• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Fox News shilling for the "top tier" candidates?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: HomerJS
I thought in their "fair and Balanced" montra, Fox News was supposed to host the debates as a neutral unbaised news organization?

I only saw a little bit of the debates, I don't recall Hannity participating? Are you referring to some "post debate analysis show"? If so, "shilling or dissing" a candidate, otherwise known as judging their performance, would seem rather normal. Actually, the whole point of show, no?

People can agree or disagree with Ron Paul but twice I caught Fox News dissing him.

First, when the early text poll came in Carl Camron said the only reason Ron Paul was wining was his organization was behind all the text messages.

Second Sean Hannity while Paul was still winning the poll said "no way Ron Paul won the debate."

As much as people bitched about the way MSNBC ran their debate the hosts did not interjet their own personal opinion as to who won or put down any candidate.

Looks like the staff got Roger Ailes's memo push Romney, McCain and Gulliani. Notice how the top 3 were interviewed first?

Again, being a "post debate" show, wouldn't it be normal to put on the top three polling candidates first? I might put them on last, if only to make the viewers sit through the less popular candidates just to hear their favorarites. Thinking of ratings here only, then again, putting the top three on first might keep the viewing audience from turning to another show immediately after the debate.
Click to expand...
I thought the debate host/moderator was Brit Hume?. Not Hannity. (I also saw Chris Wallace asking questions)

I thought Hannity was an unabashed Repub, not ever pretending to be "fair & balanced". Given he's a Repub, and this is a debate for Repub primary, why wouldn't a Repub commentator "judge" their performances? Why would there be a Dem, like Chris Matthews, to judge their performances? Dems don't even vote in the Repub primary.

As I said, I only saw a bit of it (UFC was on 😉 ), please LMK if Hannity participated in the actual debate.

TIA,

Fern

 
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: BurningDog
Here is video of the exchange I encourage everybody to watch it in its entirety instead of just catching the Giuliani "smackdown" that is going to be replayed over and over as a sound byte.
Click to expand...
Wow...Rudy is more of an idiot than I thought.

L
O
L

at the audience clapping.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, wow americans can be dumb

here comes Ron Paul, comon sense just oozing out of him, explaining his views on the why

then comes that idiot Gulliani, completely ignoring what Ron Paul said when he was asked the question of why we were attacked and just uses the question asked as an attack

... and then the crowd cheers.. how dumb are americans?
Click to expand...

So I assume the three of you join Dr Paul in being afraid of Bin Ladin and not wanting to do anything that would upset him. Americans clapped for Rudy because he rightly pointed out that Ron Paul was basically crying that it's our own fault we were attacked and we need to make nice with the big bad terrorists before they hurt us again.

If Ron Paul and you three are afraid, you should probably prepare yourselves since Paul will get nothing more than a few write in votes. (Most) Americans dont base policy decisions on islamic fascists living in caves.

 
It is the fault of the US government's past foreign policy. It's even evidenced by their own governmental people. Gulliani was the one acting on emotions (like females generally do) rather than going with facts.
 
Is that why Ron looked shell shocked and his hands were trembling? I think he should go independent and take Michael Moore as a running mate, they have identical ideologies in regards to who is to "blame" for 9/11.
 
Originally posted by: Dashel
Is that why Ron looked shell shocked and his hands were trembling? I think he should go independent and take Michael Moore as a running mate, they have identical ideologies in regards to who is to "blame" for 9/11.
Click to expand...

He's old, and old people shake.

Shake.
Shake ya booty!
 
somehow i really dont think Ron Paul believes it was terrorists that were responsible for 911 anyways, he prolly just didnt want to get into that.
 
Originally posted by: Dashel
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: BurningDog
Here is video of the exchange I encourage everybody to watch it in its entirety instead of just catching the Giuliani "smackdown" that is going to be replayed over and over as a sound byte.
Click to expand...
Wow...Rudy is more of an idiot than I thought.

L
O
L

at the audience clapping.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, wow americans can be dumb

here comes Ron Paul, comon sense just oozing out of him, explaining his views on the why

then comes that idiot Gulliani, completely ignoring what Ron Paul said when he was asked the question of why we were attacked and just uses the question asked as an attack

... and then the crowd cheers.. how dumb are americans?
Click to expand...

So I assume the three of you join Dr Paul in being afraid of Bin Ladin and not wanting to do anything that would upset him. Americans clapped for Rudy because he rightly pointed out that Ron Paul was basically crying that it's our own fault we were attacked and we need to make nice with the big bad terrorists before they hurt us again.

If Ron Paul and you three are afraid, you should probably prepare yourselves since Paul will get nothing more than a few write in votes. (Most) Americans dont base policy decisions on islamic fascists living in caves.
Click to expand...
so .... you are not much of a learn from your mistakes kind a guy?
 
Originally posted by: dyn2nvu
It is the fault of the US government's past foreign policy. .
Click to expand...

For those you agreeing that 911 is the fault of past US policy, please specify.

If it's because we had troops stationed S.A., why is that not our right or responsibility when invited to do so by the S.A. gov?

If it's our support of Israel, why is that not our right?

It really sounds like you say we (The US) are not allowed to have a policy/opinion if it is different than that of radical Islamists. But do keep in mind that many of you love to point out that that terrorists like those involved in 911 are a minority, that the other Arabs/Islamists are different and good people. So, please factor into your response how their opinions don't count, but the radicals do.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
somehow i really dont think Ron Paul believes it was terrorists that were responsible for 911 anyways, he prolly just didnt want to get into that.
Click to expand...


I think you're right, he's a truther nut like Rosie. What was it South Park said about truthers? A quarter of the population is retarded. So no surprise really.
 
Originally posted by: Czar

so .... you are not much of a learn from your mistakes kind a guy?
Click to expand...

What mistake would that be? Saving Kuwait from Saddam along with the rest of the civilized world in 1991?
 
I'm a fan of Chris Mathews but I admit some of his question were stupid.

But I'm amazed in a debate where the network should be presenting unbaised coverage people are willing to tolerate commentators telling people what they should think!!

BTW - Hannity should have kept his opinions for his show, not spew them out during the debate. Also what was Carl Camron's excuse?
 
Ron Paul explains his position to the wolf today.

"He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year."

 
Originally posted by: Dashel
Originally posted by: Czar

so .... you are not much of a learn from your mistakes kind a guy?
Click to expand...

What mistake would that be? Saving Kuwait from Saddam along with the rest of the civilized world in 1991?
Click to expand...

ahh, its ignoring history then

have you any idea what the US has been doing in the middle east since the ww2 ?
 
Originally posted by: HomerJS
I'm a fan of Chris Mathews but I admit some of his question were stupid.

But I'm amazed in a debate where the network should be presenting unbaised coverage people are willing to tolerate commentators telling people what they should think!!

BTW - Hannity should have kept his opinions for his show, not spew them out during the debate. Also what was Carl Camron's excuse?
Click to expand...

Carl Cameron's a hack, always has been, always will be. So's Brit Hume for that matter with his goddawful 24 esque question. Why didn't he ask about the candidates plans for a Martian invasion, that's about as likely as a ticking time bomb scenario.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Major conceptual breakthrough, which goes right over the heads of the usual rightwing fanbois-

The interviewer asked "are you suggesting that we invited the 9/11 attacks?", Paul replied with "I'm am suggesting that we listen to the people that attacked us and the reason they did it."
Click to expand...

Ron Paul obviously thinks too clearly to be elected as a mouthpiece for the usual Repub power circles...
Click to expand...

only a fool would believe as you do...
 
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Dashel
What mistake would that be? Saving Kuwait from Saddam along with the rest of the civilized world in 1991?
Click to expand...

ahh, its ignoring history then

have you any idea what the US has been doing in the middle east since the ww2 ?
Click to expand...

I note you're short on substance here Czar. I assume you'll take each point I knock down and backtrack further until we reach the dawn of time in which case you'll assert an American caveman invaded some Muslim cave.

Paul claimed it was about bombing Iraq for 10 years, now suddenly we're back to WWII. The tactic is called "moving the goalposts".

 
Originally posted by: Dashel
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Dashel
What mistake would that be? Saving Kuwait from Saddam along with the rest of the civilized world in 1991?
Click to expand...

ahh, its ignoring history then

have you any idea what the US has been doing in the middle east since the ww2 ?
Click to expand...

I note you're short on substance here Czar. I assume you'll take each point I knock down and backtrack further until we reach the dawn of time in which case you'll assert an American caveman invaded some Muslim cave.

Paul claimed it was about bombing Iraq for 10 years, now suddenly we're back to WWII. The tactic is called "moving the goalposts".
Click to expand...
Watch the video I just posted, then learn history, then learn from history

 
Originally posted by: Czar
Rudy needs to read the 911 report & should apologize to me!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Rudy-nee...-the-911-report-should-apologize-to-me

Ron Paul discusses at length the full meaning behind last night's controversial remarks, calling Rudy Giuliani out as a politician "hiding behind patriotism" and demands an apology from Rudy for last night's debacle.
Click to expand...

Hah oh man, Ron is even worse than I though. What a total pussy he is to be worried about what we do not on a basis if right or wrong, but on what Osama Bin Ladin will think of what we do. This is why the man is an obscure little nobody.
 
Originally posted by: Dashel

Hah oh man, Ron is even worse than I though. What a total pussy he is to be worried about what we do not on a basis if right or wrong, but on what Osama Bin Ladin will think of what we do. This is why the man is an obscure little nobody.
Click to expand...

The reason he said that we should have talked or listen to Bin Ladin was that it could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. They hated the fact that the US government had sanctions against Iraq, had US troops in their "holy land", and US government giving aid to expand Israel.

Asking for an apology may be a bit much, but Rudy should really learn about foreign history. Instead he choose to remain ignorant and distort Ron's words.

"We were in fact bombing Iraq after the first Gulf War. That was part of the containment policy. As a matter of fact, part of the reason the liberals thought that Iraq didn't have WMD's is because of said containment policy. We were monitoring them night and day as well as enforcing no-fly zones in the South and over Kurdistan."

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/54560

"I make of the fact, sir, that unfortunately the politicians are very comfortable with preaching the idea that this is a very small group of people who are opposing us, and that they hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." Ex-CIA Senior Intelligence Analyst (who isn't antiwar, I would assume the CIA wouldn't rely on a college student's report like Pres. Bush as evidence)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/07/ldt.01.html

"There were "foreign policy grievances" galore in September 2001. The two al-Qaeda communiques in the immediate aftermath of the attacks (Oct. 7, 2001, Oct. 9, 2001) both invoked the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia, the Iraq sanctions and Washington's support of Israel. Just because the US has made the situation much worse in the intervening years doesn't mean that there were no "foreign policy grievances" behind 9-11! And however criminal al-Qaeda's tactics and however totalitarian its ideology, these grievances are legitimate?a reality we ignore to our own peril."

http://www.ww4report.com/node/3883
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top