Fox News - Fair and Balanced

[sierrita]

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.

True, but have you been to one of their brunches?
Shrimp omelets FTW!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

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.

So you're telling us people don't get trashed by the media? You have a lot of partisan rhetoric "right wing this" "right wing that", CNN doesn't get a fair shake. Hell, I never mentioned CNN. You?re the one who wants this to be a vast right wing conspiracy; I?m merely telling it as I see it.

You?d have to be blind to think the media doesn?t push agenda and character assassinate. That or you?re a partisan hack, because you?re assaulting my notion that the Media does what you and others here bemoan Fox News for doing.

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
You're describing Fox "News" to a "T". :thumbsup:

Now that?s honesty.

 

[fskimospy]

With Fox news it is extremely obvious what agenda they are pushing. Rupert Murdoch has admitted it himself. What agenda do you claim that the "left wing media" is pushing? I always like to hear about how much power the liberals apparently wield in this country. Hell, I wish we controlled even 1/10th of all the stuff the right wing says we do.

 

[Red Dawn]

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?

[/quote]Of course they can and they should!!!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

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

Link

There were two separate and distinct mujahideen forces involved in the Afghan/USSR war. There were was the US/CIA backed Afghan mujahideen (who later became the Northern Alliance that helped us in our own invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taliban) and there was the arab mujahideen who recruited from and were funded by private interests from the Middle East. Osama's initial role in that group was as a recruiter and fund raiser. He eventually organized his own camps, planned independent offensives against the Soviets and started his own front in the war.

OBL was not a creation of the CIA. It's not revisionist history and it doesn't require a parallel universe. It's a fact. His actions and funding in Afghanistan in the 1980's were independent of the US and the CIA.

Bin Laden has never had any relation with America or American officials. Claims of relation with CIA or other American departments are all unfounded. Since the late seventies he had strong anti-American feeling. He committed himself and family and advised all friends to avoid buying American goods unless it was necessary. He was saying very early in the eighties that the next battle is going to be with America. ... No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans. Bin Laden would bring money from individuals donating straight to him. The weapons he had were either captured from the Soviets or bought from other factions.

From that radical right wing outfit known as PBS...

And stop calling me out. I live half-way around the world from you (or so I would assume, your profile is hidden) and for some reason you post at 1am and then call me out a few hours later. I'm sleeping! As I click "Reply to topic" it's 8am here. I just got up. Anyway, there's your history lesson for the day.

Edit: You called me out at 4:24am. I was definitely out to lunch. :roll::laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Us funded Osama blah blah blah

Even Osama says that he never got money from the US.
From a nice CNN article.
Link

The story about bin Laden and the CIA?that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden?is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.
The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

Of course we know CNN is just a mouth piece for the right.

 

[glenn1]

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.

Agreed, and for two major reasons:

1. Fox News would no doubt bend over backwards to appear fair to Democrats since it has a reputation as being biased towards the right.

2. You have a better shot at winning an election when you do more than simply preach to your own choir. Going into "enemy territory" would give the Democrats a chance to engage directly with voters who might normally disagree with them, and perhaps peel some of them off to their side.

 

[ProfJohn]

Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

What's this "far left" that you believe Mr. Edwards is attempting to appeal to?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

hehe don't you wish!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

What's this "far left" that you believe Mr. Edwards is attempting to appeal to?

The moveon.org and Dailykos types.
It was the work of moveon.org that lead to his decision to drop out, or at least that is how the story is being played.
Let's face it, Edwards is in third place and needed to do something to get back in the game. Maybe that was why he made this decision.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

What's this "far left" that you believe Mr. Edwards is attempting to appeal to?

The moveon.org and Dailykos types.
It was the work of moveon.org that lead to his decision to drop out, or at least that is how the story is being played.
Let's face it, Edwards is in third place and needed to do something to get back in the game. Maybe that was why he made this decision.

What I am asking you is what you believe makes up this "far left." The most yakking these days about Edwards these days seems to come from the "Right."

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

well said :thumbsup:

all this really means is Edwards is afraid to answer tough questions; he'd rather answer the softballs that CNN and PBS might lob. the smart voters will have no problem understanding this and will move on to the next candidate.

what's really funny is this:

to all the leftwingers defending him, who is honestly going to vote for Edwards? I'm willing to bet it's a small number.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

well said :thumbsup:

all this really means is Edwards is afraid to answer tough questions; he'd rather answer the softballs that CNN and PBS might lob. the smart voters will have no problem understanding this and will move on to the next candidate.

what's really funny is this:

to all the leftwingers defending him, who is honestly going to vote for Edwards? I'm willing to bet it's a small number.

So, you would apply this to Dick Cheney as well....

/can anyone tell me what this sudden fear of Edwards is about?

 

[PELarson]

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?

Well sure. But why should they refuse to appear on Conservative news systems. Now if you had burbled Air America as a comparision then you might have a point.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Geez IMC... all that calling out and goading... now nothing? What gives?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: PELarson

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?

Well sure. But why should they refuse to appear on Conservative news systems. Now if you had burbled Air America as a comparision then you might have a point.

Air America would be a great forum to debate on. There's a better chance the candidates might sway the one person listening

 

[johnnobts]

Air America would be a great forum to debate on. There's a better chance the candidates might sway the one person listening
_____________________

lol, no. soros and rosie odonnell are die-hard fans of the show.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

Jim Webb and John Tester probably hold their Senate seats right now because of Daily Kos and Act Blue. Act Blue/dKos/Moveon also was the source of cash and foot soldiers for a bunch of newly minted Democratic congress people this past November.

The old meme that Kos didn't back winners was shown the door this past November.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: strummer

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s face it, Edwards jumped ship in order to appeal to the far left and increase his chances of winning the nomination.
The rest just followed him as part of ?damage control.?

Which means the Democrats are appealing to their far left base, not a good sign if they want to win in 2008.
When it comes to actually winning election the Dailykos crowd has an insanely bad record, essentially everyone they endorse seems to lose.
Let them keep moving to the left, the farther they go the less chance they will have in 2008.

Jim Webb and John Tester probably hold their Senate seats right now because of Daily Kos and Act Blue. Act Blue/dKos/Moveon also was the source of cash and foot soldiers for a bunch of newly minted Democratic congress people this past November.

The old meme that Kos didn't back winners was shown the door this past November.

Maybe so, but considering the state of the Republican party last November, I'm not so sure that Koz can take much credit for those wins. People were just fed up. And rightfully so. The '08/'10 elections should be very telling.

 

[SViscusi]

The netroots can certainly take credit for their primary wins. The DSCC backed candidates all had more money and more infrastructure. All Webb and Tester had was a good message and netroots support.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Finally we see some calling it right.

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

Basically he is right, they don't want to debate because they don't want to be nailed down on the issues. Using FOX as an excuse is just a lame excuse to avoid being caught with an opinion

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Finally we see some calling it right.

http://kucinich.us/node/3532

Basically he is right, they don't want to debate because they don't want to be nailed down on the issues. Using FOX as an excuse is just a lame excuse to avoid being caught with an opinion

You realize that the democratic primary contenders have debates every single election cycle right? It is unlikely that they will avoid doing so completely. (extremely unlikely). What I also find interesting is that you are quoting Kucinich. I would wager he would fit your dictionary definition of a left wing wacko... one you would likely dismiss out of hand. Why is his opinion suddenly valid now that he is saying something you like?

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: SViscusi
The netroots can certainly take credit for their primary wins. The DSCC backed candidates all had more money and more infrastructure. All Webb and Tester had was a good message and netroots support.

This is very true. Both Webb and Tester were decisive underdogs when they began their campaigns for their parties nominations.

 

[feralkid]

Last I checked, Fox was a private company providing services in exchange for money.


If anyone would rather not use their services, it is their choice.



/untwist panties.