qatar have to do with whether the Saudi ruling class is more or less capable of "searching for the truth?

BTW, Aljazeera refuses to do in depth reporting on any controversies in Qatar. From Wiki:

Al Jazeera has been criticized for failing to report on many hard hitting news stories that originate from Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based. The two most frequently cited stories were the revoking of citizenship from the Al Ghafran clan of the Al Murrah tribe in response to a failed coup that members of the Al Ghafran clan were implicated in, and Qatar's growing relations with and diplomatic visits to Israel
 
672Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:17
What in the world is Forbes' standard for self-made if the nephew of a Saudi king qualifies?
 
673Myboyjack
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:19
MITH - I don't know much about Qatar at all. I do know that their ruling class provided the seed money for Aljazeera and then weaned it from subsidies in an atttempt to make it self-supporting. Don't thinl you'll find that in S.A.
 
674Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sat, Jun 05, 2010, 22:26
BBC Arabic TV is not a Saudi company, nor Saudi owned, but they broadcast to the Saudi public as well.

I'm not condoning the abuses that the ruling Saudis heap on their subjects, but they do allow at least somewhat independent media to be broadcast in their country...but, again, I don't know if the Arabic language broadcasts are a lot more restrictive than their English version, be it Al Jazeera or the BBC.
 
675Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 20:51
Rachel Maddow draws the lines together.

Sometimes I think many of the Right deserve the manipulation they get from the conservative media. After all, they appear to value continuity of their message over anything else.

Until people on the Right start standing up to getting manipulated by groups like FOX News who only exist to stir the pot and make money off of it, they really don't deserve much pity.
 
676Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jul 23, 2010, 12:02
It's FOX Buzzword Friday
 
677DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Fri, Jul 23, 2010, 12:25
Hey, big Mexican women need lovin' too.
 
678Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 17:08
FNC devotes less than 10 minutes of air time Wednesday night on the last combat brigade exiting Iraq.

Instead they focused the overwhelming bulk of air time on the NYC Islamic center.
 
679Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 20, 2010, 17:19
FOX just making it too easy for Jon Stewart to make a living.

The last two minutes are classic--using Charlton Heston's great speech against the current "cleavers."

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party
 
680Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Tue, Aug 24, 2010, 10:45
Jon Stewart has the easiest job in TV:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party
 
681biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Tue, Aug 24, 2010, 13:16
Man. That Heston clip is absolutely brilliant.
 
682Great One
      ID: 2751238
      Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 15:27
I'm Team Evil!
 
683Mith
      ID: 2672547
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 11:57
Greg Jarrett at it again
During the August 30 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, Jarrett claimed that the economic recovery act "failed to keep unemployment under 8 percent" and that "GDP has not grown but decelerated -- actually contracted over the last three quarters."
Of course as Media Matters points out, GDP has grown for 4 straight quarters. Those 4 straight quarters of growth followed contractions in 5 out of the 6 preceding quarters, going back to the 1st quarter of the 2008 fiscal year.
 
684Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:28
This genuine news story and significant and timely trend is what he meant to reference.
Yes, the global economy is slowing, but much less sharply than the negative market sentiment would suggest. Global sentiment appears to be largely driven by the sharp deceleration in US GDP growth from 5% in 4Q09 to what now looks like barely more than 1% saar in 2Q10 (2Q GDP revisions are due this Friday, and our team looks for +1.3%).

Manoj Pradhan & Joachim Fels, Global Economics Team, Morgan Stanley
 
685Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:33
Stimulous' working?

 
686DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:34
If that's true (and I'll reserve judgment), he needs to be a LOT more responsible about getting close to getting the facts right.
 
687Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:35
Fair enuff, but not pulled out of thin air.
 
688Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:35
Pretty much the definition of a bad graph, from that classic work HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS.

Graphs which don't start at zero are pretty much begging to be used by people with a political, rather than educational, point.

As to your point: Yes, it is. And we'd be in terrible, terrible shape without the government having stepped in.
 
689Boldwin
      ID: 8839117
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:42
The graph should be required background for Biden when he gives a speech telling us we're on the right track.
 
690Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 22:00
Sure, as long as you include the previous 18 months, I agree.
 
691Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 22:30
Cherry picking the cherry-picked data, even.
 
692Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 21:52
Someday we'll look back and wonder why anyone ever thought this was useful to the Republic.
 
693Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 00:32
While certain people on the Right rail about Big Brother, it's becoming more and more apparent that the true Big Brother, is Fox News...

With Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all making moves indicating they may run for president, their common employer is facing a question that hasn’t been asked before: How does a news organization cover White House hopefuls when so many are on the payroll?

-----

C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully said that when C-SPAN tried to have Palin on for an interview, he was told he had to first get Fox’s permission — which the network, citing her contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all report similar experiences.

At issue are basic matters of political and journalistic fairness and propriety. With Fox effectively becoming the flagship network of the right and, more specifically, the tea party movement, the four Republicans it employs enjoy an unparalleled platform from which to speak directly to primary voters who will determine the party’s next nominee.
 
694Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 14:34
 
695Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 17:31
Fox News 5 minute terrorist attack

Going from zero to fearmongering and back down again faster than anyone out there doing "news."
 
696Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 11:43
Fox again brings the silly...

President Obama's children's book, "Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters," hit shelves this week to a bit of unexpected controversy...

..Obama's decision to include Native American leader Sitting Bull didn't go over well with the headline writers at Fox Nation, a Fox News website. Their initial take: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Killed U.S. General." (At the time of this writing, the headline has been changed to read: "Obama Praises Indian Chief Who Defeated U.S. General.")


 
697DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 17:48
Shocker: Fox Washington editor slants news coverage

Whyever would he do this, I wonder:

Oh.
 
698Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 16:36
Answer: The 2010 Mid Term elections

Question: What will ginning-up voters fed a steady diet of lies and distortions get you? (pdf)
 
699Boldwin
      ID: 251181720
      Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 21:18
Obama.
 
700Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 12:06
Read the link.
 
701Tree
      ID: 1111541814
      Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 15:55
why? he might learn something.
 
702Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 07:08
Which part of this clip is more hilarious? The part where Megyn says she watches FNC every night and scoffed at the very notion that their leading commentators regularly compare the political opposition to Nazis "it's just not true"... "I don't know if you sit and watch our programming every night but I watch it every day and you're wrong") - or the part where she explains that as an anchor she doesn't take positions on what she should be for or against - during a segment in which she argued with determined sincerety that Rep. Cohen's response to the criticism of his comment falls well short of a suitable apology.

 
703Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 08:00
Glenn Beck's fetish with Austrian royalty.

On Monday, January 31st, Beck went on The O'Riley Factor and told Papa Bear that he believed the protests in Egypt would be an "Archduke Ferdinand moment".

This was several hours after he said on his own show that Tunisia was the budding Archduke Ferdinand moment.

January 31st is 6 1/2 months after he said on June 17th that the BP oil spill would be history's next Archduke Ferdinand moment.

That was 2 1/2 weeks after he said on June 1st the Gaza floatilla incident would be the Archduke Ferdinand moment.

That was 5 or 6 days after May 25th, when he said European debt problems were going to be the Archduke Ferdinand moment.

Curiously, that was the same day that he declared "North Korea" to be the Archduke Ferdinand moment.

The binge was understandable, since by May 25th he had Franz-Ferdinand-sober for well over a year, dating back to 2/3/09, when he said, "I Am "Looking For That Archduke Ferdinand Moment" And "I Think The Final Straw That Could Break Our Camel's Back Could Be The Collapse Of Mexico" (when Mexican refugees fleeing the failed state would reclaim California and Texas).

Beck has been tossing Franz Ferdinand around since Obama took office like I've been tossing rock salt around this winter.

Though he did fret over at least one Archduke Ferdinand moment during the Bush Administration, when he said on Jan 30th, 2007 that he feared we we're "close to" an Archduke Ferdinand moment with Iran.
 
704Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 09:29
You should compile a youtube video of these statements and have it go viral. If somebody hasn't done it already.
 
705Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Thu, Feb 03, 2011, 09:36
I just watched a Jon Stewart clip in which he did just that, expect with the many dysfunctional (in one way or another) countries FNC talent have been saying the US is on the way to becomming (we're turning into Mexico!, we're becomming Greece!, etc.).
 
706Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Thu, Feb 17, 2011, 15:38
Another innocent mistake...

On Tuesday, Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer asked Ron Paul to respond to the chorus of boos that greeted news the insurgent small-government Texas congressman had won the Conservative Political Action Conference's presidential straw poll for the second year in a row. There was just one problem with Hemmer's question: The vocal chorus of boos didn't come from last week's 2011 CPAC as the network claimed; rather those boos were from the 2010 conference.
 
707walk
      ID: 348442710
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 14:57
NYT, Ailes told Reporter to Lie
 
708biliruben
      ID: 34435239
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 17:15
File this under duh.

Fox spews propaganda, twisting the susceptible and weak-minded, not a news organization.
 
709DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 22:41
61% of Wisconsinites support taking away bargaining rights -- wait, what?
 
710Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Thu, Feb 24, 2011, 23:55
I don't understand how that happens. Someone had to create that graphic and send it to a producer who is surely responsible for approving it for air. Then it most likely had to be loaded into a digital asset manager of some kind by the same or another producer, which probably requires the user to view it. During or just before the segment, a tape producer had to call it up on a screen that would be visible to a control room full of producers of varied level and then a director had to call it to air and to a monitor viewed by the show hosts in the studio.

And then of course the on-air talent has to discuss the information seen on the graphic - with a high-level producer in his ear the whole time.

The number of people responsible for knowing the story who see a graphic like that it before it gets to air should be an effective failsafe to prevent such a mistake on live TV.

If it was deliberate, obviously everyone wasn't on board since they bothered to correct it at the end of the show, rather than, say, 3 hours later. And given the scrutiny FOX is under, it would be a shockingly stupid and therefore IMO unlikely attempt at deception, especially since that poll was being widely reported.

But deliberate or not I have no idea how that graphic could even be made in the first place, much less get past all the people who would certainly see it before it goes to air, and then not even get picked up by the on-air talent (who should also be expected to not be learning about a prepared story along with the viewing audiance as he reports it) or at least the highly paid professional journalist speaking to him in his ear at that moment.
 
711DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 10:11
I don't understand how that happens.

notsureifserious.jpg

If it was deliberate, obviously everyone wasn't on board since they bothered to correct it at the end of the show, rather than, say, 3 hours later.

Do you think they'll spend more than 1 minute correcting the numbers after spending 59 minutes pounding the lies into people's heads? Will they tape a new show with the same people who now suddenly have the right info? Of course not.

If you haven't learned by now that the principle is "lie, lie, lie, and if they hear it enough they'll believe it", you've been paying less attention than I thought.
 
712Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 11:21
I don't watch FoxNews, as their fair and balanced is as close to accurate as some of the old Soviet claims, but to be fair, how much coverage did ABC give their Ford exploding gas tanks, compared to the retraction that they had planted explosives in the tanks.
 
713Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 12:30
Call me naive, but I'm less likely to think of these as part of a huge nefarious plot than as being consistently intellectually lazy.

Why go to much effort of fact check information which confirms your own political bias?
 
714DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 12:38
You're naive. (Hey, you asked for it.)
 
715Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 13:01
Dwetzel

The lie wasn't "pounded" for more than a few minutes.

That an outlet with a known bias gets caught lying doesn't mean every inaccuracy is intentional. In this case, it simply doesn't make sense that a journalist with any experience would deliberately see those switched poll numbers make it to air because FNC has absolutely nothing to gain from it. The only possible result is that they come out looking like fools to everyone except the most committed partisans, who's loyalty FNC certainly doesn't have to embarrass themselves to secure.

Please tell me, how much FNC do you watch in a day? Were I a gambler,, I'd wager a fair amount that 75% or more of the FNC programming you see is in the form of clips selectively provided by left leaning media outlets and internet postings specifically to highlight FOX' most egregious offenses.

Am I wrong?

FNC is the only cable news I watch. These days I probably see 5 - 10 hours a week during the day. In recent years I'd leave it on all day at work unless there was baseball on. I've also worked in broadcasting for over 12 years, almost all of that time spent in cable and network newsrooms.

So, since you expressed an interest, I think I do pay a fair amount attention and have the benefit of applying it to an experienced insider's understanding of how the industry works. I'll refrain from offering my further thoughts on what you apparently "haven't learned by now."
 
716DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 13:13
Very little, so technically, you would win your bet. Of course, I watch equally little of the others as well, so the same would apply to MSNBC or CNN. Why would I want to watch propaganda TV?

Is it possible that this was an innocent mistake? I suppose. But if so, they sure do make a lot of innocent mistakes all slanted one way, and I'd say the probability of so many mistakes just happening to go in one direction is statistically unlikely enough to suggest that there's something more to it.

The only possible result is that they come out looking like fools to everyone except the most committed partisans, who's loyalty FNC certainly doesn't have to embarrass themselves to secure.

You assume that the intent of Fox News is to inform, not to inflame the people who will never bother to stop and think "wait, so that hour of partisan bashing wasn't based on facts, maybe I should ignore it all". The 'journalists' there, for the most part, DO have to embarrass themselves to the committed partisans who write their checks.
 
717Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 13:16
I'm not sure what you mean by "innocent mistake." I'm not sure MITH is making that claim. Mistakes which occur as a result of political bias in the newsroon isn't innocent, and MITH isn't making the claim.

The opposite of "intentional mistake" isn't "innocent mistake." Particularly in the spin cycle that is FOX News.
 
718Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 13:28
I recently upgraded my TV package, which now includes Fox News and MSNBC. With the recent turmoil in the Arab world, I found myself spending a lot of time on CNN, Headline News, Fox News and MSNBC.

I can honestly say that of all these outlets, CNN is far and away the most balanced and the most concentrated on actual news presentation. Headline News is not really headline news any more, and features liberal shows like Joy Behar and a gal named Velez, as well as the obnoxious but apolitical Nancy Grace.

Some of the Fox News Shows are fairly well measured, like Shepard Smith and Bret Bair, but obviously Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are pure right wing propaganda. However, the same can be said for MSNBC's Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, with Matthews a bit less left-leaning.
 
719DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 13:43
Then explain to me what kind of 'mistake' it was, PV and Mith. It was either intentional, or it wasn't. That much seems obvious. I'm frankly puzzled trying to figure out what the ground between intentional and innocent is here. Spell it out.
 
720Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 14:04
I would say that ABC planting explosives in a gas tank for better video footage was intentional.

An intern making a typo into a graphic would be more likely to fall under innocent. Should the quality checks be better to prevent that type of mistake, yes. But, the speed that graphics are made and reviewed probably results in nothing more than a cursory glance.

Mith has better insights, but I doubt that type mistakes are caught that often unless they are really obvious.
 
721DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Feb 25, 2011, 15:30
That's fine. If it's sloppy newswork, then in theory there should be equal (or close to equal) examples of them accidentally making the same mistake in the other direction, right? Either that or Fox is just running far outside the standard deviations of normalcy in that area and it's all a coincidence. (If you believe this, I've got this two-headed coin, it's bound to come up tails eventually.)

Conversely, if it's sloppy newswork that only ever happens in a way that benefits the right wing view, then there's something more to it than that.
 
722Mith
      ID: 121412523
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 01:00
Dwetzel

When I question whether the graphic aired deliberately, I mean to question whether it was a conspired deception on the part of high level producers and/or executives.

I know there have been numerous polls taken in WI with broadly varied results regarding public opinion of the situation. FNC's opion shows, which tend to be much faster and looser with facts than their news programs, have never shied away from boasting favorable poll results of less than optimal reliability. That there were options to make the same point without so embarrassing themselves makes it even less likely that higher level decision makers would choose instead to reverse the results of an unfavorable poll.

Then explain to me what kind of 'mistake' it was

I can think up a few highly unlikely 'comedy of error' situations that could conceivably have led to the thing getting to air if you insist, and as unlikely as they are, they'd all still make more sense than a committed "priciple" of "lie, lie, lie". But my point, again, was that I really have no idea how this happens.

I think PD hits on the most likely reason. To expand on it a little, I believe one way FOX executives foster the network's slanted coverage is by limiting oversight at the producer level, allowing the more biased journalists to avoid the scrutiny of collegues who might have a greater concern for integrity.

Most often this would mean that key facts which might undermine FOX's preferred presentation of a story or event are more easily omitted, double standards for how politicians and other newsmakers are presented and scrutinized are overlooked and opinions are much more easily inserted into what are presented as objective reports. And occasionaly that lack of oversight would lead to embarrassing on-air mistakes that do the network more harm than good, even if the way it initialy comes out happens to ostensibly support their bias. This hypothesis is hardly the same as dismissing the graphic and it's use as an innocent mistake.

Hundreds of people work on the production side of that network. You act like the place is a hive, like all their employees are these singularly focused drones functioning for the collectively understood nefarious goal feeding lies to the public. To successfully slant the news and maintain such a dominant viewership reqires far more subtle means than you fantasize. As much as I gripe about them, it isn't 24 hours of Glenn Beck.
 
723Mith
      ID: 121412523
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 01:17
I meant to respond to this as well:

Why would I want to watch propaganda TV?

Please recall that it was you who accused me of not paying enough attention to FNC programming to have a fair handle on their "principles". I'd offer in response that if you're going to question the opinions of others as ignorant or uninformed, you come out looking like an ass when you boast your own far greater ignorance of the topic in your next entry.
 
724Boldwin
      ID: 53147264
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 08:44
I don't know why it would be hard to make the mistake of thinking that the majority who elected Walker on a 'fix the budget' platform would support him doing just that.

But polls are very fickle depending how they are worded. Take a poll inside the family sedan of a bankrupt jobless family and see how many think we should go buy candy. Or make the money last till the next welfare check. The math won't add up.
 
725DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 09:42
"I believe one way FOX executives foster the network's slanted coverage is by limiting oversight at the producer level, allowing the more biased journalists to avoid the scrutiny of collegues who might have a greater concern for integrity.

Most often this would mean that key facts which might undermine FOX's preferred presentation of a story or event are more easily omitted, double standards for how politicians and other newsmakers are presented and scrutinized are overlooked and opinions are much more easily inserted into what are presented as objective reports. And occasionaly that lack of oversight would lead to embarrassing on-air mistakes that do the network more harm than good, even if the way it initialy comes out happens to ostensibly support their bias. This hypothesis is hardly the same as dismissing the graphic and it's use as an innocent mistake."


So, basically, you're suggesting that there's an institutionalized pattern whereby getting facts right becomes secondary to spreading propaganda if their journalists and staff want it to. And it's plainly obvious that the bias extends in only one direction (feel free to present counter-evidence where they made a sloppy error in the other direction -- should be easy to find for you!) And it's plainly obvious that they choose to do nothing about it.

Yet I'm an ass (I don't recall calling you names, for the record -- should I start? Did it make your point clearer?) for suggesting that this is deliberate. Let me put it this way: if you're fostering a culture where such mistakes are never punished, then you kinda reap what you sow.

Hundreds of people work on the production side of that network. You act like the place is a hive, like all their employees are these singularly focused drones functioning for the collectively understood nefarious goal feeding lies to the public. To successfully slant the news and maintain such a dominant viewership reqires far more subtle means than you fantasize. As much as I gripe about them, it isn't 24 hours of Glenn Beck.

Cool. So it should be easy to find counterexamples where they've made mistakes in the other direction with things like polls and affiliations of politicians in trouble, if it's not a "feed conservative views to the public" station. Start posting 'em. Show me.
 
728Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 11:43
Dwetzel

Your response showed better manners than mine.

And it's plainly obvious that they choose to do nothing about it.

You form your opinion of what is plainly obvious about a product that you admittedly never pay any attention to, except for the most offensive 2% or so of programming, as selected for your consumption by their political opposition.

a culture where such mistakes are never punished

When do hosts of opinion shows ever get "punished" for getting facts wrong? It's mostly about ratings. FNC takes a lot of criticism for Glenn Beck. But as long as he draws paying advertisers for his strong ratings, he'll be tolerated. HLN didn't seem to have a problem with his content, they just couldn't pay him what FOX offered. I don't watch Ed Shultz' show, but I've seen enough clips of him on righty blogs to know he belongs in the same category as Hannity and I don't know of any repremand he suffers for it.

you kinda reap what you sow

I don't know what that means.

it should be easy to find counterexamples

I'm sure they happen from time to time, less frequently of course because mistakes tend to stumble with the flow. The general presentation is almost uniformly anti-left. Pro left statements stick out and would naturally attract more attention and therefore more scrutiny.

And even if that wasn't a factor, I don't know why you think it would be easy to find them. FNC falsehoods like this one are very popular with an opposition that is enthuastic to expose their bias, so they wind up getting widely circulated. In who's interest would it be to publicize FNC flubs that appear to favor the left? Posting them to make FNC look foolish directly undermines the rabid left's scheming and sinister caracature of them. And FNC isn't going to point them out to make a case for their objectivity at the expense of looking inept.
 
729DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 11:47
If we're willing to take the programming as an opinion show, that's fine. Then let's just admit that's what it is, and not ever use it as a real news source. (Throw Ed Shultz in the same pile, that's certainly no offense to me.)

As someone who watches 5 to 10 hours of Fox a week, please come back and point out the next time they happen to make a mistake in that direction. I'll set the over/under sometime around March 2012, and will expect that it's in opposition to a Republican presidential candidate they've decided not to like.
 
730Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 11:56
For the record FNC specifies that the overwhelming majority of it's programming is news entertainment (or some hokey term like that which reminded me of WWE referring to itself as "sports entertainment") as opposed to journalism. Special Report and the two shows anchored by Shep Smith are specifically news programming, as is the noon show, I believe. American morning, Fox & Friends, Your World, The Glenn Beck Program, The O'Riley Factor, Hannity and (I think) On the Record are not considered news and are not held to the same journalistic standards. And this is quite obvious in the product to anyone who watches it.

In truth, Fox News Channel only offers 3 or 4 ours of actual news per day.
 
731DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 12:00
I'll just say that that's an awfully fuzzy distinction to make.
 
732Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 12:11
Thats my biggest problem with them. That they have earned their ratings specifically by blurring the distinction between news and opinion. For the most part their news programming isn nearly as egregious. And among their opinion shows, the presentation and standards vary considerably, but even Beck doesn't benefit from airing that graphic and arguing it's false information.
 
733DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 14:23
I'm not arguing that they benefit with the public at large. I'm arguing that they give their regular viewers exactly what they want (random liberal bashing to feel good about, facts be damned), and that they really don't give a crap about what the general public thinks. Lying (or "mistaking",, if you prefer) boosts ratings. Credibility, no -- but that ship has sailed long ago.
 
734Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Feb 26, 2011, 23:28
The appeal of lies and the brashness with which they are propagated his it's limits. FNC knows this. They go with what works for them, which varies from show to show.

They know that something as obvious as that graphic can only hurt. The negative attention it has attracted since far outweighs any purpose it could have served as it aired.

And they do care at least somewhat about what the greater public thinks. They don't want moderate conservatives to feel ostracized for watching FNC.
 
735Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 07:40
For Dwetzel - and over 1 year ahead of schedule:

 
736Mith
      ID: 1325133
      Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 07:06
Hot Air on FNC's suspensions of Santorum and Huckabe.
 
737Boldwin
      ID: 44251317
      Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 18:57
Middle option.

Strange for Hot Air, very conservative site to get so bent out of shape. Compared to the selective coverage the MSM showed Hillary in '08 in favor of Obama or Howard Dean in favor of Kerry this isn't even a blip. Maybe they like Newt as much as I do.
 
738GF
      ID: 28228319
      Thu, Mar 03, 2011, 20:29
Fox Lies???

Wisconsin Protest? Or???
 
739Boldwin
      ID: 55249323
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 00:59
The point of the story was national union coordination. Zero lies or mistakes in that one.
 
740Mith
      ID: 1325133
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 01:13
BZZZT!

If you're discussing a specific event while rolling footage which appears to depict that event but is actually something else, this is called deception. Ad in this case Dwetzel and I, I'm sure will agree.

Here's the clip, by all means, make you case that Tobin and Papa Bear are not talking specifically about the WI protest:



Seems pretty specific to me, particularly as Bill asks how many are out-of-towners and Tobin discusses the difficulty in telling which ones are from WI.

Deliberate deception.
 
741Boldwin
      ID: 55249323
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 01:18
You say tomato.

National union organizers are busing them in.


National union organizers are busing them in.
 
742Tree
      ID: 320371412
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 01:31
what does 741 have to do with anything?

the news report in question is discussing one event, while showing footage from something else entirely.

that's responsible, honest journalism to you? oh, right, never mind, honesty isn't an issue in your journalism.
 
743Mith
      ID: 1325133
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 01:49
The operative word is the object pronoun, "them". Who is them? Is this a reference to union protests in general? Or is this a discussion about Wisconsin? Surely you agree that an accurate transcript provides better context than a single paraphrased sentence:

As the video is rolling:

BO: Can you break the crowd [what crowd? union protest crowds in general - or just this one?] down? How many are professional left wingers and how many are just regular folks?

MT: It's tough to tell. When you get to the weekend you get a lot of out-of-towners. A lot of people are bussed in from not just Wisconsin [where?] but a lot of surrounding states. I talked to someone who was from California who's sleeping in the capitol [which capitol? one with palm trees? I don't know, it's too ambiguous!] throught out this process [and maybe some other process from months ago?]. So you've got a real mixed bag out here [I'm sorry, where?].

BO: Well who brought them in? Who bussed them in?

MT: Uh, Some of them are from labor oprganizations who ahve brought people in, and it would take a long time for me to explain each and every organization that's brought people in.

BO: OK, so unions in sympathy with other unions are hiring busses to come and bring the people in. Now, the governor [does he mean someone specific here? It's so hard to tell!], does he have control over the state jobs...

That's one rotten tomato you're swallowing down, however you want to pronounce it.
 
744DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 09:07
Well, liars gonna lie.
 
745Boldwin
      ID: 3216412
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 14:10
Yeah, you guys have been denying or minimizing 'outside agitator influence' since the Mommas and the Poppas were singing.
 
746Boldwin
      ID: 3216412
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 14:19
So you have to find some way to claim that story is discredited.
 
747Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 20:27
Are you talking about the story in which violent union members are supposedly bussed into Wisconsin, and the background video running is not from Wisconsin?
 
748Mith
      ID: 51253421
      Fri, Mar 04, 2011, 22:56
For any new lurkers, the strawman tactic is the telltale sign that Boldy knows his argument has no leg to stand on. Closest thing you'll get to an admission 99 out of every 100 arguments he loses.
 
749Tree, not at home
      ID: 3910441615
      Tue, Mar 22, 2011, 11:38
CNN correspondent rejects Fox report on human shields

Nic Robertson, a veteran CNN correspondent who was part of the CNN crew cited in the Fox story, called the rival network's report "outrageous and hypocritical."

Robertson said a Fox staffer was among the journalists on the trip -- a fact left out of the Fox report -- and that the journalists in the group were hurried through their trip by their minders.

"To say it was a human shield is nuts," Robertson said, later adding: "I expect lies from the government here. I don't expect it from other journalists. It's frankly incredibly disappointing."
 
750Mith
      ID: 22141616
      Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 11:57
Fox News Channel in their own words:Fair. Balanced. We Report. You Decide, Mischevious Speculaition.
[FNC VP and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon in 2009:] “Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to ‘spread the wealth around.’ At that time, I have to admit that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.”


In an interview, Sammon says his reference to “mischevious speculation” was “my probably inartful way of saying, ‘Can you believe how far this thing has come?’” The socialism question indeed “struck me as a far-fetched idea” in 2008. “I considered it kind of a remarkable notion that we would even be having the conversation.” He doesn’t regret repeatedly raising it on the air because, Sammon says, “it was a main point of discussion on all the channels, in all the media”—and by 2009 he was “astonished by how the needle had moved.”
 
751Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 19:30
This did NOT appall me.

Glenn Beck canned!

Glenn Beck later this year will end his Fox News Channel talk show, which has sunk in the ratings and has suffered from an advertiser boycott.

Seeya, chump!
 
752biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Wed, Apr 06, 2011, 19:47
I am sure it was his renegade nature. The tears and whining can be heard from mount Vernon to gold bar.
 
753Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, May 12, 2011, 20:44


 
754Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Thu, May 12, 2011, 20:44
 
755Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 13:21
FOX uses Tina Fey image in story about Palin.

Wonder if we'll find out who got in trouble over this one.
 
756Tree
      ID: 16329157
      Mon, Jun 13, 2011, 20:46
and then there's this...

Fox Business host’s Obama White ‘Hizzouse’ commentary sparks more racism charges
 
757Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 12:12
 
758Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 16:55
Not FOX News, but a Murdoch-owned UK paper is accused of hacking the phone of a schoolgirl who had disappeared.

Nasty stuff.
 
759DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 17:27
Among about 7000 other phones.

But, hey, random rogue individuals can make that innocent mistake a few thousand times.
 
760DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 17:31
While I'm here and while it's on the subject, this is an interesting read IMO.

Fair and balanced, indeed (lol)
 
761DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Jul 06, 2011, 17:50
Followup to 758: This ain't exactly the first time they've been hacking phones
 
762Boldwin
      ID: 96150
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 00:41
As I recall Woodward and Bernstein can't show their faces without liberals genuflecting to them after taking what the #2 man in the FBI learned from bugging the WH and plastering it all over the news.

Which wasn't just invasion of privacy but an actual government coup.

Not that I'm doing any genuflecting.
 
763DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 01:11
Does that mean you're in favor of what was done here?
 
764Boldwin
      ID: 96150
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 01:41
Nope. But I do question how it compares with industry practices in the real world.
 
765Boldwin
      ID: 96150
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 01:46
There are political operatives who scan the communications of politicians and dems and their media run a firestorm over what they learn that way. No complaints over that.

Linda Tripp records her own phone and she's demonized and discredited in some people's minds. I question the selective outrage.
 
766bibA
      ID: 48627713
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 09:24
...the #2 man in the FBI learned from bugging the WH...

The #2 man in the FBI (I assume you are referring to Mark Felt-"Deep Throat") may have been the source for much of the information that Woodward/Bernstein reported on, but to say he bugged the WH to gain this info is misleading.

When Nixon took office, he, Nixon, was the one who ordered the White House to have a taping system installed, along with taps on the phones. He was the person who secretly wanted all conversations recorded.
 
767DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 10:34
Re: 764 -- it doesn't compare. That's kind of the point.

If you disagree, please provide evidence that other "news" organizations have undertaken thousands of similar illegalities.
 
768Boldwin
      ID: 4463171
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:02
bibA

If you believe Hoover's FBI didn't surreptitiously surveil US politicians for blackmail grade material you weren't paying attention. Felt took that material and led Woodward and Bernstein every step of the way and you should know it.

The FBI staging a coup of the USA government because the FBI's no#2 was in a fit of pique over being passed over for Hoover's chair is significant stuff and the Washington Times knew that was exactly what they were doing. It wasn't just illegal, in 80% of the world that would have gotten them all stood up against a wall and shot.

Dunno how common that sorta stuff is in the Legacy Media. Looks like the Legacy Media knew what sort of dirt to look for going after their enemy.
 
769Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:08
in 80% of the world that would have gotten them all stood up against a wall and shot.

Mostly because 80% of the world doesn't enjoy the kind of rights we do.

The irony of the whole thing seems lost on you Baldwin: Felt passed government information to journalists about a lawbreaking chief executive, who felt he was above the law.
 
770sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:10
ah but PD, that particular Executive was a Republican and therefore in B's mind, he WAS ABOVE the law.
 
771Boldwin
      ID: 4463171
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:11
We have a [legal?] [constitutional?] right to take illegally obtained FBI material and overthrow the USA government with it according to PD?

Wow is that ridiculous.

 
772sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:12
Try as I might, I can recall no overthrow attempt of the US Government in the past what? 150 or so years?
 
773boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:14
last plot to over throught the goverment was only 80 years ago.
 
774Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:21
#771: You'll note I said nothing about legal or not. You are trying to fill in the blanks with nothing to go on.

Of course, this is all a tangent: How this is anything like a tabloid hacking into a missing girl's phone and deleting messages in order to obtain more "news?"

Nothing at all like that. As usual, you take every thread as an opportunity to pass along your anti-liberal rants.
 
775Boldwin
      ID: 4463171
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:21
Not the first time you've attempted 'oblivious' as a tactic, Sarge.
 
776Boldwin
      ID: 4463171
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:24
Because if it was liberal media doing it, it would be lionized as clever, naughty *wink* *wink* but oh so tech savy, resourceful. If the target was a republican it would even garner awards and banquets.
 
777Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:25
A plot approved by Baldwin: Wealthy businessmen attempt to overthrow FDR's administration.

 
778sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:27
re 773, from the wiki article: While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.

A "discussion" of a coup attempt, and an actual attempt to overthrow; simply are not the same.

re 775: Far from the first time B, you've held a Rep above reproach and/or claimed any efforts of any sort against said Republican, constituted a socialist takeover attempt. Careful B, your "slip" is showing.
 
779Boldwin
      ID: 4463171
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:33
Oh, Mark Felt and the WT got their coup alright.
 
780Boldwin
      ID: 4463171
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 13:42
Now if only the Washington Times felt any shame
 
781DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 14:09
Not sure what the Washington Times has to do with a paper shutting down because everybody is so disgusted by their behavior that they won't buy it any more. LOL at you thinking it's because of "shame" and not because "he's not going to make money off it any more".

This was front page news all over Great Britain for a few days, by the way -- except for Murdoch's other papers, which buried it on page 10.
 
782Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 14:19
#780. Good.

[As an aside, I believe you mean The Washington Post, yes? The Washington Times is a Moonie-owned conservative rag.]
 
783Boldwin
      ID: 4463171
      Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 14:35
Good catch, PD. Yes I meant the WP. That paper changed me from leaning along with the mainstream media to despising the media and their causes. In fact it was the editor and his glee specifically over toppling Nixon which clued me into the fact that the objective media I loved, wasn't and never had been.
 
784Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 13:18
A really really good primer on the NOTW hacking scandal, with links to the developing story.

Looks like the British PM might get some splashback on this as well.
 
785Mith
      ID: 5631099
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 06:07
 
786Razor
      ID: 33520166
      Sat, Jul 16, 2011, 07:35
Hilarious. Murdoch's American news outfit saying, "Nothing to see here. Let's all move on." It's embarrassing that they call Fox News a news organization.
 
787Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 18, 2011, 09:57
We'll just call them Moveon.org...oh wait, that's already taken.
 
788DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 12:27
NOTW phone hacking whistleblower found dead

Police (the same ones that took Murdoch's bribes, of course) treating it as not suspicious, shockingly.
 
789Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jul 19, 2011, 12:40
Cheerleaders of default.

They would ruin this country's economy in order to have a chance to defeat Obama in 2012.
 
790DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 19:50
Okay, so he's not technically on Fox News any more.

Norway shooting: Glenn Beck compares dead teenagers to Hitler youth

Stay classy, Glenn Beck.
 
791Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 20:11
It has been noticed that Breivik’s writings lifted whole passages from the Unabomber’s manifesto...

So maybe we should be looking at Algore more carefully.
 
792sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 21:56
Gotta despise these rightwing looney tunes. They CLAIM, personal responsibility is a hallmark of their beliefs.

Yet B, claims the guy is a freemason (in abasence of any hard evidence to support that allegation) and then assigns blame for this criminals rampage ON, the freemasons.

Beck, compares the victoims to Hitler Youth.

Now B, wanats to try and blame Al Gore for crying outloud.


Bunch of friggin mental midgets, every gddmn one.
 
793Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 22:22
I love how you leap to their defense since your not...you know, a member, officially. As far as we know.
 
794Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 23:22
I love how you leap to their defense since your not...you know, a member, officially. As far as we know.

i love how you're quick to not defuse comparisons to Nazis, since your [sic] not...you know, a member, officially. As far as we know.

 
795DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 23:46
Tree, that's not fair. At least Hitler did some good things for the German economy for a few years.
 
796sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Tue, Jul 26, 2011, 11:37
re 793 roflmfao you are SO easy to fk with B, on any topic pertaining to Masons.

I know several who are Masons. I am not one however. None who are, hide that fact from any one. They proudly wear their Masonic Rings, visibly attend their Halls, participate openly in parades/fundraisers etc etc etc.

Keep insisting this 6' tall guy is really only 5'4". I'll keep defending short people, and the world will keep turning.
 
797Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Aug 01, 2011, 14:38
 
799Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Aug 17, 2011, 10:49
The phone hacking scandal simply won't go away. Now, News Corp looks to have tried to cover up how much they all knew about the hacking.

They've been trying to paint this as a long reporter gone rogue. But they edited a letter to remove references to their own extensive knowledge of it.
 
804Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 18, 2011, 09:58
Seems that way. For the GOP, Democrats to be looked at in terms of associations with bad people (see Obama and his minister, ACORN, etc) rather than what they actually do.

Murdoch is guilty of covering up a massive privacy violating scheme by one of his media arms--the kind of thing they accuse the Administration of doing, in breathless tones and apocalyptic prose, several times before breakfast.

Like it or not, the Right is now married to an abusive spouse. Sometimes you can only tell these people to get out and stand on their own. But they have to stop making their own excuses and want to do it on their own.
 
816Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Aug 25, 2011, 18:17
FOX censors Rove interview to eliminate his criticism of Palin.
 
817Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 16:55
FOX host to Bill Nye the Science Guy: "You're confusing our viewers."


[too many snarky responses to list--insert your own one here]
 
818sarge33rd
      ID: 77382923
      Tue, Aug 30, 2011, 16:56
roflmfao Bill Nye is aimed at what? Grade school, JH at most?
 
819Wilmer McLean
      ID: 28855111
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 03:07
PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe -- American Thinker, September 10, 2011 -- Timothy Birdnow

Barack Obama has gone to Congress asking for more money to spend. The President, in a rambling and tedious exercise mixing blame with demands, made quite a few dubious statements in laying out the case for Congress to vote for the plan which as yet does not exist. Much like Obamacare, Congress must ultimately vote for the bill to know what is in it.

At one point Mr. Obama made a major gaffe; he identified Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the Republican Party.

Lincoln did not join the Republicans until 1856, over two years after the party was founded. The first Republican convention was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.

Such a gaffe would have brought huge amounts of ridicule and derision on George W. Bush, but in the case of Obama the media yawned.

Actually, they did more than yawn; government-funded PBS has altered the transcript of the President's speech, removing the offending comment.

The New York Times transcript has the following quote:

"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future -- a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad -- (applause) -- launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."


But how does it appear in the PBS transcript?

"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future - a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."

 
820Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 03:54
They'd be flogging Bachmann over that one till the end of time if they could.
 
821Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 04:10
#819: The note at the bottom of that link indicates why they made the change. It isn't unusual for media to get the text of the speech ahead of time (and post it), then compare it to the speech actually given and update as needed.

While the written text of the speech pre-delivery had the mistake, it doesn't appear that Obama actually said it. So it this a "major mistake" if the President didn't actually say it?

Hard to say why this was changed in the actual delivery, but it very well could be that the mistake was noticed at the last minute and eliminated. In any case, it seems a little silly to blame the President for a "major mistake" he never actually said.

So some conservative media outlets are up in arms that PBS posted an accurate version of the speech as delivered, it seems. You guys are getting tooled if you continue to post this kind of stuff.
 
822Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 09:34
He did call Lincoln the founder of the party.

For those of you who believe this gaffe is significant for any reason, if called on it directly do you think he'll admit his mistake or take the Palin/Bachman route and claim that what he said is fully accurate and then attack the opposition media for pointless nitpicking? Or do you think he'll take the Herman Cain approach and deny that he ever said any such thing?

 
823Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 11:32
I think he'll delegate the problem to his minions in the lamestream media and concentrate on campaigning in all 57 states.
 
824Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Sep 11, 2011, 12:07
I was wondering if you'd have to reach back three years for the most recent Obama verbal gaffe at the top of your memory.

Of course, unlike Cain and Palin and Boxman in several cases, he didn't have "delegate" his 57 state remark "problem" to anyone. He simply acknowledged it with a good-natured joke later and moved on.
 
825Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Sat, Sep 17, 2011, 09:37
Fox News Scandal I can get behind
 
826Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Sep 26, 2011, 12:24
Ailes circling the wagons again and again.

His hold on the current GOP is pathological.
 
827Farn
      Leader
      ID: 451044109
      Fri, Oct 14, 2011, 11:55
(Not really appalling but humorous that they even put him on)


Hulk Hogan no longer supports Obama

How does Hulk qualify as someone worth putting on your station for political commentary? And does he own the rights to his theme song?
 
828Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Sat, Oct 22, 2011, 16:27
Murdoch paying a lot of money to murdered teen's family over hacking scandal.
 
829Perm Dude
      ID: 39961218
      Mon, Nov 14, 2011, 16:32
Bill O'Reilly slams critics of his error-riddled book on Lincoln.

What he calls "nitpickers," those in the publishing field call "proofreaders" and "copy editors."
 
830sarge33rd
      ID: 2410581411
      Mon, Nov 14, 2011, 16:38
And as for Emerson, O’Reilly said he’s invited the NPS employee to make an appearance on his show. “I would love to talk with her,” O’Reilly says, according to the script.

Maybe, he should have done that BEFORE he sent the book off for publishing.
 
831sarge33rd
      ID: 4710332214
      Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 17:19
How misinfornmed are FOX viewers?

But on balance, Fox News viewers were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watched no news at all.

How is that even possible? lmao
 
832biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 17:59
Yeah, the fox team is also lobbying to reclassify pepper spray as a vegetable. Truth is often stranger the fiction, as that joke was going around satirically a few days before.

Fox news: causing brain damage since 1991.


 
833Boldwin
      ID: 35108223
      Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 18:55
Weeell that's because the military that was in charge before, is still more or less in charge.

Fox News viewers will let you know when that changes. Here, I'll give you a clue.

Didn't know that, did you. Maybe one election more and the MB takes over the whole thing.

Fox News viewer here.
 
834sarge33rd
      ID: 610332217
      Tue, Nov 22, 2011, 19:21
from 833: Fox News viewer here.

from 832: Fox news: causing brain damage since 1991.

Is there anymore TO, be said? Really?
 
835sarge33rd
      ID: 32118111
      Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 12:08
roflmfao

Pres Clinton kicks the sh*t out of Fauxspews:

Part1 of 3


Part 2


Part 3
 
836Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 13:36
The Muppets Are Communist, Fox Business Network Says

(and no, that's not from the Onion)
 
837sarge33rd
      ID: 321137711
      Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 14:33
what do FOX and McCarthyism have in common?






Rampant paranoia.
 
838Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 14:40
It isn't clear, in both reading the story and watching the accompanying video, if they even saw the movie. If they did, maybe it would be more obvious to them that the villain in the movie isn't hated because he is rich (or successful) but because he is odious.
 
839sarge33rd
      ID: 321137711
      Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 14:46
How many of those who blasted Passion of the Christ, admitted they had never SEEN the movie? lol To these folks, they dont NEED to see it to criticize it.
 
840Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Wed, Dec 07, 2011, 15:39
i cannot believe that every single silent film bad guy that tied a woman to the railroad tracks is a communist!!! the horror!
 
841Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Jan 15, 2012, 20:44
FOX News: Spinning stupid conservatives since 1996.
 
842Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Jan 21, 2012, 11:50
Jerry Springer making more sense than Sean Hannity. Yes, THAT Jerry Springer
 
843sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 22:52
re 836, Kermit and Ms Piggy respond:

link

Ms Piggy's money quote reply to Fox's allegation of the muppet movie being dangerous:

Following Kermit's comments, Miss Piggy chimed in. "It's almost as laughable as accusing Fox News of, you know, being news."

Beaten, by a hand puppet. There ya go Fox.
 
844sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 16:29
I don't always watch Fox News, but ...
 
845Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 10:50
FOX News commenters: Bringing the racist.
 
846sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 13:03
unreal...and Fox just lets it go on and on and on and...
 
847sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 23:16
Liz Trotta..."What did they expect?"

Fox News contributor Liz Trotta on Monday suggested women serving alongside male service members should expect to be raped and complained about the money spent on women who are “now being raped too much.”

Trotta appeared on Fox to discuss new Department of Defense rules allowing women to serve in more than 14,000 jobs that had been off-limits to female soldiers. They still cannot join infantry, armor or special forces units, however.

“But we have women once more, the feminist, going, wanting to be warriors and victims at the same time,” she said...


How out of line, would it be for me to call her...one stupid fkn c&nt?
 
848Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 01:14
Completely.
 
849Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 01:19
I agree. Just because she's an overpaid yet inexperienced mouthpiece, there's no reason to resort to name calling.

Sometimes you just have to let people's stupid words hang there to damn them in the end.

She's obviously clueless, and will say anything her conservative media overlords tell her to say.
 
850sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 01:26
She then noted that the budget of the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office increased from $5 million in 2005 to more than $23 million in 2010.

“So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much,” Trotta remarked.

“Well, many would say that they need to be protected, and there are these sexual programs, abuse programs, are necessary,” co-anchor Eric Shawn interjected, but to no avail.

“That’s funny, I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war,” Trotta responded.


I do not recall at any time in my life, havng ever used that term to define/describe another human being. The above quote form the article/telecast however,... I think she has earned the singular distinction, of being the only human being, I have ever called such.
 
851Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 01:58
Trying to use the military to advance their own social agenda is what the Right has been doing for some time, sarge.

The long game on this issue is against them.
 
852sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 02:10
I understand PD, that the right has used the military and defense in general, as their supposed holy grail of sorts.

But this womans comments/attitude;
1) Women in the military shoukd EXPECT to be raped,
2) We should not spend money on Sex Abuse in hte military, because the militaruies job is to defend her fat ass and not the troops legal rights,
3) It was a "Nice try" in her opinion, when the host said "Those troops deserve protection from illegal actions against them"

This twit did not use the military for the rights typical "we are string on defense" claims. She used the military and essentially said:

"If you as a woman join the military, expect to get raped and you should have NO legal rights against your attacker, because the military's job is to defend ME, not see to your legal protection."

Imus got fired for calling someone "nappy headed" and Jimmy The Greek got fired for saying blacks were genetically superior athletes to whites. Those comments, are nowhere NEAR as insulting, as what this woman just said to every female service member, every parent of a female service member, every son or daughter of a female service member, every husband of a female service member, every partner, friend S.O....hell, anyone who knows and holds ANY female service member in any light of respect.

 
853Mith
      ID: 50151411
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 02:13
Based on sarge's previously stated standards for using offensive language, I imagine he would have no problem so describing her if he were to learn that she happens to throw the term around herself.
 
854sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 02:20
reread 850 MITH.
 
855Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 10:55
Only on Fox News could you find such inflammatory rhetoric condoned without punishment. A "news" channel suggesting that members of the military are at fault for putting themselves in a position to be raped and complaining about the expenses to protect them from these heinous acts is so appalling that she should have been fired the second she took off her microphone, if not for the deplorable nature of her comments but for her stupidity. Everyone should be protected to the full extent of the law, especially those who service the community and the nation and put themselves in harm's way.

This is the same woman who suggested Obama should be assassinated. What more does she need to do? Put her out to pasture where she belongs.
 
856Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 12:12
I don't see any problems with her comments. I'm sure if a commentator on MSNBC or CNN made similar comments, Fox would approve and not start a firestorm of controversy. /irony

Some legislation that I would support, but will never happen due to the impracticality of enforcing it, is not letting this crap be called news. That applies to both sides and E!
 
857sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 12:14
I don't see any problems with her comments.

Please tell me you are not serious.
 
858Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 12:22
I guess I should have bolded the /irony at the end.

No, I agree that she shouldn't be on the air if we are going to be consistent with our handling of prior incidents like Imus.
 
859sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 13:05
egads..sorry Frick. :/ I TOTALLY missed that.
 
860Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 13:18
No problem it happens. I would have had the same reaction if I saw most posters made a similar comment.
 
861Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 16:04
Her point of course isn't that they should accept being raped. Her point is that liberals were asses for thinking women belonged on battlefields.
 
862Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 16:07
First time I've hear of the someone on the Right accusing Israel of being asses. Or being liberal. Keep it up!
 
863Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 16:20
1) Israel is excedingly liberal. Ashkenazi's run the place from their communes.

2) If I were living 25 miles away from genocidal maniacs intent on murder at every opportunity I'd consider women in the army. That country could be wiped out every man woman and child if a war went badly for several days.

That extreme is not warranted here.
 
864boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 16:33

Imus got fired for calling someone "nappy headed" and Jimmy The Greek got fired for saying blacks were genetically superior athletes to whites. Those comments, are nowhere NEAR as insulting, as what this woman just said to every female service member, every parent of a female service member, every son or daughter of a female service member, every husband of a female service member, every partner, friend S.O....hell, anyone who knows and holds ANY female service member in any light of respect.


you should know there is a double standard when it comes to racist comments and sexist comments, if you don't think that is true look at 08 dem primary and look at the things that were passed as acceptable when referring to Hillary Clinton, if there racist equivalent had been aimed at Obama there would have been a fire storm.
 
865Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 16:49
#863: "Extreme" would be intentionally limiting our military readiness based upon needless and outdated sexism.

Oh, wait--that's the time capsule from 1983 that Santorum wants to open...
 
866Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 17:13
You don't have to admit it to me, but just be honest with yourself. The only reason you want women in the military is to make a political social statement.

When you've been shot up and it's time to 'leave no man behind' GI Jane is just gonna get the both of you killed. She sure isn't gonna carry you to safety.
 
867Tree
      ID: 191161416
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 17:32
1) Israel is excedingly liberal. Ashkenazi's run the place from their communes.

oh, good lord.

they're not communes. They're called, respectively, Moshavim and Kibbutzim.

While Kibbutzim do tend to be Ashkenazik in their roots, commune is a poor choice of word, because of the implications. while there is certainly some socialism and communism in their existence, they believe strongly in the free market system and democracy - they have internal elections, as well as a strong encouragement in national elections.

Moshavim have their roots in the Mizrahi Jews. and while similar to Kibbituz in design, there tends to be more emphasis on private life - in fact, the farm plots are private, but the farm equipment is shared.

Additionally, the Moshavs have *thrived* when Israel has a right-leaning government (whereas the Kibbitzniks tend to vote with a bend toward the left).

Israel's government is still very much right-leaning.

and then, on top of your factual inaccurate statement above, there's this nonsense.

You don't have to admit it to me, but just be honest with yourself. The only reason you want women in the military is to make a political social statement.

it's about equality. as my friend Robby Brown said in 5th grade (some 30+ years ago), "if women want the right to get their heads blown off too, by all means, let them."

When you've been shot up and it's time to 'leave no man behind' GI Jane is just gonna get the both of you killed. She sure isn't gonna carry you to safety.

what a hateful, ignorant, ill-informed statement. a person in shape is a person in shape, and i know plenty of women who would beat your woman-hating ass, then carry you to the hospital.

 
868Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 17:36
And he thinks Milla Jovovich actually is Ultraviolet.
 
869Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 17:45
While Kibbutzim do tend to be Ashkenazik ... some socialism and communism in their existence

Apology accepted.

I also forgive you both for confusing a rare case of liberals who don't advocate a suicidal foreign policy with right wingers.
 
870Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 18:37
#866: I'm not certain who you are referring to, but my preference is to have the best fighting force in the world. And having women (and blacks, for that matter) in the mix helps us to get to that goal.

Let the military decide the actual people on the actual front lines. Stop trying to inject your own social experiments into the mix to shrink to pool of applicants.
 
871Tree
      ID: 21341418
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 19:40
While Kibbutzim do tend to be Ashkenazik ... some socialism and communism in their existence

Apology accepted.

I also forgive you both for confusing a rare case of liberals who don't advocate a suicidal foreign policy with right wingers.


i didn't apologize for your ignorance. i merely corrected some of your mis-statements. just because you think you're right, doesn't make you right. in fact, on these boards, there are few people, if any, more wrong, more often, than you.

i don't even know what on god's green earth you're talking about with your other inane statement.
 
872Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 21:02
CABLE NEWS RACE
NITE OF JAN 13, 2012

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,292,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,117,000
FOXNEWS BRET BAIER 1,908,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,788,000
FOXNEWS THE FIVE 1,744,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,632,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 944,000
CNN PIERS MORGAN 901,000
MSNBC MADDOW 901,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 861,000
CNN COOPER 825,000

 
873Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 21:19
Yup. FOX dominates cable news. I'd imagine you'd see similar ratings separation for radio, as well.

Of course, Brian Williams on ABC gets 9.5 million viewers a week. And Jon Stewart still outdraws FOX news shows, I believe.

Just sayin'.
 
874scoobies
      ID: 4035420
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 21:26
Boy, those top six numbers are a seriously sad commentary on the nightly viewing habits of some Americans. But the funny thing is that even during the O'Reilly timeslot, more than 300 million Americans were doing something else.
 
875sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 22:12
re 866....you know nothing, about the military. You only like to pretend you are atough guy, willing and able to stand up for what you believe in. Let the sh*t hit the fan, and you will be pissing your pants and standing behind the nearest armed individual on your side, be they male or female.

I have 2 questions, for anyone wanting into my foxhole...1) can you shoot straight? 2) WILL, you shoot straight?..Gender, gender preference, skin color, religion...irrelevant.

Go bark up a tree, where you have some firsthand knowledge. This one, aint one you know diddlysh*t about.
 
876Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 22:49
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,811,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,509,000

Criticize Foxnews all you want, they continue to pound the cable competition. And have done so for over 10 years.
 
877sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 22:52
Criticize Foxnews all you want, they continue to pound the cable competition. And have done so for over 10 years.

So?

Survey shows FOX viewers, less informed than people who watch no news at all


 
878sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 23:00
I suppose there is another way to look at it B7...

Fox News; lying to more people than any other cable news cast.
 
879Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 23:05
Foxnews is laughing all the way to the bank. 800 appalling posts aside.
 
880sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 23:07
That they are, and the rest of us are laughing at a few million truly ignorant people.
 
881Tree
      ID: 191411422
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 23:41
Thanks for proving that Fox News is the most Mainstream of mainstream media...
 
882Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 14, 2012, 23:59
I'm not sure how FOX making money gas anything to do with bias. Yes--conservative media dominates in some areas (cable tv, radio) but are not altogether representative in others (broadcast TV, newspapers).
 
883Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 00:24
Jennifer Rubin with a strangely cogent column on the whole women in the military flap.

I still think this is a non-starter issue it it wasn't for the conservative media's slavishness toward being stenographers for Far Right politicos like Santorum.
 
884sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 15, 2012, 01:08
My seething with Trotta's comments, arent so much with the GOPs posturing against women in combat, as with a REAL issue when she said women joining the military should EXPECT to be raped and the military should not spend money investigating, counseling and prosecuting for those rapes BECAUSE, the military is there to protect her and not its uniformed personnel. (apologies for the run on)
 
885sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 18:18
not exactly "on" FDOX news...

Americans like the idea of freedom of religion,. except for Muslims

The following, is why I put the article here:

But perhaps the most interesting correlation found was the one between tolerance of Muslim and most trusted news source. According to Jones, "the most powerful independent predictor" of viewing American and Muslim values at odds is indicating that one trusts Fox News the most among TV news outlets. Fox Newsies are at least 50 percent more likely than supporters of any other outlet to find a clash in values...
 
886Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 04:55
CNN - Anchors and Reporters -- Soledad O'Brien

Soledad O’Brien is the anchor for CNN morning show Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien and special correspondent for CNN/U.S.

...



Mark 0:16 - 0:23


Roberta Flack: "Let's have a little Obama Bump"

Soledad: "Absolutely" (bumps)
 
887Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 10:35
Sarge#885

Fox Newsies are at least 50 percent more likely than supporters of any other outlet to find a clash in values.

Do you think rape victims should be offered the choice of converting to Islam, marrying their rapist...or being stoned to death as prostitutes?

No?

Then you have something in common with Fox viewers.
 
888DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 10:52
Do you think children (and their parents) should be discouraged by their church from reporting molestation to the police, under threat of excommunication from the church?

Yes?

Then you have something in common with Fox viewers.


Easy game, this.
 
889Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 10:54
Somebody took too much of their hating on Muslims pills this morning. Didn't the FOX Pharmacy put a label on the thing?
 
890Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 11:00
Someone will have to explain to me what is so appalling about that video. Is it that the political right has become so jaded and anti-patriotic as to have reached the point that any show of support for a non-Republican sitting president (including one initiated by a non-political celebrity guest on her way to a celebrity burial at the end of a segment that was probably about a celebrity death) is somehow a display of partisan bias?
 
891DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 11:10
I'd replace "partisan bias" with "literally hating America and probably God too", but you have the right idea.
 
892Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 11:11
Any reference to the Democratic President must be accompanied by cynicism, derision, or skepticism. It is one of the Conservative Media Laws.

Otherwise you are just biased.
 
893Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 11:36
I've been trying to think of what kind of response Wilmer and Newsbusters would have found appropriate.

'Sorry Roberta but you'll have to bump your own fist. Here at CNN it's against our ethics to ever show support for the President of the United States.'

Does anyone really believe that any respectable media organization has ever claimed to uphold such a standard?

 
894Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 12:28
I have no trouble imagining Brit Hume politely counter-offering just a fist-bump.

Especially anyone who makes a king's ransom from their reputation as an objective source of news.
 
895sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 13:14
There is no one on FOX, who is an "objective source of news".
 
896Mith
      ID: 50151411
      Wed, Feb 22, 2012, 13:30
I don't ever watch CNN's morning show so I don't know how hard they try to keep the news delivery but I doubt it keeps up the standard of those networks' flagship news evening news programs.

I doubt you'd see Blitzer or Baier interview Roberta Flack and Jessie Jackson in studio on the death of Whitney Houston, so I don't think Hume's former role at FNC quite applies.

That said, you are talking about the Brit Hume who I described in post 59 as literally scoffing at the absurdity that John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama 2008 is relevent? Sure.

You're going to lose this argument every time. In poking around youtube on the offchance that I could find the clip, I ran into several reports that display the blatant double standard at that network. For example; trashing Edwards for earning $55,000.00 for a speaking engagement at some college during the previous year. Newt Gingrich likes to talk about helping the poor all the time. Does FOX even permit a comparable critcal argument from their staff about his boasting that he earns $60k for speaking engagements?
 
897Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 15:02
Jon Stewart, with usual humor, takes on FOX for literally reading RNC talking points on air and other puppetmaster tells: FOX News: Rooting for America to Fail Since November 2008.
 
898sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 00:42
 
899Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 00:23
I'm sure this is nothing like what MITH does.
 
900Mith
      ID: 50151411
      Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 12:57
Great. They've deconstructed the whole process for the world to see. Now any imbecile can produce TV news. We're all ****ed.

Actually much of what I currently do is the opposite. Newsgathering agencies bring in video from partner affiliates and make it available to the rest of the members. The agreement doesn't include any material that we don't have access to, so we strip out things like file video, third party material, most images and sound of reporers and whatever else we don't have distribution rights for. Like a news video chop shop.
 
901Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 16:40
FOX News anchor tweet: Did Obama plot to kill Chelsea Clinton?

This is what happens when you stop emphasizing intelligence and overemphasize partisanship in the role of "news anchor."
 
902sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 17:40
Monica Crowley's Sandra fluke tweet

Fox News' Monica Crowley reacted to news that Sandra Fluke is engaged by tweeting "To a man?" on Thursday.

sanctimonious twits over at fox.
 
903Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 17:51
A pithy statement, by a pithy "journalist." If she'd thought for a moment, she'd realize that lesbians don't need birth control.
 
904Boldwin
      ID: 48351195
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 10:57
And feminist activists need a man like a fish needs a bike.

I have that from numerous good authorities.
 
905Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 11:12
Haha. A statement completely undercut by the facts of this issue. Nicely done: "Feminists don't need men!" in response to an issue about one getting married.

Your "good authorities" are idiots.
 
906Boldwin
      ID: 48351195
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 11:56
Your "good authorities" are idiots.

See? It's not like we never agree. 8>
 
907Tree
      ID: 513522810
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 11:56
And feminist activists need a man like a fish needs a bike.

you've very clearly never been involved with a feminist. the most interesting, most fun, most amazing women i've been involved with on a romantic level, have been feminists.

and one of the women i admire most - my step-mother - has been married to my father for over 31 years.

she was the very first feminist i remember meeting.


I have that from numerous good authorities.

as we've shown time and time again, your "authorities" usually don't know bupkis.
 
908Boldwin
      ID: 48351195
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 17:08
*Spelling it out for one who couldn't hope to catch subtle if his life depended on it*

...in this case my 'authorities' are the feminists who made that their slogan.

So yeah, in this case my authorities don't know bupkis and they are idiots.
 
909sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 18:26
what exactly B, do you define as a feminist? And why does it require a feminist vs a human, to say to the school...your faculty gets BC coverage, why not the student body? And dont bother with the freedom of religion BS cause the FACULTY GETS THE BC COVERAGE.
 
910Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 19:00
Well, I'm a feminist who doesn't need a man. Guess I proved the idiots right.

Not sure why that is important to them, however.
 
911Boldwin
      ID: 48351195
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 19:02
Thank you for reminding the Catholic university to be more consistently faithful to their tenants. Ideally they will remove the offending coverage.
 
912sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 19:12
no B. They are apparently only practicing their religious tenants, in denying the coverage to students.
 
913Boldwin
      ID: 48351195
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 19:32
Stay with me here...that would be inconsistently faithful. Now reread #911 with comprehension this time.
 
914sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 19:55
now YOU pay attention..it isnt about freedom of religion. Its about old men, controlling womens health care and thereby controlling women. THAT, is all it is about.
 
915Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 20:51
The only think the far right has to fall back on, sarge, is that this is a "religious freedom" issue. Because they lose on virtually all other measures.

It is their trump card. But they played it too early.

Once again Obama will carry the Catholic vote while the bishops wail and gnash their teeth.
 
916sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Apr 28, 2012, 21:00
Agreed PD. And FWIW, I think the Vaticans recent chastisement of the Order here in the US which has been apparently "too vocal" on social issues and "too quiet" on Church doctrine, is only going create sympathy (ie, votes) for those same social issues.
 
917Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 08:45
So religious freedom isn't a sufficient enough right that we should allow it to be overruled?

I would argue that it is a very good trump card. The employers are not arguing that their employees can be fired for taking it, they just won't pay for it directly.

 
918Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 11:15
It is only a trump card if true, Frick.

But it isn't. There is no religious freedom being utilized in forcing employees of affiliated groups to not have contraception coverage (not active church goers, or direct church employees. Remember that churches themselves are already exempt. And the churches don't have to pay for the coverage).

"Religious freedom" is now code for "having to do something I don't wanna do."

This is a overly politicized Catholic bishops group forcing this entire issue. One at odds with the nuns who do most of the actual work (for which we see the Church's response to that, now), as well as the laity).

The conservative direction of the church has been plotted for some time and, with Pope Benedict on the seat in Rome (hardly a guy to embrace a more open Church) this coming election season will see increasingly screechy efforts on the part of the bishops to deliver the faithful to the GOP. Causing even more fracturing as bishops lose touch with those of us in the seats.

We had a similar problem here in the Scranton diocese with Bishop Joseph Martino.
 
919Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 11:34
Maybe we are discussing slightly different groups. I'm not sure who all of the unaffiliated groups are, but I'm thinking of the Universities and Hospitals who are affiliated. I work for an affiliated University, the President is a Catholic priest and a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross.

The Congregation of Holy Cross is an affiliated organization, but doesn't always bow to the Bishops. See the controversy that occurred when Obama was asked to speak at commencement.

From a fiscal perspective the University would probably save money by paying for birth control and/or vasectomies. But they don't, as they don't approve of birth control as part of their religious ideology. I agree that the majority of practicing Catholics disagree with the church, but that doesn't matter until the church changes their stance.

Why shouldn't affiliated religious organizations that subscribe to a specific set of values, be forced to ignore them. Does freedom of religion stop at the doors of a church? I'm only making the argument for the affiliated organizations.

 
920sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 11:47
My contention Frick, specifically re Georgetown Univ and Sandra Fluke...

Georgetown declines to provide BC for students HOWEVER, it's employees policy DOES provide BC coverage. That they provide it for one group and not the other, belies their claim of religious freedom. If that were the true basis for declining coverage for the students, they would NOT provide said coverage for the faculty.
 
921Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 11:49
The hospital is exactly the group that the bishops want to keep from having contraceptive access (another group is the universities).

From a fiscal perspective the University would probably save money by paying for birth control and/or vasectomies

I think you are probably right. But the University isn't being asked to provide this step. The compromise was that the insurance companies would pay 100% for the coverage in question. The University (and by extension, the Church) wouldn't have to pay a single dime themselves for the coverage.

This is not enough for the bishops, who don't want the employees to have that coverage.

 
922Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 15:26
Sarge, to clarify. Georgetown does provide BC to employees, is it covered by Georgetown at all? I know that my wife can get a BC prescription, but we have to pay for it 100%, although we do get a discount.

How does the law work when the University is self-insured? Does that qualify for an exemption? And do you honestly believe that insurance companies aren't going to pass the additional cost directly back to affiliated religious organizations?
 
923Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 15:43
Self-insurance relieves an organization from many (probably most) of the state laws regarding insurance coverage, including the requirements for contraceptive coverage that most states have.

In fact, one of the reasons many Catholic dioceses decided to go self-insurance was to sidestep those kinds of regulations on the state level.

Georgetown provides contraceptive coverage for non-birth control reasons for students. I would guess the employee contracts are worded similarly.

Scranton University (the closest Catholic school to me) has a similar policy.
 
924sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 16:04
apologies Frick. I thought I had posted this link the other day:

Georgetown President says we will continue to provide Birth Control coverage for our employees

The rule exempts religious institutions and affiliated organizations from providing the benefit and offers employers a year-long grace period to implement the measure.

And while some Catholic colleges have responded to the controversy by stripping contraception from their plans, Georgetown University — the nation’s first Catholic institution of higher learning — has announced that it will not adopt any changes to its health insurance policies and will continue to provide birth control coverage to its employees. In a letter obtained by ThinkProgress dated April 26, 2012, President John J. DeGioia informs the Georgetown community that the University will offer contraception “for students who require them for health reasons unrelated to birth control,” and will institute “no change to the University’s approach to contraceptive coverage for employees”


It is only for the students, where Georgetown seems to find it against their religious convictions, to provide BC coverage, EVEN THOUGH, the students pay 100% of the premium FOR their coverage.
 
925sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 16:24
G'town U apparently DOES provide contraception coverage for employees.

One of America's oldest Catholic universities will continue to cover birth control for its employees, a left-leaning blog reports.


link

Georgetown University provides plans with and without contraception and abortion, according to Julia Green
Bataille, associate vice president for communications.
Georgetown University's two plans that include abortion and artificial contraception are fully insured and
therefore legally required to include state coverage guidelines, said Bataille. The District of Columbia, where
Georgetown is located, does not mandate either contraception or abortion, according to a table compiled by the
National Catholic Bioethics Center. Bataille said Georgetown benefit managers say because the plans are also
licensed in Maryland and Virginia, states with contraceptive mandates, they must cover contraception. She did
not explain why abortion is covered.



link2
 
926Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 16:50
This is about the time the House GOP finds that their own insurance covers these kinds of things and they are shocked! shocked! to find this out.
 
927Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 30, 2012, 17:16
Maureen Dowd: "How do you take spiritual direction from a church that seems to be losing its soul?"
 
928sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Mon, May 07, 2012, 23:10
link

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Fox News contributor, tea party activist and personal friend of Sean Hannity’s said in a sermon recently published to YouTube that America’s greatest mistake was allowing women the right to vote, adding that back in “the good old days, men knew that women are crazy and they knew how to deal with them.”

you gotta be kidding me.
 
929Khahan
      ID: 30223147
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 10:03
Sarge, did you read the article or actually watch the video? If you watched the video you would know it is edited. His message is cut up. Whoever posted it took the time to make the presentation come off a certain way. That in and of itself makes it suspect.

Now, this guy seems sleazy. I can easily believe he's got some whacked out views. But that whole article centered around a video edited by somebody with an agenda is just worthless as proof of anything.

If they really had the goods on this guy and wanted to show how bad he was, why edit his video?
A dishonest story about a (probably) dishonest person.
 
930sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 11:00
watched enough of the vid to know that he in fact made the comments, and has appeared repeatedly on FOX. The GOP and FOX raised absolute hell over a black Rev that Obama had a loose association with, so why is it OK for them to maintain their apparent relationship here? The hypocrisy, in addition to the lunacy, is my complaint K.
 
931Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 12:21
I'll be honest, I'm not going to waste my time watching it, but is it comparable to the ACORN video? A video that was edited to spin an event in a way that promoted what the producer wanted.

We still have freedom of speech, which protects Fox and Peterson.

I said it in another thread. People put outlandish and spun ideas on a site and then sit back and laugh when it goes viral and generates tons of page views. Those page views in turn generate revenue for the producer of the content. So producers of content make content that is outlandish, but causes both sides to visit the site.

My suggestion, don't link or click on those stories.
 
932Khahan
      ID: 30223147
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 12:42
I'll be honest, I'm not going to waste my time watching it, but is it comparable to the ACORN video? A video that was edited to spin an event in a way that promoted what the producer wanted.

Without knowing what is edited out, its tough to know Frick. Its 12 mins long so I can't imagine they edited to keep it short.

The edits are cut aways and fades. But are they cutting out a few seconds of him taking a drink from a glass of water or are they cutting out a set up where he's telling a story about somebody he was talking to who actually had these ideas?

I don't see my views on this that different from how I approach the Trayvon Martin thread. There are obviously holes in the information. Form a basic opinion, but don't render a final judgement or convict the guy until those holes are filled in.
 
933Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 12:44
It is a video of the guy talking. No spin.

Nobody is talking about freedom of speech (in fact, freedom of speech is what allows us to hear yahoos like this). The point isn't that FOX doesn't have the right to air crazy and extremist positions. It is that large portions of the population believe those to be somewhat mainstream because they are being presented by FOX as such.

I've see a slight walkback on this, in that the guy was originally characterized as a FOX News contributor but apparently he is more accurately described as an occasional guest.
 
934Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 13:01
I havent watched the video or read the link and dont know anything about that video and dont care to. But for the record, the idea that women's suffrage is where America started to go wrong is not exactly rare on the hard right. Ann Coulter has publicly expressed this opinion numerous times and I'm quite sure that with a few minutes with google I could find numerous well-known conservatives also espousing the notion. I could be wrong but I believe we've also seen a half-hearted defense of that of that opinion here from Boldy.
 
935Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 16:12
I think that Peterson is an idiot with those claims, but Fox is playing to their audience. The fact that their audience is composed of mainly right leaning idiots is not a new concept.

To argue that a video has no spin because it is him just talking is wrong. If it is not a single video, unedited it is spun. The degree to which is spun is open for debate as Khahan said, but you can't say it has no spin.

Why can't Fox air crazy and extremist positions? Should Keith Oberman be censored from the air as well?
 
936Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 16:22
Why can't crazy people spout crazy things? No one here is really making that argument. Only that continually airing crazy stuff on the public airwaves cheapens the debate.

If it is not a single video, unedited it is spun

You should probably have looked at the link before you wrote that. The video in question is at the bottom of the page and is a straight 6 minute video of the program itself.
 
937Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 16:29
I apologize, I was going off of Khahan's comments.

I don't disagree that it cheapens the debate. I also don't think that giving it attention helps the matter. Looking at Fox and Rupert Murdoch they/he love the controversy. More eyeballs means more money and that is what drives the media on both sides.
 
938Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 17:03
. The video in question is at the bottom of the page and is a straight 6 minute video of the program itself.

Just to clarify, PD and I are referring to 2 different videos.

The video I watched from the link was a tad over 12 mins and is an excerpt from his actual sermon.

PD is referring to the Fox News clip.

 
939Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, May 08, 2012, 17:14
The original kerfuffle is from the FOX News piece, from Sean Hannity's show. The other video is just confirmation that he's a yahoo from an earlier sermon of his.

Both videos, of course, accurately represent his views and are not, IMO, "spin" in the sense that we all seem to mean it (which is to take content and add political context so as to reflect another, larger point).
 
940Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Wed, May 09, 2012, 05:35
This is just more liberal scratching around for a strawman they can fight this November.

No Republicans aren't coming to take away your vote, no they aren't coming to take away your SS, no they don't want granma and small children to starve in the streets.

Clinton was right. It's the economy stupid.

Yes liberals are killing America and in favor of killing America, until it looks just like that corpse over in Europe.
 
941sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Wed, May 09, 2012, 13:36
you mean, like Sweden?
 
942Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, May 09, 2012, 13:47
killing America and in favor of killing America

You're either willfully talking out of your ass or you spent the last decade in willfull choice of associating with deliberate enemies of the state for the purpose of personal leisure.

Which?
 
943Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, May 09, 2012, 15:00
No Republicans aren't coming to take away your vote

Haven't been keeping up with the "voting fraud" laws the GOP are trying to ram through, are you? Yes, they are indeed trying to restrict voting.

Meanwhile, a ham-fisted attempt to make this about the economy (where I'm guessing you think you are on more solid ground) isn't going to help. The economy is slowly but surely coming around, and all Romney has is that he would have done virtually everything different that helped turn us around.
 
944Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Wed, May 09, 2012, 23:48
No Republicans aren't coming to take away your vote

This presumes you have the legal right to vote.

And they say there is no difference between the parties.
 
945DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, May 09, 2012, 23:51
"No Republicans aren't coming to take away your vote

This presumes you have the legal right to vote.
"

And of course happen to have the specific ID needed -- even though there are plenty of people that don't that have the legal right to vote.

In other words, LOL Boldwin.
 
946Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 01:10
This presumes you have the legal right to vote.

This is self-referential. For example, if a state instituted a $1000 poll tax, and someone couldn't pay it, this would mean they didn't have the "legal right" to vote.

The problem is obvious: barriers to voting are instituted in order to restrict otherwise legal voters from going to the polls. The GOP does so because they know they can't convince those kinds of voters from voting Republican, so they try to keep them from voting at all.
 
947Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 03:44
You know perfectly well the issue involved is how many illegal aliens and felons end up voting anyway.

And we know which side of the law you are on.
 
948Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 10:40
And we know which side of the law you are on.

most people who read this board smirk when you say something like this, as they're aware you've praised criminals, and their criminal acts, a multitude of times on these boards.
 
951Perm Dude
      ID: 14591012
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 14:23
You know perfectly well the issue involved is how many illegal aliens and felons end up voting anyway.

Actually, no one does. The fact that your fantasy is perfectly clear to you doesn't, in fact, make it true.

Illegal aliens don't vote. For the most part, they stay under the radar as much as possible--they aren't going to go out of their way to draw attention to themselves.

I actually agree with Santorum on the issue of felons voting. But I guess Rick Santorum is far too liberal for your tastes. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of the massive felon voting that the the Right's poor excuse to making voting difficult for citizens.
 
952Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 16:05
In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.
And if you had your way it would be ten percent.
 
953Seattle Zen
      ID: 37421017
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 18:07
You can't jump to the conclusion that people in jury pools = people on voting rolls. In WA, jury pools are taken from driver's license lists and you need not be a citizen of the US to get a WA driver's license.

Any chance this will change's Baldwin's mind...?
 
954Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 19:28
Nope.

Next, he'll start alarmingly quoting the voting percentage of felons in prison voting in states like Maine (where they are allowed to vote from prison).
 
955sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Thu, May 10, 2012, 19:58
Rep Nat Lawyers Assoc survey on voter fraud

The evidence, does not support your claims B. Nor, does it support all these voter suppression laws.
 
956Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, May 11, 2012, 03:02
 
957Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 19:31
This seems kinda harsh:

Write a book on FOX and we'll cancel your newspaper subscription.
 
958Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 21:19
Obama gets carted off by the NYC soft drink police.
 
959sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 01:16
various quotes re Fox

“Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush
 
960Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 12:41
Which is a strange quote from a guy who is working for the Democrats.
 
961Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 12:44
And yours is not so strange a reply for a guy who no longer looks at content but on spinning the background of the speaker.
 
962sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 12:45
^ which is not a strange quote from a guy who wouldnt know the truth, if it stomped on his foot and slapped him in the face.
 
963Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 13:08
I read every gaseous word of your link, PD.

Starting at the bottom, including the guy who works for George Soros pretending to be a FAIR media critic.

Including the communist Senator pretending to be an independent.

Including the guy George Soros hired to dog FOX news 24/7 discussing objectivity.

Including the Minnesota critic speaking from the state that stole the last Senate election from the republican who won it.

Including the NYT critic who works for the world's foremost example of pretending to be objective while working 24/7 for one political party.

Including the spokesman from Salon.com whose forum went pay-to-post to shake off the conservative posters since Salon TableTalk couldn't handle the truth.

Including Miss Piggy. There was a credibility booster.

Quoting Ed freaking Schultz complaining about bias in the media. Really?

Quoting an Iranian operative. Really think that helps?

"make you wish that the ghost of Joseph Welch would enter the studio and inquire, at long last, after Mr. O’Reilly’s sense of decency.”

Appealing to the memory of the hero of communist subversion in America in wishing we still had a 'democrat-only' media.

Wow.
 
964sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 13:18
I read every gaseous word of your link, PD.

really? want to bet?
 
965Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 13:29
If we could find a referee I trusted, and I wasn't against gambling.
 
966Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 13:33
I read every gaseous word of your link, PD.

Which link would that be?
 
967Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 13:35
No, you are actually right. I didn't read anything below Short URL: http://samuel-warde.com/?p=383, comments

I didn't read every last bolded category in the header.

But I read every word between those two areas including the Trudeau part and the tweet part.
 
968Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 13:36
Lol...ok I get it, it was Sarge's link. Usually it is PD prevaricating in the 'he didn't read my link' category.
 
969Mith
      ID: 35545117
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 16:04
The video in question:



According to the hosts, a producer spent two weeks working on that every day.


every gaseous word of your link... wow

Including those from Ed Morrissey and Johna Goldberg?

Regardless, how about judging those opinions about the video with the benefit of actually having seen the thing rather than solely on your existing opinion of the sources? I've gonme and done the work for you. Just hit play.

Objective? Fair? Balanced? You decide.
 
970sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 17:53
Newt says "More people have been put on food stamps by Barrack Obama, than by any other President in our history:.

TRANSLATION: Pres Obama has fed more Americans, than any other American President in our nations history.


Now, WTF exactly; is the problem with that?
 
971Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 19:54
Spoken like a true liberal. Won't be happy until every last one of us is a slave and a total dependent on big brother and has zero hope of anything better.
 
972sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 20:08
you mean, till there is a full dinner plate on every table?

How dare you, root against such, while claiming to be Christian? Sound a lot more like a Roman noble, ready to throw some to the lions.
 
973Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 20:29
How dare you engage in the slave trade.
 
974Mith
      ID: 35545117
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 20:36
Much easier to bicker about what a failed presidential candidate said months ago than the actual topic, eh Boldy?
 
975sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 20:59
The entire video, is a series of cherry picked statements and more than a few mischaracterizations. A deliberate hatchet job, bearing as much resemblance to "fair and balanced", as would be a fist-fight between myself and one of my grandchildren.(the oldest of which is a 7 yr old granddaughter, FTR. Pretty safe bet I can whip her. Even in my current physical shape.)
 
976Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 07:07
A) That isn't the 5 O'clock evening news. That is the conservative analog of NBC's 'TODAY Show'. Considerably more restrained than 'The View'. As fair and balanced as Katie Couric or Matt Lauer.

And yes Katie Couric and Matt Lauer have the same effect on me as this piece has on you.

B) When you make 'Hope and Change' your campaign theme, expect a retrospective on hope and change in 4 years.

C) When you raise the national debt from 10-15 trillion eventually people are gonna notice.

D) When employment growth is one third of your own anemic projections people are gonna call it sluggish and maybe even alarming. Even on the news.

E) The stimulus was targeted at cushioning Obama's base more than it was at growing the economy. Deal with it. That's fair game for the news.
 
977Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 14:28
Deal with it.

Why, exactly? You mischaracterize the programs and expect is just to "deal with it?" I'm afraid we lack the ability (or willingness) to just shut off our brains like you folks do.
 
978sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 16:51
So now, you compare the journalistic integrity of FOX, with "The View"? Did I read that right? What exactly about "The View", causes you to think it is journalism, at all? It isn't...its pure opinion. A video "editorial page" if you will.
 
979Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 23:39
Read it again. *roll*
 
980Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 23:40
PD#977

You could win an olympic event in it.
 
981Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Jun 03, 2012, 23:56
Sarge
He's saying none of it is journalism and declaring their right to a free-for-all.

In other words, he's decided to pre-emptively forego the integrity of any future accusations of bias he will ever make about centrist and left-leaning opinion programming in order to avoid acknowledging any irresponsible activity on the part of FNC with regard to this video.

I'm cool with that.
 
982Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 00:33
Ditto. Baldwin doesn't seem to realize that he's just made any slams against the "MSM" moot with that position.

I guess reflexively excusing your "side" will do that...
 
983Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 01:13
MITH

Please try and stay above the trolls.

I was clearly delineating a continuum from least biased to most biased. The View is heavily and explicitly biased. Shows like 'Fox and Friends' and 'The Today Show' carry a certain amount of gravitas without conceding the perogative to express opinions. Putatively the evening news would be expected to be the most objective.

Now while I would argue the NYT and NBC are already in 'The View' bias territory with their flagship news product, you should acknowledge that there is a reasonable different standard of objectivity between the evening news and the 'Today Show'. One which applies equally between 'Fox and Friends' and regularly scheduled news coverage on Fox.

That expectation is reasonable and I'd be willing to extend that expectation to both sides. To be fair, so should you.
 
984sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 01:33
Except B, Fox "news", has stated "it's been said..."....when the people who said "it", were the Fox opinion people who were on just before the "news".

Like Miss Piggy said, "thats as absurd as calling Fox news...well...news"
 
985Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 02:17
For anyone with half a brain to even consider bothering to untwist that pretzel of an explanation you've offered Boldy, you'll have to come up a political video that aired on today that is as void of objectivity and balance as that. We're not talking about a live interview of a politically biased person who's opinions were not challenged by the hosts (you already expect that every hour on F&F).

This was different. It's an edited work researched and produced by a journalist over two weeks about the president's record of meeting his campaign promises. It's not that nothing in it was accurate, but that it willfully omitted any favorable facts or comments and misrepresented others while splicing campaign attacks from his political opponents with misleading graphics - literally - to the tune of a daunting soundtrack. The only possible motive at the onset of the project was to present the President unfavorably, making it completely indistinguishable from the harshest possible campaign advertisement, except that it was 6 or 7 times as long.

Please show me where Today or GMA or CBS Morning have ever produced something meeting that criteria.

The closest thing I can think of is when 60 Minutes 2 ran a story about W based on a forged document in 2004.

Of course for that no less prominant a media figure than Dan Rather was canned, even though we have no idea whether he knew the thing was a fake. FNC instead gives you the doublespeak of claiming the thing was unapproved at the exec level but also stands by their staff and then goes on to explicitly refuse to discuss their journalistic standards or how they enforce them.

Like a big fat middle finger pointe at anyone who might care about accuracy and objectivity in their information sources even when it might crimp their Obama-hatin' style.
 
986Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 05:52
you'll have to come up a political video that aired on today that is as void of objectivity and balance as that.

Anything Katie Couric has ever done on the 'Today Show'. She's a snarling foaming at the mouth attackdog of the left. Or hadn't you noticed?
 
987Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 06:24
If only you could for four minutes, step outside yourself and stop loving how biased she was ON THE EVENING NEWS



You don't even need to go back to her disgraceful hit pieces on Palin on the 'Today Show'. You can look at her pretending she was objective enuff for the evening news.
 
988Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 06:27
And while you are watching that, try and calculate what percentage of dogs love their masters as much as she adores Obama and Pelosi. She can be seen hardly able to restrain herself from actual boot-licking and submissive urination.
 
990Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 12:02
I deleted #989.

Someone who disingenuously pretends to not understand the importance of context in judging what other people say does not deserve the benefit of an explanation.

If you had the sufficient dementia or learning disability to be a senior citizen who really didn't understand I'd be more patient.

But someone who feigns stupidity to disregard what is right in front of his nose is too low to engage.
 
991sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 12:05
"disgraceful hit pieces on Palin"?

Are you living n reality? Scratch that, you are nit capable of accurately responding to that query.

PALIN, was the only disgraceful thing about that interview...

(C):"Can you name a newspaper you read regularly?..."

(P):"Oh....all of them"

yeah right...she reads EVERY newspaper printed, regularly. STUPID, beyond stupid, response to a straight forward question.

It wasnt a "hit piece" Boldwin, it was an expose. It exposed Palin, for the moronic twit she is. And FTR, it was Palin who absolutely cost the GOP any shot at winning in 2008.

 
992Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 13:43
Just because Palin ended up looking stupid doesn't make it a "hit piece." It means you might have a stupid candidate.
 
993Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 22:09
She can be seen hardly able to restrain herself from actual boot-licking and submissive urination.

One of my favorite and most telling and accurate sentences ever.
 
994sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Mon, Jun 04, 2012, 23:48
it is telling B. That you then come in afterwards and break your own arm, trying to pat your own back over it; disproves any future claim you make to being Christian.
 
995Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 00:18
actually, i think it's the "boot-licking" and "submissive urination" comments that it being his favorite sentence. he reads it over and over to himself in the dark.
 
996sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Jun 19, 2012, 21:50
Infoxication

About a month ago, we talked about an Occupational Safety & Health Administration effort to prevent heat illnesses among outdoor workers, which led Fox News' Fox Nation website to run this headline: "Obama Regime: Working Outdoors Can Kill You."
 
997Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 15:52
 
998Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 20:05
A conservative blogger must have thought he had a real scoop when he saw a liberal US senator socializing, and hugging, a member of the media. Oops.
 
999Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 20:21
Nice PD.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse. It gives everyone a voice that can be heard.
 
1000Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 16:25
 
1001Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 16:34
Amazingly haven't heard any liberals upset about Hollywood getting their tax break extended.
Section 181 of the IRC, which allows film makers to expense rather than amortize certain production costs and is the motion picture industry’s equivalent of the oil industry’s depletion allowance. HR 5793 would extend those tax write-off provisions for another two years. They were supposed to lapse at the end of 2011.
 
1002Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 17:00
So tax credits are no longer considered to be a jobs stimulus on the Right? Interesting.

Meanwhile, FOX is complaining that US Olympians are not patriotic enough.
 
1003DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Aug 04, 2012, 17:28
"Amazingly haven't heard any liberals upset about Hollywood getting their tax break extended."

Get ready to have a stroke -- sure, I don't think we ought to be giving that business a specialized tax break either.

I think it's totally great that you've come around on this topic and no longer think that we ought to be giving these sorts of tax breaks to businesses, after sucking off the Big Oil people for so many years. (That's it, right? You've come around? It's not that you're just being the massive hypocrite you're incorrectly accusing other people of being, is it?)
 
1004sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 00:53
FOX news identifies by name and city of residence, Seal Team 6 member...Al Qeada sites, call for his death

Earlier this week, Fox News revealed the name and information for one of the Seal Six members who led the raid which resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden. As a result of their lack of responsible journalism and lack of ethics, the life of an American hero is in danger.

As reported by NBC News today, Al Qaeda is now spreading the information freely given out by the media giant to their network of agents worldwide. They are doing so in order to “make an example of him” and call for his “destruction.” As responsible journalists, neither NBC nor Addicting Info are going to reveal this information. It was given in confidence, and out of respect both for the man as well as the danger we will not be part of any further risk to this true hero.
 
1005sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 21:33
Monica Crowley uses deth of Neil Armstrong, to perpetuate her right wing lies

Of course,this only adds to the insanity, as the “fact” turns out not to be fact at all, but instead an old, long discredited right-wing position. She refers to of course an interview on the Al Jazeera, where NASA Administrator Charles Bolden discussed the role NASA played for international relations, and how over the years it has reached out to the Muslim world, including a compliment and reminder of the role of science in the Islāmic community:
 
1006sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 18:19
link

Using the 2009 Unemployment figure and comparing to the 2012 unemployed + underemployed + gave up combined; to speak ill of the President.
 
1007Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 18:25
Man I gotta start checking your links before clicking. That site is terrible.
 
1008sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 18:31
that site, is quoting FOX and has their vid embedded. Like the site or not, that content is on target.

 
1009Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 18:42
Their assessments and sensationalism are not. Kind of self defeating to use them to complain about another outlet.
 
1010sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Sep 12, 2012, 18:57
I suppose I could have searched for different link, to the exact same video. For some reason, I didnt, and still dont, find it necessary to shoot the messenger.
 
1011Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 10:35
Didn't know where to put this, but I was pleased to see a fair and balanced report on Fox news.

Free birth control leads to fewer abortions

Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concludes. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.

The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.

There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.

In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert's team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.


Hard to understand why anyone would oppose this. Fewer unwanted pregnancies, fewer abortions, fewer poor, single moms and their babies on the welfare rolls. What's not to like?




 
1012Boldwin
      ID: 40937423
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 10:51
More screwing around.
 
1013biliruben
      ID: 21841115
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 11:01
Are you suggesting you are willing to put up with more abortions if fewer teens have sex? I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really mean that.
 
1014Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 11:12
It is a tough thing for the pro-life crowd--you gotta give them some slack, bili. On one hand they get their stated lifegoal of fewer abortions in this country. On the other hand they have to put up with the idea of young people having sex without the consequences of having to go to an abortionist.

The pro-life crowd, by and large, have no Plan B. Once you take the possibility of repealing Roe v Wade off the table, they flop around like beached fish at what their goal is then. I've tried to get many, many of my fellow pro-lifers to think about what they would do "if Roe v Wade is never repealed." The look they give me is utterly blank, bili.
 
1015Tree
      ID: 44942510
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 11:54
i was thinking the same thing as 2013. more sex with less abortions, or less sex with more abortions.

i don't even see how anyone can chose the latter.
 
1016boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 12:43
Ill answer that with my conspiracy of the day: The right or more specifically big business, by encouraging unwanted pregnancies and discouraging abortions they increase the potential size of the unskilled labor force which means they will have more willing applicants to work low skilled jobs at lower wages.
 
1017Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 12:51
Nice one, boikin!
 
1018Boldwin
      ID: 40937423
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 13:32
bili
Are you suggesting you are willing to put up with more abortions if fewer teens have sex?

No, I'm willing to close down all the abortion mills. And I'm not interested in telling kids 'go screw around all you want'.


PD


Once you take the possibility of repealing Roe v Wade off the table

Why would they ever do that?
 
1019biliruben
      ID: 21841115
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 13:35
2+2=34i

I see.
 
1020Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 13:50
Why would they ever do that?

Roe v Wade has been the law of the land for 40 years now. And the pro-life movement is doing nothing else to reduce the number of abortions in this country.

Millions of abortions, because the pro-lifers are inflexible in how they approach a difficult issue.

Why, indeed? Apparently being pro-life means acting in ways which allow millions of abortions. Who knew?
 
1021Boldwin
      ID: 40937423
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 14:00
And the pro-life movement is doing nothing else to reduce the number of abortions in this country.


We are closing down abortion mills left and right.
 
1022Tree
      ID: 53555306
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 14:19
or, ya know, you could look at the numbers, and realize that birth control reduces the number of abortions.

but I'm not sure facts have ever mattered to zealots.
 
1023Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 14:21
Onward Christian soldiers! The neocons of that movement have completely taken over.
 
1024slug
      ID: 167132313
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 16:37
"We are closing down abortion mills left and right."
does not equate to fewer abortions, maybe fewer reported abortions
 
1025sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 16:38
maybe, But it definitely means, denying their civil rights to more and more women.
 
1026Building 7
      ID: 87592712
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 17:21
There is no Roe vs. Wade law.
 
1027sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 17:27
No, but their is a constitutional right, upheld by the RvW decision. Like it or not, thems the apples you got.
 
1028Boldwin
      ID: 40937423
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 17:42
Abortion wasn't 'upheld' by RvW. It was created out of whole cloth by a liberal court intent on creating it.
 
1029sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 17:58
Was Boldwin, or was not..this nation founded upon freedoms? Personal freedoms, where the individual was free to make their own CHOICES? Is that, or is it not, the very bedrock upon which our nation was built?

Science, has not determined at what point a fetus, is a living human being. That, leaves us making this call, premised upon our own moral compasses. Many of which, are theologic in their driving force. Yet, our Bill of Rights, ays out that our Government shall pass no law, infringing upon ones INDIVIDUAL freedoms of Religion. So if my moral compass is somewhat different from yours in that regard, that is perfectly alright, UNDER OUR LAWS.

Get over yourself. You have no more right to legislate that my daughter can not have an abortion, than I have right to legislate that yours MUST have one.
 
1030Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 19:16
Actually it was upheld. Some states had it in some form, some did not.

The Right isn't going to learn to solve problems if it continues to insist on revising history.
 
1031Boldwin
      ID: 40937423
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 20:23
Get over yourself.

And neither you or anyone else has the right to kill anyone who hasn't been convicted in a court of law.
 
1032Boldwin
      ID: 40937423
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 20:25
Or isn't coming at you with the obvious intention to do you grieveous harm.
 
1033sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 20:26
I dont see a 1st or 2nd trimester abortion, as killing anyone. Nor, does most of America.
 
1034Boldwin
      ID: 40937423
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 20:55
Anyone else on your unperson list?
 
1035sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Oct 05, 2012, 20:58
there are those, who one might think are trying to get on it. But since the fetus is not a person, it can not be an :unperson" either.
 
1037Tree
      ID: 57842011
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 02:21
none of your hysterical and incorrect claims change the fact that you want more teenagers to get pregnant by having unprotected sex.
 
1038Boldwin
      ID: 37932618
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 06:21
Liberals love the idea that the best way to treat kids is to convince them there are safe and easy ways to have consequence free immorality.

Which is crazy on every level.
 
1040sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 14:13
wasnt sure where to put this.

Stewart debates OReilly, Mayor of Bullsh*t Mountain
 
1042Tree
      ID: 57842011
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 18:22
Liberals love the idea that the best way to treat kids is to convince them there are safe and easy ways to have consequence free immorality.

no.

the lesson here is that if you're going to choose to have sex - and make no bones about it, they are absolutely making that choice - it's best to be safe about it.

by the time they're 19, 70% of teens have had sex.

from the same source, TEENS ARE WAITING LONGER TO HAVE SEX THAN THEY DID IN THE RECENT PAST. (something that completely defies your ridiculous "liberals blah blah blah" claim.)

and here's a biggie - A sexually active teen who does not use a contraceptive has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.

that's why we want teens who are having sex to use condoms when doing so. if they're going to have sex, don't get pregnant. simply saying "Hey teens, don't have sex!" is to be ignorant and have no grasp on reality.



 
1043Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 18:29
We've also got plenty of evidence from other countries that have a similar teen sex rate in which birth control is openly and freely available--those countries have lower pregnancy rates (and, as a result, a much, much smaller number of abortions).

You want to reduce the number of abortions in this country? Increase birth control information and availability.
 
1044sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 19:14
So easy, so simple, so logical. Reduce abortion demand? Reduce unintended pregnancy and ... VIOLA!
 
1045DWetzel
      ID: 25740420
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 19:27
While I agree with your general sentiments, I don't see what stringed instruments have to do with this, Sarge.
 
1046sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Oct 07, 2012, 20:33
*looking for a BFR*
 
1047Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 17:11
FOX psychiatrist: Biden maybe has dementia. Or was drunk.
 
1048sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Oct 15, 2012, 17:17
simple matter of Faux spews, pandering to their narrow minded core viewership.
 
1049Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 14:58
Bartlett publicist: Yep, FOX wasn't going to book Barlett after he published a book critical of GWB.

 
1050sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 19:10
Pullitzer Prize winning national security expert Tom Ricks, interview suddenly cut short after he says what we all know anyway
 
1051Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Nov 28, 2012, 22:29
The best part of that whole story is that FOX said he later apologized when he didn't.
 
1052Razor
      ID: 177192916
      Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 09:32
That was hilarious. This is just as funny
 
1053sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 10:28
indeed MITH. Thanks for that one. It is VERY refreshing, to see/hear such candor. (And Ricks is IMHO, spot on re MSNBC.)
 
1054Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 17:20
Good job by Ricks. I like him.
 
1055sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Nov 29, 2012, 17:28
dayum...guess I shouldnt type before coffee. RAZOR, it was you I should have thanked in 1053. my bad
 
1056Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Nov 30, 2012, 01:01
War on Christmas!!!

 
1057Boldwin
      ID: 54115211
      Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 03:18
Say hello to partial Saudi ownership.
 
1058Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 10:37
I'd think JWs would more typically prefer the secular references, if they care at all.

What am I missing?
 
1059Boldwin
      ID: 54115211
      Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 12:44
1) It is troubling to see one of the last useful sources of information on the tube getting co-opted.

2) Christendom, like all forms of false religion deserves to fall and will fall shortly but the anti-religious animus evident in government and society is a sobering wake-up call. The siren is wailing over at great-tribulation.central.
 
1060sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 12:44
1) It is troubling to see one of the last useful sources of information on the tube getting co-opted.

explains...EVERYTHING.
 
1061sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 20:40
Fox News Jumps the Shark by Calling Their Own Viewers Socialists

Speaking of those Baby Boomers, a lot of them watch Fox News. The average age for a Fox News viewer is 65. Those over age 55 are Fox News’s largest age group. According to a Pew study, the largest segment of Fox News viewers by income (33%) make less than $30,000 a year.

THERE, is a large part of your 47%. They are watching FOX spews.
 
1062Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Dec 01, 2012, 21:50
A rich white guy and a tea party member sit down at a park bench with a box of Twinkies. The rich guy eats 9, gives one to the tea party guy, and tells him "Watch out--that union guy wants to take your Twinkie!"
 
1063Boldwin
      ID: 521116123
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 04:06
A union guy says, 'Here, let me make you a twinkie...oops, sorry, no can do.'
 
1064Boldwin
      ID: 521116123
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 07:25
Red Army Sings...
 
1065Boldwin
      ID: 521116123
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 07:34
BTW

Fox News Jumps the Shark by Calling Their Own Viewers Socialists

Let's not be ridiculous. Marxists and Americans are spread pretty evenly across all economic percentiles.
 
1066Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Sun, Dec 02, 2012, 10:31
One of the guests, who also said that all entitlements are abominations, described people who want to receive their full Medicare and Social Security benefits (rather than opt out) as "congenitally socialist".

The clip was cut off before we learned whether any of the other 5 guests on the air at the time or the host agreed.

That clip did not show me "Fox News... Calling Their Own Viewers Socialist".
 
1067Seattle Zen
      ID: 3310162612
      Fri, Dec 07, 2012, 19:22
Well, this wasn't FNC, but a Fox News affiliate in CO. What a load!


Fox News Caught Faking Again: Drivers On Cannabis

This participant went in undercover with a camera to expose the truth about "driving high" and the fact that Fox News designed the test to fail. The footage was edited -- and the tests themselves were manipulated, to make it seem as if driving under the influence of marijuana, even for experienced medicinal patients, in invariably means impairment.
 
1068sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 00:37
Fox headline: Rachel Madd-Cow gets grammy nomination?

Now, this might come as a surprise for you, but the right-wing pundits in this country do not like Rachel Maddow. She is an independent, successful, charismatic, funny, popular, lesbian. Only if she was a member of the Islamic faith (she actually was raised Roman Catholic) could they hate her any more. So, when the announcement for the next Grammy award nominees came out, Fox News spared no time in putting out this headline (note, there is no cropping or editing, in order to avoid any claims of alteration by the thin-skinned):
 
1069sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 23:32
Leftwing Westboro Baptist Church?!?!?!?!? Democrat Fred Phelps????
 
1070Boldwin
      ID: 311512322
      Sun, Dec 23, 2012, 23:56
Sarge

Is there anyone who helps you put christians into FEMA camps, more than him?
 
1071sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Dec 24, 2012, 00:12
I am not out to do anything to Christians Boldwin. I am and will however, call out phoney, wannabe, sanctimonious Christians, at every opportunity. Why Boldwin? Feeling guilty?
 
1072Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 20:46
FOX get cock blocked by Stewart as they start winding up the outrage machine over Gore's sale of Current TV to al Jazzera
 
1073Boldwin
      ID: 260151219
      Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 22:06
Fox themselves are seven percent owned by the Saudi prince who paid for Obama's education, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal.

I'd like that on a permanent Fox News logo in the lower right, "from those wonderful folks who brought you Obama."
 
1074Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Sat, Jan 12, 2013, 23:57
I will give you that Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, a very rich man, owns up to 7% of News Corporation. A giant global communications/entertainment company that has significant business in the Middle East. They also happen to own Fox News.

A bit of a stretch that "Fox themselves are seven percent owned by the Saudi prince". But sure ... OK.

This very rich man also owns a company called Rotana Group, the Arab World's largest entertainment company. Who has a 9% ownership in this company? The correct answer is News Corporation. It's just plain weird that an entertainment company would have interest in other entertainment companies in alternate markets. Not even Fox Mulder could comprehend this weirdness. A conspiracy is the only answer.

==
But Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal paying for Obama's education? I challenge you to find me ONE iota of actual evidence of this. From a legitimate news source. Not random blogs. Not InfoWars. Not the Lyndon LaRouche PAC. Nothing that has 'opinion' or 'commentary' in the url. And certainly not wnd.com.

Just ONE legitimate news source. That's all I'm asking for. You think you deserve respect? Time for some actual facts Boldwin. Back up your talk. Just ONE. That's all I want. You are proven wrong in thread after thread. Are you going to back up your stated "facts" this time, or demonstrate you are nothing but a tinfoil hat wearing yahoo from Illinois? Just one.
 
1075sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 01:01
<--wagers Tosh can accurately guess my prediction in response to his closing query.
 
1077Boldwin
      ID: 10042139
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 11:42
Let's get this straight, here's what you are saying.

1) Vernon Jarrett, who was a nationally syndicated columnist who's home base was the Chicago Suntimes, isn't a source we can look at and take seriously. Not mainstream enuff.

2) Vernon Jarrett hypes a Saudi 'build your own president' fund.

3) Vernon Jarrett's daughter-in-law becomes the defacto president of the USA with the aid of one of the beneficiaries of that fund.

4) You are seriously asking us to believe these are unrelated?





In a televised interview in 2008 on New York's all news cable channel, NY1, 88-year-old Percy Sutton, a former borough president of Manhattan and a credible mayoral candidate in 1977, made some interesting revelations about his links to the young Obama.

Sutton told NY1 reporter Dominic Carter on the show "Inside City Hall": "I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him." He asked Sutton to write a letter in support of Obama's application to Harvard Law School.

"The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas," Sutton said. "He is the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama."

Sutton recalled that al-Mansour said that "there is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?" Sutton did.

According to Newsmax columnist Kenneth Timmerman, "At the time, Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he (al-Mansour) was raising money for Obama's graduate school education, al-Mansour was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States." - Independent Business Daily
 
1080Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:25
post 77 links to an editorial.

so, a singular individual, who according to his family was suffering from dementia at the time, makes a claim not made since or previously.

a claim denied by the man in question.

additionally, previous to the above linked interview from NY1, Sutton had denied even knowing Obama.

Sutton's story is particularly difficult to follow at one point: that al-Mansour was "raising money" for Obama. Obama attended Harvard with the help of student loans, as the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet reported in detail at one point, writing that he had $42,753 in debt.

I left messages for al-Mansour and for Sutton, but haven't heard back. Sutton, an eminence in Harlem politics, has not been well lately, people who know him said; I also left a message for his son.

Sutton supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and was quoted saying of Obama at the time, "We don't know the other person in this election — we've never met him."


and finally: Mansour said he admires Obama, but first heard of him when a relative sent him a copy of Obama's 2004 convention speech.

"I've never met him," he said.


keep trying though. your efforts are ill-researched. cute, but ill-researched.
 
1081Boldwin
      ID: 540231311
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:37
Yeah, why would a guy who helped start the black panthers want to put some distance between himself and Obama? Because it furthers his own ends to do so.

Wright, Mansour, Sutton developed a useful amnesia.

BTW, there are other ways to develop amnesia. Just ask the Donald Young family.
 
1082Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:51
And yet, despite all the murmurings, third party claims and connect the dots theories, there's been no concrete evidence that a Saudi prince, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal,
paid for Obama's education.

4) You are seriously asking us to believe these are unrelated?

Not necessarily, but you're asking us to make extrapolations based on hearsay and unproven allegations. And you're presenting them as facts instead of speculation.
 
1083Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:55
In addition, Boldwin's disbelief that they are not unrelated isn't actual evidence.
 
1084Boldwin
      ID: 540231311
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 12:58
Short of providing you with Al Mansour or Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal's written confession, I've provided you with the next best thing. If Jarrett and Sutton's own words don't convince you, you are just willfully deaf, dumb and blind. Can't help you.
 
1085Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 13:12
If Jarrett and Sutton's own words don't convince you

Sutton said he didn't know Obama.

that you choose to ignore that fact, is your problem.

you enjoy tilting at windmills. the rest of us prefer the real world.
 
1086Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 13:31
Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he (al-Mansour) was raising money for Obama's graduate school education

Why the need for fund raising if Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal paid for Obama's education?
 
1087Boldwin
      ID: 540231311
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 13:40
Al Mansour was Talil's lawyer and advisor. He arranged the money, Sutton supplied a character reference to Harvard.
 
1088Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 13:43
you are just willfully deaf, dumb and blind

I'll take that as confirmation that you've lost the arguement. But Alinsky would be proud.
 
1089Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 14:49
...Sutton supplied a character reference to Harvard.

for who?? someone he didn't even know!?!?!
 
1090Boldwin
      ID: 80221316
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 17:29
 
1091Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 17:46
does deleting the post that previously contained that video, and then reposting it, somehow change things?

a younger, more lucid Sutton says he didn't know Obama.

His family says that by the time the above video aired, Sutton's family said he was suffering from dementia.

 
1092Boldwin
      ID: 80221316
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 17:53
I didn't delete it. Someone is helping you by deleting my strongest posts.
 
1093Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 18:32
if posting a video of a man suffering from dementia is your "strongest post", it's all quite telling.
 
1094Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 18:53
Well, the video in #1090 is more honest than Boldwin. It asks,

"Did Khalid al-Mansour raise money for Barack Obama?"

A legitimate question.

Boldwin:

Fox themselves are seven percent owned by the Saudi prince who paid for Obama's education, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal.

Stated as a fact. When I pointed this out before, the reaction was to call me deaf, dumb and blind. That was probably the post Boldwin considered his strongest.

 
1095Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Sun, Jan 13, 2013, 20:33
[1077] - Boldwin - I have asked for one iota of actual evidence from an actual news source, that does not say 'opinion' or 'commentary'. As pointed out, 1077 leads to a post that says 'editorial'. I guess I could have been more detailed and checked my thesaurus first. And yeah, I already read that website before you posted it, and it only took 15 seconds on Google to completely refute anything it claimed.

FoxNews. ABC. CBS. NBC. CNN. Pick one. Earn some respect. Just one legitimate news source.
 
1096Boldwin
      ID: 80221316
      Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 02:37
I posted a link to the video of the source telling you in his own words. Don't you trust your own eyes and ears? One of the parties active in Obama's education, and he spills all the details. It's just ludicrous that you paint this as insufficient.
 
1097sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 02:51
You posted a video of a man suffering from senile dementia, as he contradicts the statements he made prior to the dementia's onset.

THAT, is not evidence.
 
1098Boldwin
      ID: 80221316
      Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 04:19
Yeah, he invented that whole detailed story out of dementia. Uhuh.
 
1099Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 09:59
that whole detailed story

Here are the details. Sutton says al-Mansour asked him to write a letter to Harvard for Obama. Sutton says al-Mansour was raising money for Obama for school. Sutton says al-Mansour worked for Bin Talal.

Your claim(based on those details) - Bin Talal paid for Obama's education.

Sutton says al-Mansour was raising money, but provides no details. We do know that Obama attended Harvard with the help of student loans, as the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet reported in detail at one point, writing that he had $42,753 in debt. That's a detail.

You're confusing guessing with details.


 
1100Tree
      ID: 1910562515
      Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 10:48
Yeah, he invented that whole detailed story out of dementia.

it was the 3 minute rambling statement of a man suffering from dementia, and not much of a story.

i have sat with my grandmother, who while also suffering from dementia, spent 30 or more minutes describing in vivid details events that never happened. it's part of what happens sometimes with dementia patients.

one can watch the video, and see Sutton struggling with his words.

you, of course, are completely ignoring the fact that a few months before, Sutton had also said he didn't know a thing about Obama.

it's not convenient for your argument to accept that as truth, so it's just easier for you to ignore it.

 
1101Boldwin
      ID: 4014764
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 05:49
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal:
  • Called most influential arab in the world.
  • financed Obama's career.
  • Financed Rauf's 9/11 victory mosque thru his 'Kingdom Foundation'.
  • Second largest shareholder in News Corp., owner of Fox News.
  • Just skipped on a rape charge, drugging a Spanish model, raping her on his yacht, he of course 'wasn't there' and her mother drew an arrow pointing 'to the guy standing behind him' in a picture so the case had to be thrown out.
She's not the only one screwed.
 
1102Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Wed, Feb 06, 2013, 09:47
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal:

financed Obama's career.


First it was bin Talal paid for Obama's education, a claim which was never proven, now it's morphed into financed Obama's career.

Other than the incredibly weak links already provided, is there any genuine support for this claim?
 
1103sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 21:12
Shhhh…no one tell Fox News that the “wedding kiss” picture they’re using to accompany a piece about traditional gender roles is actually of a same sex couple

 
1104Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Feb 08, 2013, 21:13
HAHAHAHA! Nice.
 
1105Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Sat, Mar 02, 2013, 18:58
You may have seen these FOX graphics before...
 
1106Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 20:44
Completely unbiased poll question of the day.
 
1107Frick
      ID: 432501512
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 09:35
That's the worst thing you saw on Fox recently?

The poll is biased, but at this point, is there any rational person who thinks that Fox isn't biased?

 
1108Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 09:40
It's worse than biased. It's dishonest.
 
1109Boldwin
      ID: 10259219
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 11:02
That question seems perfectly logical and legitimate to me.
 
1110Tree
      ID: 0271015
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 11:05
That question seems perfectly logical and legitimate to me.

so does worshiping cop killers and lauding people who edit films in order to lie and defame others.
 
1112Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 12:16
perfectly logical and legitimate to me

That's either bald faced dishonesty or embarrassing ignorance of how our debt was created.

Personally, I think you're well aware that despite most of it amassed under Obama, it did not come from expenditures of his making.

Obama most certainly did not inherit a surplus.

Obama also did not start either of the two longest wars in American history. Nor did he decide to expense the entirety of their costs (and all related expenses) to the national debt.

Obama also did not oversee the economic downturn which resulted in years of decreased tax receipts and increased spending on social safety nets that have been on the books for decades.

Obama was also never given the opportunity to apply several consecutive years worth of record tax receipts to paying down the debt, unlike his predecessor.

And Obama, unlike his predecessor, has actually decreased the budget deficit every year he has been in office, starting with FY 2010, the first one that he did not inherit.
 
1113Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 12:33
The reason it is a biased question is because it leads the poll taker toward one response. The Far Right would prefer to make the content argument about the bias also being true, which misses the point. A poll is biased not because the points it raises are "true" but because it isn't soliciting honest responses.

Frick: The title of this thread is MITH's. I put it here not because it was the worst thing of the day, but an example of FOX pretending to be an unbiased source of information.
 
1114Boldwin
      ID: 10259219
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 17:00
I see, all this spending is really republican spending. Wow!
 
1115Boldwin
      ID: 10259219
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 17:10
See, how can I possibly retire from this place, even tho no one's mind here is open to change.

You guys are just endlessly entertaining! The guy won't even take the suggestions of his own Simpson-Bowles plan. Acts like his own sequestration plan, which doesn't even send the rate of spending downward, is hard-hearted and cruel...

...but the spending is Bush's fault! You can't make this stuff up.
 
1116Mith
      ID: 412561115
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 17:50
By all means, point to the legislation signed by Obama that caused the debt explosion.

And before you hide behind the skirt of Simpson/Bowles, you might recall that a committee supermajority was required to move it and the opposition came from the GOP. When it was introduced in the house with bipartisan cosponsors, congressional opposition was also bipartisan.

Either you aren't concerned with knowing your stuff or you aren't concerned with being honest about it. Either way, I lose for failing to ignore you.
 
1117Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 18:35
I, for one, have no problem with the debt, which was required to keep this country from toppling into the brink.

I would rather carry a debt on our country's credit card than suffer through 35% unemployment with little chance of getting out of the hole in the next generation.

That's what the government is for: A safety net (a macro safety net, if required).

I'm not going to enable to wackos by agreeing, even one iota, that this country would be better off if only we had no federal debt. This is a recipe for disaster, by a group still blinkered by the idea that deficits only matter when a Democrat is in the White House
 
1118Boldwin
      ID: 10259219
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 19:01
I was the first person on the right you ever met who was pointing out neocons were big-spending Trotskyites who had taken over the republican hierachy and betrayed the Reagan Revolution. But just pretend you weren't there when that happened.
 
1119Tree
      ID: 292462112
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 19:41
I was the first person on the right you ever met who was pointing out neocons...

no you weren't, but go ahead and enjoy that 7th deadly sin.

 
1120Boldwin
      ID: 10259219
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 21:05
As if you had any acquaintance with the truth.

Just type in trotskyite into the site search engine, and since you know I am the only one here who has ever used the term here, you will see I have been blowing the 'trotskyites have taken over the republican party' alarm for a long long time. Prolly even in threads which have timed out of the forum. I figured out Bush 'was not one of us' very very early into his term. Based on spending, initially.
 
1121Tree
      ID: 292462112
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 21:15
As if you had any acquaintance with the truth.

again. i don't praise those that distort the truth and lie with creative editing like you do. i don't praise cop killers like you do.

Just type in trotskyite into the site search engine, and since you know I am the only one here who has ever used the term here..

that doesn't make you the first person on the right you ever met who was pointing out neocons were big-spending Trotskyites...

it just makes you the first person on this board to use that word. would you like a cookie? or perhaps a medal to pin on one of the criminals and murderers you heap praise on.
 
1122sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 22:10
I see, all this spending is really republican spending. Wow!



Here, you deny GOP spending run amok,

I was the first person on the right you ever met who was pointing out neocons were big-spending Trotskyites who had taken over the republican hierachy and betrayed the Reagan Revolution.


Here, you state that it was the GOP spending problem AND you credit one who TRIPLED the national debt, with starting some sort of fiscal revolution.

disingeuous, on its surface.
 
1123Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 15:04
Oh, Greta.
 
1124Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Wed, May 08, 2013, 21:09
Damn commercial break.
 
1125Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 12:29
I was a liberal mole at FOX News.
 
1126Boldwin
      ID: 354382912
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 14:08
Great find. Too bad they didn't mention Talal's influence.
 
1127Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 14:16
Its a pretty safe bet that Joe Muto never felt or observed the slightest influence from Newscorp's Saudi minority shareholders. If there is any at all, it wouldn't be the kind of thing that is visible from his vantage because they certainly don't influence the day-to-day decision making there.
 
1128Boldwin
      ID: 354382912
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 14:46
If you don't think the second largest shareholder has any influence...wow. Without a doubt he feels the same way as CAIR. And can enforce it.
 
1129Mith
      ID: 4310402110
      Wed, May 29, 2013, 15:03
Not in the day-to-day operation he doesn't. Not on a network that profits from airing opinion programming that opposes Muslims and Middle Easterners on a near daily basis - a network that caters to people who believe a good way to disparage an opposition president is to promote the idea that he is Islamic or sympathetic to Muslims.

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are, Boldwin. Talal's influence is barely felt, if at all, if ever.

I know, I know you've read all this stuff. I don't care. You've never stepped for in that or any other newsroom. You're clueless.
 
1130Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, May 31, 2013, 09:03
How Sad, Fox New Is Going To Have To Run A Pathetically Stupid Correction Again.
 
1131Boldwin
      ID: 3445319
      Fri, May 31, 2013, 17:11
Yeah MITH, I am sure they just hangup the phone when CAIR calls.
 
1132Mith
      ID: 29182720
      Fri, May 31, 2013, 20:13
They might, but first they threaten to kill all of them.

 
1133sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 09:22
FOX News host, to neo-nazi:

After about 15 minutes of interviewing 30-year-old EDL leader leader Tommy Robinson about his anti-Islamic views, Kilmeade exclaimed: “Well Tommy, we’ve got your back and we’ll definitely look to keep in touch. I really think it’s a very — it’s great, what you’re doing."

REALLY?????

link
 
1134sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 15:27
FOX news goes "full retard:"

rehires Sarah Palin
 
1135Boldwin
      ID: 05581410
      Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 12:02
Drives Sarge crazy...

Thus proving it was exactly what Fox should have done.
 
1136sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jun 14, 2013, 14:57
Giving me cause to stop, point and laugh; falls far short of driving me crazy.
 
1137Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Mon, Jun 24, 2013, 21:26
Charles Payne paid to push stocks on FOX.
 
1138Perm Dude
      ID: 41661813
      Sun, Jul 28, 2013, 13:24
This FOX interview starts with a bad question and only gets worse.
 
1139sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Sun, Sep 29, 2013, 23:13
 
1140sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 14:31
FOX once again, reports satirical sites story, as "news"

Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for a fake story that said President Obama is using his own money to keep a museum dedicated to Muslim culture open during the government shutdown.
 
1141Perm Dude
      ID: 417342923
      Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 16:34
As I mentioned elsewhere, maybe FOX's method is to give the GOP talking points, then for "balance" to cherry pick MSM outlets for quotes which also back the GOP. Sometimes, that means a satire site.
 
1142sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Sun, Oct 06, 2013, 17:06
didn't they present an Onion article awhile back, as news?
 
1143Pancho Villa
      ID: 40610217
      Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 11:11
Kooinan apology

Just met w producers- I made a mistake yday after receiving flawed research abt a museum possibly closing. My apologies. Won't happen again.

Flawed research? That's not an apology. But
then, Anna Kooiman isn't really a journalist, she's an
eye candy fluff reporter.

As far as I can tell, Fox News has 3 legitimate journalists - Brit Hume, Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren. Geraldo Rivera is semi-legitimate.

MSNBC doesn't feature any journalists, but it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a liberal opinion network.

CNN, on the other hand, with the glaring exception of Piers Morgan, is stocked with legitimate journalists. The other exception is the ressurection of Crossfire, with Newt Gingrich on the right.

CNN is far and away the best cable news network.
 
1144sarge33rd
      ID: 3871221
      Tue, Oct 08, 2013, 11:39
don't recall which 2 Congressman were on Anderson Cooper yesterday, but Anderson absolutely grilled the pair of them. One Republican and 1 Democrat. The Republican got defensive and Anderson advised him "This is how it works, when you're not on a FOX show. We ask tough questions that make you uncomfortable. Its our job.". Then he turned around and did it to the Dem too.

Developed a newfound bit of respect for Mr Cooper.
 
1145Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sun, May 04, 2014, 10:04
Obamacare has taken FOX graphics to new levels
 
1146Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sun, May 04, 2014, 11:17
Thanks for that PD, was very entertaining. However...

I just dont know what to believe now, you've destroyed my faith in the only conservative news source there is, leaving me subject to the lies of the liberal press. I think I am going to kill myself if I could only buy a gun without the damn government checking for my sanity first.
 
1147Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 13:16
No real news here, but the observation should continue to be made that FOX invents its own reality.

Years and years of this have resulted in what we see these days: Conservatives turned into naïve and paranoid mindless conservative media consumers.
 
1148biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 01:07
This is a civil war without violence. And we are two countries now.

Without mass violence. Las Vegas and all...
 
1149Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 01:45
Civil war is a bit dramatic but Obama has divided the country more than any other president.
 
1150Seattle Zen
      ID: 4811181319
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 03:04
What an assinine comment. That's not true amongst the presidents during your lifetime, not to mention, oh, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, FDR. Jesus, pick up a history book.
 
1151Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 03:46
Lincoln, did not divide the country it was already divided. I am not sure what Jackson did to divide the country. FDR was popular despite prolonging the depression. Obama is the only president to openly promote class warfare to further his political agenda. Boldwin had a nice chart depicting the ever widening divide between what is now the socialist/democrat party and the rest of the nation.
 
1152Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 08:00
the socialist/democrat party

if this is true, then i suppose we can call the prime opposition the Christian terrorist/republican party.

and i'll make no bones about it - i'm much more concerned about the radical christian element that wins small elections in our nation than i am about some al-queda boogeyman living in a cave.
 
1153biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 09:11
Baldwin had a nice chart, did he?

Start ticking off some specific points where Obama's policy differ from any Republican president of the past - let's say Nixon.

I'm eager to see you paint Nixon as a commie.
 
1154Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 09:13
Obama has divided the country

Self-referential. Hating Obama more now than in 2009 doesn't mean that Obama it promoting division or warfare. It means the haters have continued to dig their heels in, and continue to seal the informational gates among themselves.
 
1155Boldwin
      ID: 4542138
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 09:51
Oh, Nixon had a tiny enemy's list all right...for which he walked away in shame when his own party among others called him on it, because of appearances. Because it might appear he intended to sic the IRS on them or other outrageous abuses of government power against his personal and political enemies.

As in the case of McCarthy libs were only upset about it because he was tiptoeing around one of their favorite tactics.

There aren't any republican presidents who ever actually industrialized the process of using government agencies to destroy their individual enemies like Clinton and Obama did.
 
1156Boldwin
      ID: 4542138
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 09:55
Just to make you happy, bili...Nixon's plan to federalize the USA into 9 zones to replace the 50 state structure was straight out of the totalitarian world government playbook. Builderburgers and their roundtable groups handed him those marching orders whole.
 
1157Boldwin
      ID: 4542138
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 09:57
Price controls were right out of the central planning statist totalitarian handbook.
 
1158Boldwin
      ID: 4542138
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 10:06
I have to say that under both recent republican and dem administrations, when they let it slip in unguarded moments, the 'Department of the Fatherland' has been more eager to see adherents of the constitution as America's greatest threat, even in the face of al qaeda who actually declared war on us.
 
1159Boldwin
      ID: 4542138
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 10:18
I wonder how they would react if a tipster whispered in their ear that their are at least 535 people with actual desks in the capitol building who have sworn to uphold the constitution? Sound suspicious by their lights.
 
1160Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 14:43
Bili, I cannot think of any policies Obama has in common with past republican president. Enlighten me.
 
1161Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 15:04
Auto industry bailout
Warrantless searches
Marijuana policy
Military detention without trial (or, in some cases, without charges)
Immigration deportations
Drone warfare

etc
 
1162Seattle Zen
      ID: 25531211
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 15:10
Enlighten me

Now there is a sisyphean task...
 
1163Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 15:17
<1147> from the article

During the first two years of Obama’s tenure, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal immigrant population nationwide at 11.2 million, compared to an average during Bush’s eight-year tenure of 10.6 million.

and

If you compare [Bush's and Obama's] monthly averages [for deportations], it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead.

Some quick math even assuming no others have come into the country gives an estimated 9M illegal immigrants in a country of 310M. This is about 3% of the US population.

I dont know about you all, but this is very disturbing to me purely from a national defense standpoint. There are 9 million or more people in our country that are here illegally. How can you not be concerned?

The funny thing is that the guy writing the article is actually trying to paint a picture that there isnt a problem. That data simply refutes the notion that we are somehow living in an era of lawlessness and massive illegal immigration. However, his numbers actually tell you to WAKE THE F**K UP, WE ARE BEING INVADED!!!! One if by land, two if by sea, cinco de mayo.
 
1164Tree
      ID: 438482411
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 17:36
i made the mistake of reading 1162 while drinking a beer. it burns coming out my nose. nice one, SZ.
 
1165Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 19:36
It is appropriate that a liberal would use a Greek god who was punished for being deceitful as a reference.

Maybe you can take on the Sisyphean task of dealing with Boldwin's Leviathan's maw.

PD-Other than the bailout, which I am not sure what republican president that is tied to, those are just policies unchanged not initiated by Obama.
 
1166Boldwin
      ID: 165371318
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 19:47
WAKE THE F**K UP, WE ARE BEING INVADED!!!! One if by land, two if by sea, cinco de mayo.

Classic. Is that 1/2/5 line your original?
 
1167Boldwin
      ID: 165371318
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 19:57
BTW it is such a sisyphean task to explain each of Obama's lies...

whacking at that ouroboros...

...for the deaf and dumb but here is the uber-lib LA Times explaining how Obama cooks the books on deportation numbers.
 
1168bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 20:29
Gator, you could not think of any policies Obama has in common with past republican president, then when PD maned 6 such policies for you, you changed it to policies being initiated by Obama. Seems like unfair debating tactics.

Re bailout, I thought it was accepted that began under Bush the 2nd.
 
1169Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 20:49
1166 should I copyright?
 
1170Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 21:12
Biba, would you consider those Obama policies? The bailout under Obama was the equivalent to giving hijackers the plane.
 
1171Boldwin
      ID: 505151321
      Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 22:15
#169

Yes

I believe I must steal that for use elsewhere.
 
1172Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 01:01
#1168: Exactly.
 
1173bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 09:44
1170 - Auto bailout OK when initiated by Bush, but under Obama it was equivalent to giving hijackers the plane?

And yes, I would say that a prior president having similar policies does not preclude his successor from having the same policies.
 
1174Gator
      ID: 19323103
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 12:06
Yes, I agreed with the bailout but to give the union's healthcare trust part of the company because their benefits and salary were too high is outrageous. Obama negotiated that point. I know you don't like Heritage links but this explains it. Bailout
Hey if you want to believe Reagan and Obama are similar, then more power to ya, not going to argue such a ludicrous point.

Boldwin, how have you been able to argue against this kind of logic all these years?
 
1176Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 12:26
That is a very different point (a wrong point, but that is a different topic). The bailout was, in fact, begun by Bush and continued by Obama.
 
1177bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Sat, Jun 14, 2014, 12:49
There ya go again PD, comparing Reagan with Hitler or something.
 
1180Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Sun, Jun 15, 2014, 12:14
1174 One better solution would have been to give the UAW pension fund, and those of the other unions in the negotiation, stock in the re-structured GM and Chrysler. Creditors could also be given the same compensation. It would then be in the best interest of these owner/operators to ensure the profitability of the company and reduce the adversarial relationship with management.
 
1181Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Sun, Jun 15, 2014, 20:30
The rightwing seems upset that there was some sort of missed opportunity to screw over retired union members.

The fact is, the UAW give up significant benefits (losing, among other things, all vision and dental coverage). They also agreed to much lower wages for new hires. What they would not give up, however, was previously negotiated pensions for their retired members. And this continues to piss off the right, regardless of the fact that virtually none of the "sky is falling" predictions they made about the bailout have come to pass, and virtually everything Bush and Obama said about it have come true.

In fact, current labor costs for the Big Three are about the same as for the non-unionized auto plants in the US.

The big difference is legacy costs, of course. And the GOP would have the unions screw over their retired in order to keep their current jobs.

It is probably also worth noting that the UAW agreed to move the very significant health care costs (including health care costs for pensioners) to an independently-managed fund called VEBA. GM and Chrysler didn't have cast to pay the full costs, so it paid about 65% (maybe 70%, I don't remember) of the cost and traded non-voting stock equity for the rest.

The GOP would have you believe that the UAW simply was saying "no no no no" and therefore should be punished in some way. As usual, the GOP is simply lying and hope you aren't on the internet to check their "facts."
 
1182Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 21:47
My objection to the bailout comes not from a love for the rich but a respect for business, a respect which is absent from many on this forum. It is a bad precedent to have to give part of your business over to your employees because their payrolls and benefits are too high. Socialism/liberalism undermines a capitalist economy. It drives down the economy to the point where less workers are able to be hired and salaries drop because there is less competition for good employees. Liberalism does more harm than good to the people they profess to be helping. I believe this is because liberalism is based on emotion and not rational thought. It has been this way for centuries, even during Roman times you had the epicureans who believed in a more rational thought process and the stoics who enter emotion into the equation. It maybe stoicism that led to the fall of Rome and liberalism that may lead to the fall of America.
 
1183Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 23:17
liberalism is based on emotion and not rational thought

If you believe that, then you must be a proponent of liberalism. It was you who said, when talking about the current condition of small business in this country, and I quote,

Obama's policies has destroyed any hope for anyone

Is that your idea of rational thought? Most people would think such a statement is based on emotion. I use that as an example, but it is typical of rhetoric from those claiming to be conservatives.

Liberalism and conservatism are equally guilty of emotionalism over rational thought these days.
 
1184biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 23:22
I don't think you know danky about stoics.
 
1185Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Mon, Jun 23, 2014, 23:53
Pancho, do you have to take everything so literally? You are right, Obama has not destroyed all hope for everyone, just most people. There are no absolutes, except for life,death,taxes and liberals screwing up the economy.

I don't know danky about stoics,liberals or crazy people.
 
1186biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 00:02
I was going to add liberals, but I thought that had been amply demonstrated with nearly every post, so it was pretty pointless to state the obvious.

I'll give you crazy people, though. You really seem to be on the same wavelength as Baldy. You appear have a deeper understanding of his psychoses than I will ever have.
 
1187Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 01:06
Gator, you are right. People like yourself, who are prone to emotional outbursts, should not be taken literally...or seriously.
 
1188Boldwin
      ID: 85582420
      Tue, Jun 24, 2014, 22:21
There is only one side of the political spectrum who believe that good intentions matter and good policy doesn't. Pure emotionalism.

Some people actually believe Michele's #Saveourgirls was useful.
 
1189Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 10:02
Some people actually believe Nancy's "Just Say No" was useful.

Given the fear, anger, pride, vanity and a slew of other emotions that dominate the far ends of the political spectrum, the premise that only one side is guilty of pure emotionalism is a flawed concept.

Gator says don't take what I say literally, because I'm driven by emotion to say it, then turns around and wants to lecture us on the merits of rational thought versus emotionalism.

We're all controlled by emotion to some extent. And no one displays more emotion on this forum than our self-appointed conservative spokesperson.


 
1190Boldwin
      ID: 45539258
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 10:23
Gator understands just how screamingly funny it is to expose liberals, while you can only see a hate-crime and grumble about it.
 
1191Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 10:41
The only exposing Gator has done on this forum is reveal a shallow and incomplete thought process.

The second part of your sentence is pure jibberish, likely a result in feeling the need to post something even when you have nothing to say. It's an emotional problem.
 
1192Perm Dude
      ID: 294531914
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 11:35
That's what happens though, PV, when your goal isn't to solve problems but to "expose" people you don't like (expose to ridicule, that is. By them.).

How very Christ-like the rightwing apologists have become.
 
1193Boldwin
      ID: 45539258
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 11:43
And I will tear down the wall that YOU men have plastered with whitewash and bring it into contact with the earth, and its foundation must be exposed."
 
1194Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 12:02
I make one comment by saying Obama has destroyed hope for all wanting to start a business instead of most, which numbers support, and PV makes 4 posts about it. He has to go after semantics and not the statement about Obama because that is all he's got. No ammo to argue what should be debated, which is those with capital have no faith in Obama. I better check my punctuation, PV may make 5 posts about that.

PD, I have many liberals friends, but none of them are arrogant. I believe liberals are the trashing the economy, the school system and many other parts of America. What else can one do but try to expose the failings of left?
 
1195Seattle Zen
      ID: 25531211
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 12:19
I make one comment by saying Obama has destroyed hope for all wanting to start a business instead of most, which numbers support,

When you make an incendiary remark like "destroy hope" and then say that "numbers support" this, yet do not provide any, you are both lying and lazy.
 
1196Boldwin
      ID: 245102511
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 12:27
Nope, even the free Obamaphone girl has lost hope by now.
 
1197Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 12:43
I have posted links in previous threads. If you have a link where small business owners have faith in Obama, I would like to see it.
 
1198Bean
      ID: 5292191
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 13:27
In their zeal to help their fellow man Democrats will spend the entire US nest egg.

In their zeal to defend against their fellow man Republicans will hoard.

Is there much else to say about the budget? Is there much else to say about the nature of the left and the right in this country?
 
1199Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 21:18
those with capital have no faith in Obama

Let's see, who has capital? Capital that they lend to small businesses. How about banks?

NEW YORK, NY, March 12, 2013 - Small business loan approval rates at big banks ($10B+ in assets) in February 2013 increased to 15.9%, up from the 15.3% rate in January, according to the Biz2Credit Small Business Lending Index, a monthly analysis of 1,000 loan applications on Biz2Credit.com. The figure also represents a 35% increase over the February 2012 approval figure of 11.7% and is the highest approval percentage by big banks since Biz2Credit's Indexwas introduced over 2 years ago.

Meanwhile, small bank approval rates of small business loan requests increased slightly in February, climbing to 50.3% from 49.9% in January. For the first time in four months, small banks are approving more loans than they are declining. A year-to-year comparison indicates that the small bank approval rate in February 2013 was also up from the February 2012 figure of 47.6%.


Gator, you're emotionally invested in Obama being a failure. The vast majority of small business owners are not affected by Obama's policies, negatively or positively.

I noticed you didn't claim, "Obama's policies have destroyed any hope investors have of recovering their staggering losses of 2007 and 2008."

That's because investors have seen the financial markets zoom to record setting performances since Obama took office in 2009. But you don't hear me giving credit to Obama, because I don't believe his policies have affected the market performance positively or negatively for the most part. Data supports that
"
Obama's stimulus succeeded-even if it was too small.

It's impossible to know what kind of stimulus McCain would have offered, so it's a fool's mission to even contemplate. But I know that the financial markets are at all time highs, the city where I live is booming, my own small business is thriving, my house has appreciated 50% in 4 years, and I have plenty of time to play golf in the shadow of 12,000 ft. mountains. So, you'll excuse me if I don't wallow in the despondent emotional condition that claims Obama is destroying any hopes about anything.
 
1200sarge33rd
      ID: 390471112
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 01:20
I have posted links in previous threads. If you have a link where small business owners have faith in Obama, I would like to see it.

Typical RW gibberish. Make a false allegation and then demand that others disprove you. WRONG. PROVE, your own allegation.
 
1201Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 10:00
And, of course, solving for the wrong problem. The only reason "faith in Obama" would matter is if it reflects detrimental changes in business practices (for instance, if businesses were not growing, or losing profitability, or losing productivity as a result of regulation). Popularity of Obama among a particular set of people is a smokescreen.

I can tell you for a fact: As a municipal official, I care very, very little for how well liked I am by business owners, so long as they continue to open and expand business in my town. If that is happening, then we are both doing out jobs.
 
1202Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 13:24
Here is a fresh link... 63% of America has no confidence in Obama

PD, I can not disagree with you more. Business and consumer confidence is everything in economics. If businesses have faith they are going to get a return for their capital invested then they invest. If consumers fear a bad economy they will sit on their capital. A good economy is just money exchanging hands at a faster rate and lack of confidence in Obama greatly lowers that faith. Socialism has never improved an economy in the history of economics. An economy may thrive in spite of some socialism, but the socialism itself did not improve it.
 
1203biliruben
      ID: 208491113
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 14:43
The republican congress is at 80% no confidence.

Obama is pretty similar to past presidents in terms of overall approval, though the gap in approval between thinking humans and right-wingnuts in wider than ever.

This reflects more on the nuts and less on Obama. And fortunately the wingnuts drool too much to effectively run any businesses anyway.
 
1204Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 14:47
Gator: Confidence is only so important as a reflection of what is already occurring, but it is no substitute for reality. The truth is that the economy is picking up, to the absolutely dismay of those who don't like Obama and are casting about for "proof" to back up the reality they are trying to conjure.
 
1205Boldwin
      ID: 275392617
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 18:56
There is only one class of businessmen who are optimistic. Those who have abandoned the free market and count on bribery and cronyism for their success.

Unfortunately the Reagan Revolution has to fight them off from two parties.
 
1206Boldwin
      ID: 275392617
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 18:59
PD

Please run on the 'strong economy'.
 
1207Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 22:09
There is only one class of businessmen who are optimistic. Those who have abandoned the free market and count on bribery and cronyism for their success.

The level of cynicism and defeatism involved with insulting millions of honest, hard working American businessmen(and women)is a testament to one who can only be described as an utter failure; one who blames liberals for their lack of success in the business world; one who has abandoned the conservative principles of respect and confidence for the individual in order to dwell in a condition of perpetual whining.

But, similar to "Obama's policies have destroyed any hopes," the statement isn't meant to be taken literally or seriously. It's anyone's guess why someone would say something they consciously know isn't true.




 
1208Boldwin
      ID: 275392617
      Thu, Jun 26, 2014, 23:31
Well the non-crony capitalists have their own hope. That they survive in business long enuff to see Obama step down.
 
1209bibA
      ID: 204511510
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 08:22
LOL-

My daughter and son-in-law own two businesses in New York - a music licensing firm with offices in both NY and LA, and an upscale dress shop. They have been successful, and are ardent Obama supporters.

It's nice to find out how they have been so successful- they count on cronyism and bribery for their success! Who knew?
 
1210Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 09:31
We had 2 financial institution crises in the 80s and 90s both times after about 2 years the economy rebounded and boomed. Why is this taking 7 years? Because Obama's policies are anti-American dream and he used class warfare.There is nothing keeping the economy from booming except Obama. Perception is reality in economics, if enough businesses have no confidence in Obama, the economy will stagnate. Normally after a long period of a stagnate and/or descending economy, surpluses run low and manufactures are forced to start resupplying. This is the cyclical nature of a capitalist economy. You have to have really really bad policies to keep the economy down this long. If someone tried to stifle the economy intentionally, they could not do any more damage than what Obama has done. It takes incompetence of herculean proportions to screw up this country's economy for this long of a period of time.
 
1211Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 09:46
Why is this taking 7 years?

A number of reasons:

-the earlier crises to which you refer were bank crises (as you point out). They were not recessions, housing bubble bursts, or anything like what started in 2007-2008. Not even close

-the unwillingness of the GOP to invest in jobs or even to help people out made it much more difficult to recover. Instead of spending hard-earned money recovering, many people were just surviving.

-recoveries rely upon bank loans. Notice anything different about this one? Banks aren't loaning.


You've decided, quite simply, that Obama is at fault for the economy and are casting about for reasons why this is so.
 
1212Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 10:02
PD, PD, PD *shakes head*

It's Bush's fault! Don't you know that?
 
1213Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 10:03
And O is steering us out of the ditch, he's just taking the scenic route.
 
1214Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 10:12
The economy is doing exactly what every non-liberal person with a sense for the economy thought it would do. There is no mass conspiracy of GOP members getting together and planning to trash the economy. It is amazing how you can blame the GOP for everything. The purpose of a business is to make money for the owners. PD, go borrow money and start a business to help people, see how long you survive. Socialism only works if the vast majority buys into it, the problems is the idea is nuts and the majority is sane.
 
1215biliruben
      ID: 81382416
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 10:35
Actually, the GOP is precisely who is to blame. Because they filibustered any attempt to raise spending to hire back all those laid off teachers, construction workers doing basic maintenance on our infrastructure, cops and firefighters, they have intentionally, and destructively held back the recovery.



Even Reagan wasn't this stupid.

 
1216Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 11:39
There is nothing keeping the economy from booming except Obama.

That's a personal opinion based on emotion, devoid of rational thought.
As I've pointed out, and Gator and Boldwin have chosen to ignore, the economy in my area is booming. This is an area that is Mitt Romney country by a margin of 10 to 1. This an area that is as anti-Obama as you can find. But business here is thriving. It has almost nothing to do with Obama. It has nothing to do with cronyism or bribes. If it did, my business would have failed a long time ago, since I'm not a member of the LDS Church, but the vast majority of my customers are Mormons. Even though I'm sure this will be ignored by those stuck on negative, I post this article from June 5 about economic activity in the city where I live:

“The growth that Lehi is experiencing is fantastic," said Lehi City Councilman Chris Condie. "It shows how vibrant Lehi’s economy is and that Lehi is among the best locations in Utah."

Acting as the tour guide, Lehi Planning Director Kim Struthers directed the attention of those aboard the Fun Bus to Spring Meadow Ranches in west Lehi and its custom-built homes on half-acre lots that are starting at $500,000.

“We wondered if there would be a demand and so far there is,” Struthers said.

From Spring Meadow Ranches, the bus drove past Kensington Place, another high-dollar residential development and then past sites along 2100 North

You’ll notice that they are really making some significant progress,” Struthers said regarding the hospital and medical building construction. The iASIS Medical Center will be 185,000 square feet when the first phase is completed, with plans for a future expansion of 74,000 square feet.

Builders have posted the necessary bonds and have begun construction for the approved Porsche Audi dealership, a 39,000-square-foot-building on 2.96 acres at Digital Drive and Timpanogos Highway. Utah Community Credit Union has plans for a seven-story, 60,000-square-foot building near the dealership, and has begun moving dirt to prepare the site.

Traveling west from Traverse Mountain, the city leaders exited the bus to stop and tour the Courtyard by Marriott hotel.

“You basically have the Hyatt, Hilton and Marriot all together,” Struthers said.

The Hyatt will be a full-service hotel built on the knoll on the west side above the Triumph Boulevard entry to the Traverse Mountain community.

Within the past 24 months, Arbys, Costa Vida, Cubbys, Dickey's, Firehouse Subs, JDawgs, Popeye's, Starbucks, the Thai Drift Swift and Zaxby’s have become neighbors of the Del Taco and JCW’s in the area just east of Thanksgiving Point Business Park and west of I-15. Not to be left out, a McDonald’s is being built on the east side of the freeway below the Traverse Mountain commercial and community developments.

The Outlets at Traverse Mountain is building its second phase and well on its way to becoming the largest outlet mall in Utah Valley. As for its large, bright sign, the outlet mall reports it has seen a 40 percent increase in sales since the sign was completed.

Another goal was that Lehi City should actively recruit and incentivize complementary high-technology companies to locate within the city. City staff said more tech companies are continuing to call Lehi home.

Additionally, the report said the office park surrounding Thanksgiving Point benefited by demand created by IM Flash and has the potential to become the premier Class A office park in northern Utah County.

Adobe, located on Digital Way, has received approval for its second phase build-out, according to Struthers. Inside the Traverse Mountain planned community, east of the Homeowners Association building, is city property slated for a third fire station. Just beyond the fire station, a two-story 45,000-square-foot medical office is planned.

connections between the light rail and Frontrunner stations.

Perry Homes has six phases planned for its development that will cover the entire area east of the Xactware building on the southern slopes of Traverse Mountain. The Seasons Apartments on Morning Vista Road above Xactware will have 440 units, as compared to Cresthaven’s 340 units located at North Traverse Mountain Boulevard.

Headed east toward the Ivory Homes planned community, the bus tour came across several more projects -- Ivory Homes offices, the Lofts at Ivory Ridge townhomes and the new Lehi high school campus.

“At the new high school, I think they have already started pouring concrete,” Struthers said.

Headed back south, he pointed out the city’s new pressurized irrigation reservoir under construction. It’s the city’s largest yet at 50 acre-feet of water, five times bigger than the city’s largest existing reservoir.

Moving south again, the tour guide drove through the Mill Pond Commercial and Industrial area, where Mill Pond Plaza, a 64,000-square-foot development, was recently completed. Dry Creek Structures also added 5,150 square feet.

The Willes PRD concept plan has a proposed pavilion, wetland interpretive center and 49 lots on 60.29 acres at 1630 South and 300 East. Another senior living community is underway, Leisure Villas, with 82 units at Pioneer Crossing and Center Street.

Finally, Holiday Oil will be the first convenience store with gasoline sales and a car wash on Pioneer Crossing, located at approximately 500 West

"And to think we’re only at 35 to 40 percent build-out,” Condie said

link

BOOMING!BOOMING!BOOMING!
BIG BUSINESS! SMALL BUSINESS! HOUSING!
NEW HOSPITALS! NEW SCHOOLS!


Please stay in whatever hellhole of negativity you reside. My economy is booming. Obama is President. Hopes are not destroyed- not even close. This is what real conservatives are accomplishing while you crybabies whine.
 
1217Razor
      ID: 811221116
      Fri, Jun 27, 2014, 15:03
The economy is vastly better now than when Obama took over. That's not up for debate. The majority of Americans are also better off now when then when Obama took over. I am one of them.
 
1218Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 00:21
Of course the economy is better now then when Obama took over because we had a financial institution collapse caused by the democrats! Is the economy better than the Reagan years or the Newt Gingrich balanced budget years? The liberals act as if nothing they do affects the economy. The biggest joke is blaming the GOP for 7 years of a stagnate economy because they did not allow Obama to spend more. He spent more money than all the other presidents combined and now I read the GOP is at fault " Because they filibustered any attempt to raise spending to hire back all those laid off teachers, construction workers doing basic maintenance on our infrastructure, cops and firefighters, they have intentionally, and destructively held back the recovery." Other than infrastructure, none of those are federal jobs! This is the kind of ideology that is scary. I heard this argument before with liberals about FDR, who kept the economy from growing for over a decade.

Pancho, it is great you are doing so well, living around capitalists I am sure helps, but nationally the country is faltering and Obama's policies are the reason.
What more evidence do you need socialism does not work? Does the economy have to completely collapse? The liberals here are always acting like they are championing cause of the poor and middle class, when those are the groups they hurt the most. If they truly gave a damn about anything except their own pride in their failed economic philosophy they would attempt to move at least some to the middle. Defend Obama all you like but you do it for your own arrogance and the people you hurt be damned for you do not care about them.
 
1219Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 05:29
I will never forget Frances Fox Piven, co-designer of the progressive plan to destroy America by overburdening the social services. She was addressing a crowd of her adoring marxists followers in the Occupy movement and she was lecturing them that these Democrat claims that they were out to benefit the middle class were incorrect.

The video was pulled from youtube tho someday I will find a way to resurrect that thing.

In point of fact the middle class have always been the favorite enemy of marxist theorists and who have long loathed them under the moniker 'The Bourgeoisie'.

Obama's effect on the shrinking middle class has been all too predictable.
 
1220biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 06:06
You are appallingly ignorant about how state and local governments are funded, Gator. Hundreds of billions of dollars are directed to state and local governments every year from the federal government for all of those things.
 
1221Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 09:47
You say that like it's a good thing, bili.

That is exactly how and why States are unable to get the tentacles of the federal government out of their 'labratory of democracy'.
 
1222Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 12:06
I know how it works and if you care so much about cops, teachers and firefighters then tell Obama to stop spending money on loopy left wing pork barrel projects.
 
1223Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 13:10
*Voice of amusement ride barker*

On your left you'll see 80% of the west federally set aside where no oil drilling is allowed.

Further to your left get a glimpse of the vast expansion of ocean sanctuaries *where no oil drilling will be permitted. [until after the revolution]

Below us is Northwestern University professor Robert Gordon explaining that American Economic growth is over for the foreseeable future. We'll never get back to the employment figure of 2007 and we should just get used to it.

We'll be flying around the gigantic peak that is the pile of new regulations, 68 new ones every day. With 330 major ones creating a drag of over $100,000,000 on the economy each

Oh look! The EPA has taken time off their busy schedule looking at porn and pooping in the hallway to produce 2,827 new final regulations, equaling 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling approximately 24,915,000 words.

Obama is required by law to publish a heads-up to businesses of the coming regulatory outlook every six months and the likely economic impact of these regs. The National Federation of Independent Business estimates some of the known rules clocks in at over $515 billion anualy in economic costs not even counting new oil/coal/fracking regulations.

And they all chipped in for a bag of cement. For each business and businessman.

Oh look. There's Steve Wynn, a self-described “Democratic businessman,” who told investors that business leaders will be “sitting on their thumbs” until Mr. Obama leaves office.

“This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job-creation in my lifetime,”

By the banks of the rivers you can see all the fishermen. They all lost 10+ hrs a week from their work schedules thanks to Obamacare and now have nothing better to do. The bad news is they'll have to take a second 30 hr a week job someday when there's another administration and the jobs return.

Everybody put on your party hats!!! Optimism has finally threatened to hit positive territory! And it only took six years, the worst 'recovery' ever!


 
1224Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 13:13
Of course Obama is the first president in the history of the law written in 1980 to refuse to obey the law revealing his regulatory outlook adding to the climate of business uncertainty and economic inertia.
 
1225Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 21:17
the worst 'recovery' ever!

Actually, it's the most positive movement in a 5 and a half year period since 1986 from 80 to 100, making it the most successful recovery in that time period.

Of course, it doesn't come close to surpassing the amazing recovery of the
Dow Jones Industrial average,

which has the best performance in a 5 and a half year period in the history of the stock market.

The climate of economic inertia is supported by the numbers. It's hot.
 
1226Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 21:39
Really, go look at Reagan's actual recovery and this unreal one that hasn't even registered in the lives of the average American.

But do run a presidential election on the basis that Americans believe we've had a recovery. Brag about it. You will get so blown out of the water.
 
1227Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 21:52
Another emotional outburst void of rational thought.

How many times do I have to say it? The President doesn't have that much control of the economy. You're so intent on dissing Obama, that you can't see straight. Good thing you know science(har, har) because you certainly don't understand economics.
 
1228Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 21:58
But do run a presidential election on the basis that Americans believe we've had a recovery. Brag about it. You will get so blown out of the water.

I have no plans, at this point, to run for president.
 
1229Boldwin
      ID: 21532278
      Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 23:16
As if you understand economics.

What on earth are you celebrating?
 
1231Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Jun 29, 2014, 10:29
What on earth are you celebrating?

See post 1216. As predicted when I posted it, you ignored it.

Time we recognized and celebrated the
ladies!

Small business owners are feeling optimistic – and women entrepreneurs are feeling particularly so, according to the Spring 2014 Bank of America Small Business Owner Report (PDF).

Two out of five women in the survey opened their businesses in the last five years. But despite their fledgling status, nearly three-fourths (70 percent) of women business owners expect sales to grow this year, and more than half (56 percent) plan to hire in 2014.


You go, girls! Maybe you can teach some of the guys around here that success in business is based on determination, confidence, adaptation, and an ability to network and communicate with persons of all political, religious and lifestyle persuasions. Maybe you can teach them that whining about the president's policies, which have little to nothing to do with day to day operations, is not a recommended business plan.

So, my question is,

"Who or what will you blame for your failures after Obama leaves office?"




 
1233Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Sun, Jun 29, 2014, 20:07
We show how the economy is stagnant nationally and you point to one small area to counter it.

We? I assume you're taking at least partial credit for Boldwin's link in #1229, which talks about the 2014 1st quarter drop in GNP. Economic indicators are not based on one quarter of activity. As explained here,

The larger-than-expected drop in output is not a harbinger of an economy headed back to recession or even softening. Many economists say much of the first-quarter weakness was the result of temporary factors, such as unusually harsh winter weather. They expect growth to exceed 3% in the current quarter and the rest of the year.

In a research note before Wednesday's report, Goldman Sachs said, "2014 will mark the start of a period of clearly above-trend growth for the US economy."

Paul Dales of Capital Economics said the contraction "was still largely due to the extreme weather" and "not a sign that the U.S. is suffering from a fundamental slowdown."

Reports this week show that the housing market picked up last month after the dismal first-quarter, with new homes selling at the fastest pace since 2008, and existing-home sales posting their largest increase in three years.

Job growth, consumer confidence and measures of manufacturing and service sector activity also have gained steam recently.


Nobody listens to you or Boldwin nationally. They listen to Goldman Sachs, Capital Economics and USA Today, among others.

1216 article is about economic activity in Lehi, Utah(not Provo).

The entire state is doing well, but so are
many others.


State

Jobs added (2010-2013) % Change New Jobs Per 10,000 People
North Dakota 65,466 17% 940
District of Columbia 21,348 2.9% 337
Utah 98,589 8.1% 336
Texas 794,239 7.4% 299
Colorado 146,327 6.3% 277
California 904,496 6.0% 236
Michigan 228,559 5.9% 233
Minnesota 122,496 4.6% 226
Hawaii 30,571 4.6% 218
Arizona 140,780 5.7% 211

In this study U.S. Cities Most And Least Recovered Since The Recession are identified. No Utah cities made the top 10, likely because they weren't as negatively affected by the recession. But, for this conversation, more interesting than the most recovered are the least recovered.

Cicero, Illinois, claims the title of city least recovered from the recession. It’s followed by Detroit, Michigan–the largest city on the list of those least improved–and Miami Gardens, Florida. Sixteen of the 50 least recovered cities in the U.S. are in Florida. Jashti attributes this to the state’s reliance on tourism and other low-growth industries.

Boldwin lives in Illinois, and Florida is home to the Gators. I don't know if you live in Florida, Gator, but it sucks that you guys live in states where economic activity is sub par. That doesn't equate to what's happening nationally.

Even though "the economy is stagnant nationally" is an improvement from the original propaganda claim that "Obama's policies have destroyed all hope," you immediately revert to propaganda - the fact that Obama's socialist policies have hurt, destroyed, slowed, paralyzed, tanked, screwed, stewed and tattooed (pick any word you like) the NATIONAL economy, which, of course, is not a fact. A fact would be something like a graph of the stock market's outstanding performance, an economic indicator you and your mentor conveniently ignore, or lying by omission. But I'm the master of propaganda.

Finally,

Grats on finding a demographic doing well. How about the one legged midget demographic, is it doing well?

Do you really think women are as inconsequential a demographic as one-legged midgets? Of course not, but when you have nothing coherent to say, just say anything that comes to mind. Seek therapy.









 
1234Boldwin
      ID: 27520303
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 04:30
PV

Kudos for the heroic effort to put lipstick on this pig but it's a disaster to still be this far down. Any other recovery would have been roaring back by now.

The stock market isn't felt by mainstreet, it isn't felt by the public. It isn't moving the needle on unemployment or we would be well back over the employment numbers at the start of the depression. The population grows and that number has to grow just to keep even with the need.

And it won't get back into daylight until the wet-blanket-in-chief is out of office and he takes his big government and his regulations with him.
 
1235Boldwin
      ID: 27520303
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 04:34
Actually maybe not even then because he has set the most unpopular damaging aspects of his regulations and laws to go off like timebombs in the next administration. The war on coal alone is gonna come down on this country like the grim reaper ever more-so.
 
1236Boldwin
      ID: 27520303
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 04:50
 
1237Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 07:38
This is a perfect example of propaganda. PV knows Obama had nothing to do with the gain in the stock market yet he continually brings it up. The ones to thank for the stock market increase is Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc.. who drove down the stock market and the economy with the Fannie Mae fiasco. Stocks were at an all time low of course it gained points. I guess no matter how bad the economy gets if you can find anywhere in the U.S. that is not suffering or a demographic that is doing slightly better than most then everything is hunky dory. I wondered how liberals on this forum would justify this slow recovery and now I know.. they deny it is happening. Just cherry pick the good areas and ignore the rest.
 
1238Boldwin
      ID: 27520303
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 12:21
Shhhhhh...let them go into 2014 and 2016 playing 'Happy Days Are Here Again'. It will be a rout if they dare let the election focus on the economy.
 
1239Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 12:23
The stock market isn't felt by mainstreet, it isn't felt by the public.

That's a popular cliché that isn't completely meritless, but fails to properly analyze the effects of market success, and, even more important, the economic calamity that would have resulted had the markets not rebounded as they did. It's true that there are fewer Mom and Pop investors reaping the gains of the markets, but part of the reason is the constant deluge of gloom and doom predictions promoted by the anti-Obama forces on one side, and the Occupy Wall Street forces on the other. Both present a distorted and unrealistic view of the markets based on fear and loathing. Neither encourages confidence to invest in the markets. The perception is that only the very rich and giant institutional investment firms have benefitted from the markets' performance. I use the plural form of markets, because there are many investment opportunities beyond the DOW, NASDAQ and S&P 500.
The gloom and doom predictors have been made to look like charlatans. Boldwin even started a thread honoring Nouriel Roubini, and I quote,
"Love the name. He's nicked Dr. Doom." How does someone who so thoroughly admires the Dr. Doom of economics expect to have credibility discussing economic market performance?
Then there's
Meredith Whitney, who predicted a U.S. municipal-bond apocalypse in 2010, deregistered her brokerage unit following three unprofitable years. After her muni bond prediction, my financial guy advised me of some muni bond deals that I scooped up. They pay 5-6% tax free annually, which is impossible to realize in any other guaranteed investment. Thanks, Meredith.

Even though much of the public hasn't profited directly from the markets' performance, there are plenty of indirect economic benefits. And for those who haven't taken advantage of markets' performance, part of the blame can be laid at the feet of those who promote fear and mistrust.

As for the ridiculous 'war on coal' claims, consider the following:

Montana (with 942 coal miners) produces more coal than Virginia (with 5,262 coal miners). Wyoming (with 5,837 coal miners) produces more coal than West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, and Illinois combined (with a total of 58,995 coal miners). Due to this discrepancy, the coal mining industry has increasingly moved production to these Western states (especially to the Powder River Basin), and has dramatically cut its workforce in Appalachia.

Since 1900, technological developments in the coal mining industry have dramatically increased miner productivity; thus, while U.S. coal production is currently at a record high, mining employment is a fraction of what it was during the heyday of coal mining in the 1910's and 20's


link

Pretending to care about coal miners is just comical.
 
1240Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 12:34
Gator, much like you don't understand economics, you don't understand th definition of propaganda. Here's a perfect example:

"Obama's policies have destroyed any hopes.."

You're welcome.
 
1241Boldwin
      ID: 27520303
      Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 13:14
"Pretending to care about coal miners is just comical."

I am sure state Democrat committee meetings in Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, PA, Kentucky and Illinois are a real hoot.
 
1242Gator
      ID: 13521231
      Tue, Jul 01, 2014, 11:58
Sad thing is Boldwin, PV knows Obama had nothing to do with the stock market gains and I think he knows Obama is bad for the economy, in fact, most here know Obama is bad for the economy but they would rather see the country go to hell rather than admit they were wrong.
 
1243Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 09:10
Obama had nothing to do with the stock market gains and I think he knows Obama is bad for the economy

According to economic pundit Paul Farrell, The Great Obama Bull Market Will Roar Til 2016!

GOP conservatives may have been successful in slowing America’s economic recovery. But the stock market is actually getting surprisingly stronger from this political war. With every Obama progressive move — Obamacare, ERA regulations, equal pay for women, gay rights, minimum wages, stem-cell research, immigration, Osama bin Laden, deficit cuts and so much more — GOP conservatives and the tea party learn little, only hear enough for another attack on Obama, offer no solutions, just opposition.

Farrell is a bit more optimistic than I, and gives too much credit to Obama for market performance, but he nails it perfectly at the end of that paragraph. Learn little, attack Obama, offer no solutions.

No matter how much conservatives will forever hate to admit it, if the Great Obama Bull Market keeps roaring till 2016, it deserves a chapter in the history books.
 
1244Pancho Villa
      ID: 2131916
      Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 09:33
Let me add that Farrell is kind of like the Ann Coulter of economic pundits. He's more concerned with creating controversial headlines and tongue-in-cheek articles than offering well researched economic analysis.

In the context of responding to Gator's recent posts, it's quite hilarious.
 
1245Boldwin
      ID: 5624318
      Thu, Jul 03, 2014, 19:35
I wonder how many months until the same hedge fund robber barrons who made out like bandits the last crash repeat their performance.
 
1246Perm Dude
      ID: 586411123
      Sat, Aug 09, 2014, 20:43
When FOX News and FOX News Latino covers the same story.
 
1247sarge33rd
      ID: 8830618
      Sat, Sep 06, 2014, 19:30
FOX broadcast accuses Obama of releasing in 2009, the founder of ISIS

Pirro: The head of this band of savages is a man by the name of Abu al-Baghdadi. The new Osama Bin Laden. A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later.

Kelly: We are also learning more about the leader of the terror group, a man described as the new Bin Laden, the heir to Bin Laden. It turns out he had been in U.S. custody until 2009, over in Iraq, when he was then turned over to the Iraqi government as part of our troop drawdown. And then he was released.


Here is the truth, as stated in the linked article;

“Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ was held as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time.”
 
1248Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Tue, Dec 23, 2014, 16:35
"Sorry we made those calling for the arrest of cop killers sound like they wanted to kill cops."

"Our bad!"

Might as well have added "All you black people sound the same."
 
1249Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Dec 23, 2014, 16:54
The cops disagree with you, PD.

 
1250Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Tue, Dec 23, 2014, 17:07
Sadly, you think that your post is somehow in response to the facts in mine. You would be wrong.

How about reading the link first? Naaaah.
 
1251Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Dec 23, 2014, 17:48
It's all about the rampant liberal anti-cop hysteria...the inevitable outcome of liberal rhetoric. Riding to their agenda outcome on the backs of dead cops.
(barely) deniable violence for purposes of intimidation is all part of the scheme. That’s what “no justice, no peace” means. As Richard Fernandez has written: “It is impossible to understand the politics of the Left without grasping that it is all about deniable intimidation.” That’s why they don’t want you to own guns, and that’s why they’re so panicked at groups, like the Tea Party, that aren’t intimidated. - source

-------

LIFE IN DEBLASIO’S NEW YORK: 911 operators made ‘anti-police’ remarks, causing quarrel with FDNY dispatchers as 2 NYPD cops were dying [NYDailynews], sources say. “The war of words occurred when news broke that NYPD cops Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were shot Saturday. One dispatcher allegedly said the cops ‘deserved it,’ said a law enforcement source.” Incredible. - Instapundit
 
1252Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Tue, Dec 23, 2014, 18:02
Deny this report...

 
1253Bean
      ID: 121011511
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 12:02
When does martial law start in NYC? How many NYC residents are getting (even more) scared now? It's enough to make you want to stay in your apartment and go out as little as possible. Unfortunately for the cops, that's not an option.

Many New Yorkers are already on the edge of sanity, how many will go over the edge now? THIS is what happens when sane people publicly demonize cops as a group. Nut jobs think it's open season on cops "cause we all hate them, right?"
 
1254Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 13:56
It is hardly helped by the NYC police union, essentially saying that don't want to listen to their civilian boss.

The problem isn't that one side is turning it to 11. It is that both are.
 
1255Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 15:30
Yeah, it was never a problem when crowds are chanting "What do we want, Dead cops, When do we want it? Now"

It's only a problem when there is pushback. [/sarc]
 
1256Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 16:08
I'm willing to believe for the sake of argument that maybe this grad student/adjunct professor was overcharged with assault by the NYC police. Police do that all the time, false accusations by the police of assault and resisting arrest are commonplace and very expensive/damaging.

Then again what I actually believe is that he brought a bag of hammers to a demonstration against police intending to distribute and use them against police.



This guy, a top organizer for the SEIU...


Crown Heights resident Rob Murray, 43 — who makes more than $105,000 a year with the Service Employees International Union — turned himself in at the 5th Precinct station house in Chinatown with his lawyer around 8 a.m.

The former Occupy Wall Street protester was charged with two counts of assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, inciting riots and obstructing governmental administration.
This guy was in a group of seven thugs who ganged up on two cops and broke one of their noses, when the two cops tried to arrest the first guy described in this post.

It's on videotape. No doubt about this one.

But remember, it's only a problem when both sides 'turn it up to 11'.
 
1257Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 16:50
Remember what a big deal they make out of one skinhead showing up at a Tea Party rally?

What's good for the goose...

Commies actually organizing NYC anti-cop protests.
‘They’re Maoists.’ But they’re the only game in town, and I’ve got to admit they’re good organizers. They remembered everything but the Porta-Johns.”
The New Black Panther party, a radical islamist spinoff from Farakahn...too radical for that bunch, is heavily involved in organizing Ferguson protests. Go ahead and google that.

St Louis happens to be a beachhead for a large contingent of West African immigrants involved with the PLO and the drug trade. They are heavily recruiting for Islam and seeking to use the hostility for recruitment purposes.

This stuff isn't happening in a vacuum.
 
1258Gator
      ID: 31107286
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 17:15
Dan Aykroyd is inciting riots?
 
1259Perm Dude
      ID: 431013412
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 20:07
Used to be that conservatives were the "responsible party." Now, "everything goes" if they that can dig up (or invent) someone on the other side doing it, too.

The proper response to a news organization which selectively edits the chants of a crowd to sound like they are saying the opposite of what they are is to call them for it. Is certainly is not to seek out others to match your narrative. It is to change your narrative.

Making excuses to continue being a dick is un-Christ-like. But not new, on these boards.

I am well aware of both false accusations against the police as well as the incredibly difficult job they have. I also know that neither of those things are an argument against the real and pervasive police brutality that strikes those of color disproportionally. Trying to make this a he said/he said argument, not surprisingly, demonstrates that the Right misses the point.
 
1260Boldwin
      ID: 510591420
      Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 20:26
Do you always get the lyrics right on the songs you here for the first time? The one mistake you reference was nothing but a mistake. Entire crowds of protesters quick to join in chants calling for the death of cops are well documented and your one example is meaningless.

That you want to fixate on that one thing shows how desperate you are to distract from the true nature of the protests.
 
1261Mith
      ID: 3692387
      Thu, Dec 25, 2014, 07:39
The one mistake you reference was nothing but a mistake.

No, that particular edit is not possibly a mistake. No person who has ever done the most rudimentary digital video editing could possibly believe that.

The producer/editor who edited that video knew exactly what they were doing.

That said it was a local affiliate and not really symptomatic of the particular kind of dishonesty you more typically get from FNC. As far as I know, the video never made it to air on the national network. Of course that wan't because of any keen fact-checking process at FNC, the local affil had simply been called out on the distortion immediately after they put it on the air and either did not distribute the video nationally or put a hold or a must-kill on it after it went out.

Recall that Tampa's NBC affiliate did exactly the same thing when they dishonestly edited George Zimmerman's 911 call, though in that case Boldwin's highly discerning eye for video editor motives knew right away what was in the mind of the person who worked that video.
 
1262Mith
      ID: 231150292
      Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 15:24
Daily Show's 50 FOX News lies in 6 seconds, fact-checked by Politifact.