Fox News - Fair and Balanced

Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Comparing Obama to Osama is cute, and most Repugs support and approve of such lies. They think it's OK. :disgust:
Hilarious, since the Republicans created and supported bin Ladin in their fight against one of the U.S.'s previous boogeymen, the Soviet Union. Better fiction has not been written.
Rich stuff. Rich stuff. :disgust:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
If the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox news because of its bias, does that mean the Republicans can refuse to debate on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the big three and anything that has to do with the NY Times?
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox news because of its bias, does that mean the Republicans can refuse to debate on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the big three and anything that has to do with the NY Times?

Why not?

 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox news because of its bias, does that mean the Republicans can refuse to debate on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the big three and anything that has to do with the NY Times?

They are free to do as they wish....
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox news because of its bias, does that mean the Republicans can refuse to debate on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the big three and anything that has to do with the NY Times?

Yep, they are free to avoid the entire country since it is obviously all left leaning
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Great editorial by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Link
Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?
The Dem party seems to have forgotten the lesson of 2004. Howard Dean was the darling of the web Democrats and seemed to have the nomination all but locked up, and then the voting began and he tanked in spectacular fashion.
So please go ahead and cater to the whims of MoveOn.org and Dailykos for the next 2 years and then when the rest of the country gets involved don't be surprised when the house of cards falls down around you.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I hate fox news as much as the next north east liberal, but I still think it's a pretty silly move on the democrat's side.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The Dem party seems to have forgotten the lesson of 2004. Howard Dean was the darling of the web Democrats and seemed to have the nomination all but locked up, and then the voting began and he tanked in spectacular fashion.
So please go ahead and cater to the whims of MoveOn.org and Dailykos for the next 2 years and then when the rest of the country gets involved don't be surprised when the house of cards falls down around you.

Ah, all this from the "web Republican" that predicted that the "Republicans" would hold the house and senate......


 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
I think the article was right in mocking the Democrats for pulling out of the debate all because of which network was hosting it.

In other words, its like talk radio - they won't go on the air unless they can screen all dissenters out who call in. (this has been proven many times in the Atlanta area as a local WSB radio host has offered his show many times on the provision that his call screener stays in place as she is very fair).


What next, call for the fairness doctrine again but apply it to TV - only FOX of course ?


idiots
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: Shivetya
I think the article was right in mocking the Democrats for pulling out of the debate all because of which network was hosting it.

In other words, its like talk radio - they won't go on the air unless they can screen all dissenters out who call in. (this has been proven many times in the Atlanta area as a local WSB radio host has offered his show many times on the provision that his call screener stays in place as she is very fair).


What next, call for the fairness doctrine again but apply it to TV - only FOX of course ?


idiots

in fairness, Fox is a truckload more biased in favor of one party over another than any other major media company.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
I think the article was right in mocking the Democrats for pulling out of the debate all because of which network was hosting it.
Whoever hosts it holds power over how it is presented, the Democrats would have been idiots to give Fox that power.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,423
7,484
136
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox news because of its bias, does that mean the Republicans can refuse to debate on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the big three and anything that has to do with the NY Times?

Yep, they are free to avoid the entire country since it is obviously all left leaning

The MSM is not the entire country, it's a self imposing group of elitists who often have an agenda to push and people to character assassinate.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Comparing Obama to Osama is cute, and most Repugs support and approve of such lies. They think it's OK. :disgust:
Hilarious, since the Republicans created and supported bin Ladin in their fight against one of the U.S.'s previous boogeymen, the Soviet Union. Better fiction has not been written.
Rich stuff. Rich stuff. :disgust:

Ummm... wow. You couldn't be more wrong. (Speaking of fiction) I was waiting for one of your cohorts to correct you on that but apparently they are unwilling to do so. Osama was not part of the US backed Afghan alliance that fought the Soviets. Osama was part of a separate group, unrelated to the US activities in Afghanistan. He didn't like us even back then.

OBL, in his current boogyman form, wasn't formally concieved until the Saudis rejected his offer to remove Saddam from Kuwait and allowed the (infadel) US military on to Saudi soil to accomplish that task.

As for the joke... like I said earlier... I saw it more as a "Stupid Dubbya" joke than a knock on Obama. But you have to think about it a bit so I understand your misinterpretation...
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox news because of its bias, does that mean the Republicans can refuse to debate on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the big three and anything that has to do with the NY Times?

Yep, they are free to avoid the entire country since it is obviously all left leaning

The MSM is not the entire country, it's a self imposing group of elitists who often have an agenda to push and people to character assassinate.

I find it amusing how many conspiracy theories you people see in how the world operates. And interestingly enough, it's always the educated or informed or the professionals who are all in league against the homespun common sense of the intellectually masturbatory train-wreck that is your "counter-arguments". Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound claiming that every single journalist, and every single paper and TV news station, with the exception of a bare handful of right-wing outlets deemed acceptable, is part of some vast liberal conspiracy to undermine the right in this country? You make the folks supporting the "Truth of 9/11" type movements seem like well reasoned geniuses by comparison. Nevermind that you cut the RIGHT-wing media all the slack in the world for doing things you'd burn down CNN's headquarters for.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The Dem party seems to have forgotten the lesson of 2004. Howard Dean was the darling of the web Democrats and seemed to have the nomination all but locked up, and then the voting began and he tanked in spectacular fashion.
So please go ahead and cater to the whims of MoveOn.org and Dailykos for the next 2 years and then when the rest of the country gets involved don't be surprised when the house of cards falls down around you.

Ah, all this from the "web Republican" that predicted that the "Republicans" would hold the house and senate......
Like you didn't do the same thing about Gore or Kerry C'mon big dealio...
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
I think MSNBC and the Politico are going to be hosting a republican debate at the Ronnie Regan library in May or so. MSNBC is the greatest network in the world, all other networks are run by little girls.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Great editorial by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Link
Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?
The Dem party seems to have forgotten the lesson of 2004. Howard Dean was the darling of the web Democrats and seemed to have the nomination all but locked up, and then the voting began and he tanked in spectacular fashion.
So please go ahead and cater to the whims of MoveOn.org and Dailykos for the next 2 years and then when the rest of the country gets involved don't be surprised when the house of cards falls down around you.

Yes, like they fell down around us the last election. :laugh:

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
This is an excellent issue to actually observe the biases and leanings in news media. I invite everyone to read the articles being printed from as many sources as you can...you will see how the facts of this situation are being "reported" to suit various agendas. Read the reporting from FOX, ABC, AP, etc etc etc.

Fox News isn't the only biased source out there.

Folks, pay special attention to how Fox News Vice President David Rhodes written statement is being used in these news stories reporting on the situation.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
I think the article was right in mocking the Democrats for pulling out of the debate all because of which network was hosting it.

In other words, its like talk radio - they won't go on the air unless they can screen all dissenters out who call in. (this has been proven many times in the Atlanta area as a local WSB radio host has offered his show many times on the provision that his call screener stays in place as she is very fair).


What next, call for the fairness doctrine again but apply it to TV - only FOX of course ?


idiots

The Democrats are idiots because the Fox "News" chief (propagandist) referred to a leading Democratic Presidential candidate as a terrorist that murdered thousands of Americans? Ooooook? :confused:
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox news because of its bias, does that mean the Republicans can refuse to debate on CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the big three and anything that has to do with the NY Times?

Yep, they are free to avoid the entire country since it is obviously all left leaning

The MSM is not the entire country, it's a self imposing group of elitists who often have an agenda to push and people to character assassinate.

You're describing Fox "News" to a "T". :thumbsup:
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Comparing Obama to Osama is cute, and most Repugs support and approve of such lies. They think it's OK. :disgust:
Hilarious, since the Republicans created and supported bin Ladin in their fight against one of the U.S.'s previous boogeymen, the Soviet Union. Better fiction has not been written.
Rich stuff. Rich stuff. :disgust:

Ummm... wow. You couldn't be more wrong. (Speaking of fiction) I was waiting for one of your cohorts to correct you on that but apparently they are unwilling to do so. Osama was not part of the US backed Afghan alliance that fought the Soviets. Osama was part of a separate group, unrelated to the US activities in Afghanistan. He didn't like us even back then.

OBL, in his current boogyman form, wasn't formally concieved until the Saudis rejected his offer to remove Saddam from Kuwait and allowed the (infadel) US military on to Saudi soil to accomplish that task.

blah blah blahhhhh

Ummm, trying to re-write history won't make it change, smart guy. My cohorts? Paranoid much? Yeah, I'm part of a vast left-wing conspiracy....
Correct what? How can one correct a presented fact?
You Repugs aren't very up to speed on a lot of things, apparently.

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1


n 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Comparing Obama to Osama is cute, and most Repugs support and approve of such lies. They think it's OK. :disgust:
Hilarious, since the Republicans created and supported bin Ladin in their fight against one of the U.S.'s previous boogeymen, the Soviet Union. Better fiction has not been written.
Rich stuff. Rich stuff. :disgust:

Ummm... wow. You couldn't be more wrong. (Speaking of fiction) I was waiting for one of your cohorts to correct you on that but apparently they are unwilling to do so. Osama was not part of the US backed Afghan alliance that fought the Soviets. Osama was part of a separate group, unrelated to the US activities in Afghanistan. He didn't like us even back then.

OBL, in his current boogyman form, wasn't formally concieved until the Saudis rejected his offer to remove Saddam from Kuwait and allowed the (infadel) US military on to Saudi soil to accomplish that task.

whooooooooozerdaddy? I'd seriously like your input on this. Perhaps you are aware of a separate reality, a parallel universe, as it were. You're clearly out to lunch here.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
If the Cheneys can force themselves to go on CNN and talk to Wolf, so the Dems can force themselves to deal with Fox News Channel. Maybe they can rip that porky little smug Neil Cavuto a new one, or make some jokes about Tony Snow?