Why Are Libs Scared of Fox News?

[red states rule]

One again, the kook left is going after Fox News. Why are libs so scared of Fox News and want them silenced?




Liberals Go After Fox News Advertisers

Jul 27 04:21 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer


NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.

Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.

Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.

Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.

"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.

He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.

MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.

"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QL58DO0&show_article=1&catnum=0

[glockmail]

.....
MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.

"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."
.... What hypocrisy. O'Reilly is pure opinion, and he states that. What about CNN and PBS that claim to be reporting opinion as fact?

[red states rule]

What hypocrisy. O'Reilly is pure opinion, and he states that. What about CNN and PBS that claim to be reporting opinion as fact?

Libs hate it when the light of truth is shown on them

They run away like cockroachs

[glockmail]

Libs hate it when the light of truth is shown on them

They run away like cockroachs
I don't see fat ass Mike Moore, fat ass Hillary, lard ass Ted Kennedy, or pompous ass George Soros running as fast as roaches.

[red states rule]

I don't see fat ass Mike Moore, fat ass Hillary, lard ass Ted Kennedy, or pompous ass George Soros running as fast as roaches.

They use the liberal media as human shields

Beside how can one pair of legs move that much blubber?

[stephanie]

They know they can't sell their ideas to the Average American, so they have to try and shut up the messenger....

It's funny just as you posted this..I was reading this at Du underground...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
What do we do with right-wing pundits when/if our national nightmare ends?
At the end of WWII, French citizens who collaborated with the Nazis had their heads shaved so their shame would be public and everyone would know who they were.

What I'm getting at here is, once we're rid of the Busheviks, (and assuming we can rebuild a sane, rational media), what, if anything, should we do about our home-grown collaborators? I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Oreilly, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and all the others who were in league with, and who greatly profited from, those who tried to destroy our Constitution and steal our country?

These people betrayed our Constitution every bit as much as did Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, Rumsfeld, and all the rest on that long list of brutes and thugs. Perhaps, all that's left to us is to simply shun them, or maybe even shave their heads. But somehow, that seems insufficient and to lack any sense of justice.

So keeping in mind that we liberals are people who believe in freedom of speech, what do you think we should do (if anything) about those who aided and abetted the rape of our country?

You'd be amazed with some of the answers...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1452787

[red states rule]

Libs and anti depressents - a natural combination

[red states rule]

Day in the Life of CNN Hosts: Promoting Democrat Talking Points
By Matthew Balan | July 27, 2007 - 13:35 ET
CNN's Wolf Blitzer conducted a hardball interview of White House press secretary Tony Snow on Thursday's edition of The Situation Room about the Democrats' subpoena of Karl Rove and the possible perjury investigation against Alberto Gonzales. Blitzer asked Snow a series of tough questions that you might find on any Democrat pundit's list. Contrast this with Blitzer's colleague at CNN, John Roberts, who earlier the same day, did a softball interview of Sen. Charles Schumer, which helped the New York Democrat echo his talking points. Actually, both Roberts and Blitzer helped forward the Democrat talking points, but the major difference was the approach towards the person being interviewed.

Blitzer first asked Snow a series questions concerning the subpoena of Karl Rove.

BLITZER: At issue, the firing of those prosecutors and Karl Rove's role -- if he had some -- in that. What's wrong with the Judiciary Committee engaging in what their constitutional requirement is -- oversight of these kinds of matters?

BLITZER: But, Tony, the Democrats point out that the conditions in which you've made Karl Rove and others available are simply unacceptable. They wouldn't be under oath. They couldn't even take -- do a transcript, have a record of what -- of what he was testifying about, and that's simply unacceptable.


In the first question, Blitzer repeats the "oversight" line used by congressional Democrats since they took power in January. In the second, it actually seems like Blitzer is agreeing with the Democrats, that it's "simply unacceptable" that the White House set the conditions for the testimony of Rove.

The bulk of the interview dealt with the possible investigation against attorney general Gonzales. To his credit, Blitzer brought up the fact that "they want -- some of the Democrats, members of the Judiciary Committee -- a special counsel to investigate whether he [Gonzales] lied, whether he committed perjury" in his testimony before Congress concerning the Terrorist Surveillance Program, something that Roberts didn't even bring up in his interview with Schumer. First, Blitzer asked Snow these questions:

BLITZER: What do you say to these charges that there are flat out contradictions between what they have told Congress and what Alberto Gonzales has testified under oath about?

BLITZER: Did the other three [the former deputy attorney general, James Comey; the former director of national intelligence, John Negroponte; and Monica Goodling] lie?


Blitzer brought up the "charges" of the Democrats, the partisan opponents of the White House. But Roberts never brought up the "charges" or criticisms of the Republican opponents of Schumer's efforts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/07/27/day-life-cnn-hosts-promoting-democrat-talking-points

[avatar4321]

Because when you put conservative and liberal ideas side by side, the liberal ideas wont ever hold up.

[red states rule]

Because when you put conservative and liberal ideas side by side, the liberal ideas wont ever hold up.

I posted this many moons aga, but for the new people here - and to have some fun - here is why conservatoves bets liberals in a debate

We know how to do it and when


How to Debate a Liberal
First, when you debate a liberal, you have to realize something: you’re not going to “win.” Sure, you will have common sense, experience, facts, realistic knowledge, and the very universe in your favor, but that won’t be enough. You see, in order to “win” an argument against a liberal, a liberal has to have the capacity to learn. And a liberal that can learn is a rare thing, indeed. You’ve heard it said “if you’re not a liberal at 16 you don’t have a heart, and if you’re not a conservative at 30, you don’t have a brain.” That’s because liberals tend to “reason” with emotion, like teenagers, while conservatives have learned life lessons and don’t perpetually wear rose-colored glasses all their lives.

So, when arguing with a liberal, the best you can hope for is that a third party reading the debate will look at the differences between you and the liberal and will wise up and join the right side, and that’s not the left.

During the debate, however, you’ll no doubt run into many of the same characteristics others have seen, depending on how long the debate is. Many of these I’ve had the amusing pleasure to see here at Blogster, so there are readily available examples around.

But, you have to be prepared. Here’s a short list of what you should bring with you to a debate:

1) Waders. With liberals, the BS can get awfully deep. The more they talk, the deeper it gets, and they hope to drown their opponents in a sea of sh*t. Come prepared.

2) A pillow or cushion. In a long debate with a liberal, there will be many opportunities to bang your head into something hard as you see your words twisted to mean something else, then attacked. If you type something like “abortions hurt women, and that’s wrong,” and see the liberal reply with “oh, so you’re saying abortions should be illegal because you think raping and incest are just fine and dandy, huh, racist??!!” you may be tempted to run your head into the nearest set of bricks. It’s natural. Being frustrated with arrogant stupidity is something everyone with a brain cell has to endure at times. Just make sure your pillow is nice and soft and you should make it through. Liberals tend to purposely twist words into other meanings so that they can argue against those new meanings. It’s far easier for them than actually debating what you said.

3) A copy of 1984. At some point, if you suggest any limit on any activity liberals like (except campaign contributions to Democrats), you will be compared to something in 1984. I think this is the only book liberals have ever read, and that’s because the title doesn’t have any words in it. As such, despite the fact that they act more like the government in the book, they like accusing their opponents of such behaviors. A Christian meekly stating his view that homosexuals shouldn’t marry is a member of the “thought police,” and everything Bush does us leading us down the path in 1984. On a side note, they may refer to you as a Nazi as well, as in “so you think parents are actually responsible for how they raise their kids? You NAZI from 1984!!” (It doesn’t matter that Nazis weren’t in 1984…a liberal’s grip on reality is tenuous at best, so cut ‘em some slack.)

4) Prepare beforehand. In order to desensitize yourself to a debate with a liberal, you will have to request the assistance of a friend. Have your friend come over before you reply or start a debate, and have him spend no less than one hour screaming obscenities at you. This will ready you for a typical liberal “dialogue” once they are backed into an intellectual corner (which doesn’t take long). If you want to be really prepared, have your friend repeatedly call you the following: bigot, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, war-mongerer, redneck, close-minded, intolerant, and fascist. These make up the core of liberal arguments, even if used improperly. “You conservatives! You’re always wanting people to have to take responsibility for themselves! Homophobes!” Or, “you don’t think Ann Coulter’s latest book should be banned? Racist!!” You get the idea…

5) A scorecard. Just for fun, you may want to write down how often the liberal you’re debating calls you any of the names listed above, or worse. It’s amusing to see how many times a “tolerant,” “open-minded” liberal can use the word bigot or Islamophobe in a debate about school choice. Heck, a liberal could use the word “racist” fifteen times just ordering lunch.

6) A neck brace. If you’re not careful, you could end up with whiplash trying to follow the speedy zips and flips a liberal uses to avoid being pinned down when he knows he’s losing. You think certain cockroaches speed around trying to avoid being caught? Try watching a liberal with nothing he can say. In one sentence he’s arguing against something you didn’t even say, and in the next calling your parentage into question while screaming about how great Clinton was and why you’re a redneck Nazi homophobe for wanting to let Americans vote on abortion. Even quoting a liberal and replying directly to that quote doesn’t help. Apparently, they don’t see what they’ve written afterwards. Selective blindness seems to inflict liberals at a nearly 100% rate. Someone should collect donations to have scientists try to cure it.

7) Another friend. You’ll need someone you can trust to be there with you during some of the longer debates with liberals. This friend should never, under any circumstances, read or listen to the liberal you’re debating. His entire job is just to be there to jump-start your brain when it locks up, stunned into unresponsiveness by the sheer depths of stupidity that the liberal spews out. As a reasonable, thinking person, you may not be prepared to deal with the intellectual black-hole that a liberal can create when they convince themselves of their arguments to the point where they mentally implode and their minds and words become intellectual vacuums. Reading or hearing this level of liberalism can jeopardize your mental capacity, so when your friend sees your eyes glaze over, a trickle of drool coming out of your mouth, and you don’t coherently respond to external stimuli (in essence, you “become” a liberal), he has to be there to start reading to you. Any book above a second grade level should be enough to snap you out of it, seeing as how even that is light-years beyond ultimate liberalism, but the higher the grade, the better. Just don’t use that copy of 1984, or you may find yourself imaging yourself as a Nazi, in keeping with the liberal thought-pattern. In a spot, even “Dick and Jane” will work, but someone has to be there to read it to you.

8) Another cushion. If you’re sitting at a desk, it would be a good idea to put something under your chin, so that when it drops it doesn’t strike the desk and cause pain. This often happens when a conservative sees a liberal accuse him of something that liberals do. A liberal may complain about a person saying something at a graduation ceremony, for example, and states that the person should never have spoken. But, when you reply that they had that right, the liberal can come back with “you conservatives just want to stifle free speech for everyone but who you agree with!” (Usually followed by either “racist,” or “homophobe,” generally.) Having your chin drop all the way into your crotch after reading something this inane not only dries out your mouth, but also can leave you stunned until the pain in your groin fades away. Sometimes, the liberal may say something like this but combine it with Ultimate Liberalism, and leave you writhing on the floor a drooling, slobbering mess. So make sure your friend reads to you and gets you some ice. Or better yet, just have two cushions in advance, and save yourself a little pain.

I hope this helps some people, especially those conservatives who are yet unfamiliar with what can happen when debating a liberal. And here at Blogster, there’s no lack of liberals to practice on, and just be sure to be prepared.

http://edjamacator.blogster.com/debate_liberal.html

[Joe Steel]

One again, the kook left is going after Fox News. Why are libs so scared of Fox News and want them silenced?

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

[red states rule]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

Yea, libs can talke to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and the rest of the liberal media

Why does Fox News cream the liberal CNN and MSNBC is the ratings? IAre you going to give the usual lib response how the people are stupid? t seems libs have a big probelm when people CHOOSE Fox News over the liberal loving CNN and MSNBC

Here is a sample of the unbiased programming at MSNBC

Olbermann Cracks: With Cheney Under Knife, 'Bush Will Actually Get to Be President'
By Brent Baker | July 28, 2007 - 02:46 ET
Keith Olbermann opened Friday night's Countdown show on MSNBC:


Tomorrow morning Vice President Cheney will undergo surgery to have the battery replaced on his heart defibrillator -- which means an exact reversal of last week's colonoscopy and invocation of the 25th amendment. For a few hours, at least, George W. Bush will actually get to be President. Our fifth story on the Countdown, let's hope he uses his alone-time wisely because today his administration was again reduced to try to reform clear reality into foggy myth with a dedication of language-parsing that makes Bill Clinton look like a chronic generalizer. Not that you would have known anything wrong from Mr. Bush's schedule today devoted to an economic speech and to handing out science medals....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/07/28/olbermann-cracks-cheney-under-knife-bush-will-actually-get-be-president#comments

[red states rule]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

Another fact libs ignore is this

Fox News is fair and balanced

Fox News has a nice list of liberals that come on a give their opinions. Unlike at CNN and MSNBC where it is overwhelmingly liberal. In a roundtable discussions you will find 3 libs and one conservative - add in the host and the conservative is outnumbered 4 to 1

To the liberal media - THAT is fair and balanced

Of course, libs dismiss those libs who dare to appear on Fox News, as "not real liberals"

[avatar4321]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

Typical liberal tactic. Cant deal with the opponent head on. So you try to label them as something else and pretend as though that means you dont really have to deal with the substance of what they say.

Cant handle what you hear in Fox News. So you just pretend it isnt news and refuse to deal with the substance.

Cant handle when people oppose affirmative action because all men should be treated equally and not on the basis of race or when they oppose illegal immigration because they dont want people disobeying the law, so you call them racists and pretend as though that means you dont have to deal with the substance of their points.

Cant handle when people oppose useless and failing entitlement programs, so you label those who oppose them as mean, hateful, uncompassionate and pretend as though you can ignore the substance of their arguments.

Cant handle it when people oppose gay marriage and homosexuality for legitimate reasons, so you label them homophobes and pretend as though you dont have to deal with the substance of their remarks.

Cant handle when President Bush repeatedly hands your asses to you, So you label him "stupid" or a "liar" and pretend that you dont have to deal with the substance of his arguments.

Come to think of it. that is the only arguments you liberals are capable of making. There is no substance to anything you say. So you cant rebutt conservatives with substance and need to resort to "winning" with condecension and name calling. It's really quite sad.

[red states rule]

Typical liberal tactic. Cant deal with the opponent head on. So you try to label them as something else and pretend as though that means you dont really have to deal with the substance of what they say.

Cant handle what you hear in Fox News. So you just pretend it isnt news and refuse to deal with the substance.

Cant handle when people oppose affirmative action because all men should be treated equally and not on the basis of race or when they oppose illegal immigration because they dont want people disobeying the law, so you call them racists and pretend as though that means you dont have to deal with the substance of their points.

Cant handle when people oppose useless and failing entitlement programs, so you label those who oppose them as mean, hateful, uncompassionate and pretend as though you can ignore the substance of their arguments.

Cant handle it when people oppose gay marriage and homosexuality for legitimate reasons, so you label them homophobes and pretend as though you dont have to deal with the substance of their remarks.

Cant handle when President Bush repeatedly hands your asses to you, So you label him "stupid" or a "liar" and pretend that you dont have to deal with the substance of his arguments.

Come to think of it. that is the only arguments you liberals are capable of making. There is no substance to anything you say. So you cant rebutt conservatives with substance and need to resort to "winning" with condecension and name calling. It's really quite sad.

Have you noticed he has ran away from the thread after his talking points were countered with the facts and the truth?

[avatar4321]

Have you noticed he has ran away from the thread after his talking points were countered with the facts and the truth?

oh he will be back arguing them. He would deny the sun was shining if a conservative said it was. Heck he spent several days trying to claim that Michael Moore never claimed to be making documentaries.

[red states rule]

oh he will be back arguing them. He would deny the sun was shining if a conservative said it was. Heck he spent several days trying to claim that Michael Moore never claimed to be making documentaries.

Probably off drinkng another gallon of the DNC Kool Aid

[red states rule]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

With men like O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto and Hume, they put terror into the heart of even the most arrogant liberal Democrat - so that is the real reason libs hate Fox news

[red states rule]

Left-wingers Target FNC Advertisers
By Matthew Sheffield | July 28, 2007 - 14:08 ET
Ah to be a liberal, to proclaim my tolerance and open-mindedness with a few tacky bumperstickers and then turn around and try to silence any type of political divergence:

Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.

Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/07/28/left-wingers-target-fnc-advertisers

[red states rule]

What hypocrisy. O'Reilly is pure opinion, and he states that. What about CNN and PBS that claim to be reporting opinion as fact?

Since libs are now wanting to silence Fox News and conservatove talk radio - will book burning be next?

[red states rule]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

Here is the web site the kook left has set up

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

This is sio un Amercian and so Democrat - it fits the Dem party perfectly. Someone disagrees with you, and if you can't shout them down - silence them

[glockmail]

Since libs are now wanting to silence Fox News and conservatove talk radio - will book burning be next?Take the guns away, burn the books, elect someone with a funny little mustache...

What's next, killing Jews? Oh, yes they do have strong support for Israel, not.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

With men like O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto and Hume, they put terror into the heart of even the most arrogant liberal Democrat - so that is the real reason libs hate Fox news

No more than Hermann Goering or Tokyo Rose did, asshole.

These "pundits" are fuckin' jokes.
Not one of them is worth a fart in a shitstorm.

Plus, ya wanna talk about fat drug addicts and sexual perverts?
Limpballs and O'Reeeaally are tops in their class of blaoted, perverted windbags.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Here is the web site the kook left has set up

http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm

This is sio un Amercian and so Democrat - it fits the Dem party perfectly. Someone disagrees with you, and if you can't shout them down - silence them
I'm not surprised that a republifascist would view dissent as "un American".

For fucks like you its all about the goosestep, ain't it?

[red states rule]

No more than Hermann Goering or Tokyo Rose did, asshole.

These "pundits" are fuckin' jokes.
Not one of them is worth a fart in a shitstorm.

Plus, ya wanna talk about fat drug addicts and sexual perverts?
Limpballs and O'Reeeaally are tops in their class of blaoted, perverted windbags.

Then why can't libs take them on in the arena of ideas?

[red states rule]

I'm not surprised that a republifascist would view dissent as "un American".

For fucks like you its all about the goosestep, ain't it?

When losing (which is often) libs pull out the Hitler card

Libs can't win a debate when they do not have the facts on their side

[red states rule]

AP Shills for MoveOn, Daily Kos Campaign Against Fox News
By Noel Sheppard | July 29, 2007 - 11:38 ET

On Saturday, NewsBusters reported an Associated Press story about the campaign by MoveOn.org and Daily Kos to get sponsors to pull their ads from Fox News.

According to Advertising Age magazine, "MoveOn has been pitching this story for weeks now," and has "been trying, with absolutely no success, to target Home Depot."

As a result, in AdAge's view, the AP bit on a story that nobody else was interested in covering until maybe this effort had some success.

As Ken Wheaton wrote Friday in an article entitled "MoveOn Gets Someone to Bite on Faux Fox Protest" (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):

What's left unsaid in the AP piece is that MoveOn has been pitching this story for weeks now. According to the AP piece, "the groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials." That seems to contradict the AP's own story which points out that the groups have been trying, with absolutely no success, to target Home Depot.

By its own admission in press materials, this is the "fourth stage" of MoveOn's attempt to take down the "Republican spin machine."

Might have been nice for the AP to point this out, wouldn't you agree?

But it isn't news. And if I had my way, the media wouldn't waste any time with any of these efforts until it was actually shown that someone somewhere lost a sale.

I quite agree. Yet, what's also interesting is how the AP bit on a story that, up until this point, only liberal bloggers cared about:

Funnier still is that MoveOn, until now, has been unable to get much media coverage -- unless one counts The Huffington Post and DailyKos as the sort of media that's going to move the masses. Both of those, by the way, are part of this little coalition of speech police, so that's kind of like getting recognized by your parents for a job well done.
As such, not only has the AP shilled for MoveOn.org, but has similarly so for HuffPo and Daily Kos.

Isn't that special?

Yet, maybe even more delicious was how Daily Kos proprietor Markos Moulitsas congratulated his troops Friday for getting the home improvement retailer Lowe's to cancel its ads from Fox News:

Lowe's pulls advertising from O'Reilly show by kos Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 05:59:06 PM PDT
A reader emailed Lowe's about their ads on O'Reilly's show. They got this response:

Replied On 07/27/07 15:41:09

Dear Lowe's Customer,

Thank you for your comments regarding the program, The O'Reilly Factor.

Lowe's has strict guidelines that govern the placement of our advertising. Our company advertises primarily in national, network prime-time television programs and on a variety of cable outlets.

Lowe's constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines. The O'Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, and the company's advertising will no longer appear during the program.

We are dedicated to providing the best service, products, and shopping environment in the home improvement industry. All three of these are very important to our business, and our customers will always be our number one priority.

We appreciate your contacting us, and hope this information addresses your concerns.

Thank you,

Lowe's Customer Care

Emphasis was mine.

Two can play at this game.

There's only one problem, Markos: Lowe's pulled its sponsorship of "The Factor" back in - wait for it! - January, and it had nothing to do with the efforts of MoveOn or Daily Kos. As reported by Radar Online February 2 (h/t Charles Johnson, emphasis added):

Home-improvement chain Lowe's has pulled its advertising from The O'Reilly Factor following comments host Bill O'Reilly made about Shawn Hornbeck, the 15-year-old Missouri boy who recently returned to his parents after four years in captivity.

[...]

According to News Hounds, a watchdog website that monitors Fox News Channel, viewers who complained to the retailer about its financial support of The O'Reilly Factor got e-mails back notifying them that Lowe's had pulled its ads as of Jan. 25.

A search of the tag "Lowe's" identified absolutely no stories posted about this company by Markos or anyone else at Daily Kos between September 8, 2006, and April 26 of this year.

As such, Kos reported Friday - and appeared to take credit for - something that actually occurred six months ago totally without his involvement.

Now that's quality journalism.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/29/ap-shills-moveon-org-daily-kos-campaign-against-fox-news

[Spyder Jerusalem]

When losing (which is often) libs pull out the Hitler card

Libs can't win a debate when they do not have the facts on their side


That's really fuckin' funny comin from a republifascist.



Take the guns away, burn the books, elect someone with a funny little mustache...

What's next, killing Jews? Oh, yes they do have strong support for Israel, not.
What was that about pullin' the Hitler card when yer losin'?

:lol:

[red states rule]

That's really fuckin' funny comin from a republifascist.



What was that about pullin' the Hitler card when yer losin'?

:lol:

All libs have to do is check out the ratings for cable news networks - and libs foam at the mouth

CNN and MSNBC are far behind Fox News

There liberal mouthpieces are unable to overcome Fox news

[red states rule]

For those libs who think CNN and MSNBC have higher numbers then Fox News


http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

[Spyder Jerusalem]

All libs have to do is check out the ratings for cable news networks - and libs foam at the mouth
Just because there are a lot of fucktarded republifascist sheep with their lips firmly latched to the Rightwing Propaganda Sphincter, and eating whatever runny shit it squirts, doesn't mean a fuckin' thing.

It is well known that the writhing masses are generally braindead.
You illustrate that point quite well.
Thanks.


There liberal mouthpieces are unable to overcome Fox news

Where did you get that false idea?
Faux News?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802280.html


The cable news election-night race was just as exciting. NBC cable cousin MSNBC suddenly sprang to life, averaging nearly 1 million viewers -- a 107 percent increase over its coverage of the 2002 midterms.

CNN logged just under 3 million viewers in prime time; Fox News Channel posted nearly 3.1 million viewers.

And, again in prime time, CNN had a slight edge over FNC among those 25-to-54-year-olds -- 1.33 million viewers to FNC's 1.25 million.

The story was much the same for the total day. From 6 a.m. to 3 a.m. FNC averaged 1.4 million and change to CNN's nearly 1.36 million and MSNBC's 805,000, with CNN slightly out front

http://tv.netscape.com/story/2006/11/19/is-fox-flatlining-cnn-msnbc-gaining-post-election/


Is Fox Flatlining? CNN, MSNBC Gaining Post-Election
Television – On election night, the Democrats swept Congress, and CNN swept to a surprise victory over Fox News in the all-important 25-54 demo, beating out the perennial frontrunner to win the total day and coming within a hairsbreadth of meeting their total primetime numbers. The next day, CNN won it all - the demo, total viewers, almost every hour from 10 am

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07/b3971033.htm


FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Jon Fine

MEDIA CENTRIC

How Fox Was Outfoxed

In December, MSNBC and CNN routed Fox News. Of course, MSNBC and CNN had spent recent months fiercely tussling for the top slot, but in December MSNBC nosed ahead to finish first. The Fox News Channel limped to a distant third-place finish, its audience roughly one-third the size of its competitors'.


Hmmm.
It doesn't seem as if REALITY quite supports YOUR FANTASY.

Good luck with that.

[red states rule]

You must be ignoring the link

Here it is again

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Nope not at all.

Its just that your numbers are flawed.

A poll of the lowest common denominator, like yourself, is indicative of nothing.

Good job.

[red states rule]

Nope not at all.

Its just that your numbers are flawed.

A poll of the lowest common denominator, like yourself, is indicative of nothing.

Good job.

Yea, the numbers come from Nielsen Media Research

What the hell do they know about ratings?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

They only poll the lowest common denominator, therefore their results are flawed.

The median does not represent the whole.

Any seventh grader knows that.

[red states rule]

They only poll the lowest common denominator, therefore their results are flawed.

The median does not represent the whole.

Any seventh grader knows that.

Youc all them flawed because they PROVE Fopx news is the most watch cable new network

I love it when libs are boxed in the corner with facts, and flop around like a fish on a hook

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Address the point.

Nielson ratings only poll the median.

That's why their flawed.


"Realise how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of everyone is dumber than that."
-George Carlin


I love it when libs are boxed in the corner with facts, and flop around like a fish on a hook

When?

[red states rule]

Address the point.

Nielson ratings only poll the median.

That's why their flawed.





When?

In the kook world of Liberalville - facts and proof are meaningless

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Legitimate facts and accurate proof are fine.

The shit you spew is not.

[red states rule]

Legitimate facts and accurate proof are fine.

The shit you spew is not.

The fact is, Fox news destroys CNN and MSNBC

That is why libs are pissed and wants to shut Fox news down

[Spyder Jerusalem]

The fact is that all of them are practically neck and neck in ratings.

The idiots that watch faux news don't have enough attention span to keep their numbers up.

The reality is that any superiority that faux may claim is purely illussionary.
And meaningless.

What matters is fact, and neither you, nor faux news, have any.

[Kathianne]

The fact is that all of them are practically neck and neck in ratings.

The idiots that watch faux news don't have enough attention span to keep their numbers up.

The reality is that any superiority that faux may claim is purely illussionary.
And meaningless.

What matters is fact, and neither you, nor faux news, have any.

You've got links, oh wise one?

[Joe Steel]

oh he will be back arguing them. He would deny the sun was shining if a conservative said it was. Heck he spent several days trying to claim that Michael Moore never claimed to be making documentaries.


A few casual references aren't proof so, as far as the evidence shows, he didn't.

[red states rule]

The fact is that all of them are practically neck and neck in ratings.

The idiots that watch faux news don't have enough attention span to keep their numbers up.

The reality is that any superiority that faux may claim is purely illussionary.
And meaningless.

What matters is fact, and neither you, nor faux news, have any.

Ratings show Fox news kills them

The viewers have chosen which network they want their news and info from - and it is not the liberal networks

[Said1]

I don't watch eiher.

But, the more sensational a program, networks etc tends to be, the higher the ratings...no? Senstion doesn't always equate truth, even though ALL news media programs air the truth, it's just a matter of presentation.

Or, is RSR asserting that there is a corelaion between ratings and truth?

Try watching Canadian news programming for a week....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[red states rule]

I don't watch eiher.

But, the more sensational a program, networks etc tends to be, the higher the ratings...no? Senstion doesn't always equate truth, even though ALL news media programs air the truth, it's just a matter of presentation.

Try watching Canadian news programming for a week....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It can be the morning shows, the business block, or prime time - Fox News kills CNN and MSNBC

Which is why libs hate Fox News. They no longer have a monolpoly on the cable news networks and peopkle CHOOSE not to get thier news from them any longer

[Said1]

It can be the morning shows, the business block, or prime time - Fox News kills CNN and MSNBC

Which is why libs hate Fox News. They no longer have a monolpoly on the cable news networks and peopkle CHOOSE not to get thier news from them any longer

Meaning that people CHOOSE to watch fox because it grabs their attentiton and holds their interest, not because it's the truth?


I don't care one way or another, I'm just wondering why? Is it because it seems factual or because it's more sensation, thus more interesting?

[red states rule]

Meaning that people CHOOSE to watch fox because it grabs their attentiton and holds their interest, not because it's the truth?


I don't care one way or another, I'm just wondering why? Is it because it seems factual or because it's more sensation, thus more interesting?

No

Because it does not have a liberal bias and gives BOTH sides so folks can decide

People are fed up with the liberal media bias

[Said1]

No

Because it does not have a liberal bias and gives BOTH sides so folks can decide

People are fed up with the liberal media bias

And the people can PICK what the truth actually is?

Most media is basically bs as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't trust any 'side' they give. But you can 'chose' what side is correct all you want. That's probably part of the fun. OH! I get it, Fox is fun, likea good game of Balderdash! :laugh2:


I might copywrite that last sentance.

[red states rule]

And the people can PICK what the truth actually is?

Most media is basically bs as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't trust any 'side' they give. But you can 'chose' what side is correct all you want. That's probably part of the fun. OH! I get it, Fox is fun, likea good game of Balderdash! :laugh2:


I might copywrite that last sentance.

Lets see - how many stories has Fox news had to retract that were proved to be false

Dan Rather and his National Gurad story

Newsweek reporting how US troops fushed the Koran down the toilet

Nothing like that for Fox News

Fox News simply reports the news and then when the debates take place - they have an equal number of conservatives and libs

[Kathianne]

I watch alot of news. FOX has been going downhill for the past two years, accelerating in the past year. Not so much on how they cover, more to the point of being either 'let's laugh' or 'let's look at sensational crimes'. We are now back to the summer of 2001, Lewinsky handbags and Chandra Levy. Not a good place at all.

[Said1]

Lets see - how many stories has Fox news had to retract that were proved to be false

Dan Rather and his National Gurad story

Newsweek reporting how US troops fushed the Koran down the toilet

Nothing like that for Fox News

Fox News simply reports the news and then when the debates take place - they have an equal number of conservatives and libs

Fox news has probably aired hundreds of retractions, it's not abnormal for news stations or news papers to do this daily.

[red states rule]

Fox news has probably aired hundreds of retractions, it's not abnormal for news stations or news papers to do this daily.

For minoe errors - sure

But any major screw ups like the liberal media?

The liberal media now reports what they WANT to happen - not WHAT happened

[Said1]

For minoe errors - sure

But any major screw ups like the liberal media?

The liberal media now reports what they WANT to happen - not WHAT happened

That's why Fox airs retractions, errors are not always accidental. It's better to say 'oopps' I made a mistake, now stf, than trying to cover up the mistake by lying or through attempted justification. But you really know no more than I, anyway...at least fox lets you choose your own adventure! . :coffee:

[red states rule]

That's why Fox airs retractions, errors are not always accidental. It's better to say 'oopps' I made a mistake, then try to cover up the mistake. But you really know no more than I, anyway...at least fox lets you choose your own adventure! . :coffee:

Yea, it is another right wing conspiracy

The liberal media would be all over any errors Fox News would make -we would know all about them

[Said1]

Yea, it is another right wing conspiracy

The liberal media would be all over any errors Fox News would make -we would know all about them

Hence the retractions. Anyway, if you don't watch CNN, how would you know what they air in the first place? Don't tell me you just watch the cuts fox airs? That wouldn't fly at the Daily Planet, Peter Parker. :laugh2:


In any event, as I said before, my position is that, in my opinion, most media takes serious creative license with reporting the news by stretching the truth, lazy fact gathering and out right lies. I don't care which way they slant, my opinion applies to just about all - even stuff written about myself and family has been far from acurate!

Good night and good luck! :laugh2:

[Guernicaa]

Why are Republicans afraid of LOGO?

[Said1]

Why are Republicans afraid of LOGO?

What's Logo?

[Kathianne]

What's Logo?Thank you, I was going to ask the same. ;)

[red states rule]

Hence the retractions. Anyway, if you don't watch CNN, how would you know what they air in the first place? Don't tell me you just watch the cuts fox airs? That wouldn't fly at the Daily Planet, Peter Parker. :laugh2:


In any event, as I said before, my position is that, in my opinion, most media takes serious creative license with reporting the news by stretching the truth, lazy fact gathering and out right lies. I don't care which way they slant, my opinion applies to just about all - even stuff written about myself and family has been far from acurate!

Good night and good luck! :laugh2:

So now it is OK to take "creative license" when reporting the NEWS?

It is that attitude that has driven away viewers/readers from the liberal media

[Nienna]

What's Logo?

I believe this is it...

http://www.logoonline.com/

[Kathianne]

I believe this is it...

http://www.logoonline.com/

I'm missing something. I couldn't find a tie. Then did a search, still not finding...

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Ratings show Fox news kills them

The viewers have chosen which network they want their news and info from - and it is not the liberal networks

No.

Ratings show that the types they poll are ignorant redneck losers and right-wing chickenhawks.

Nobody with any sense watches TV for news anyway.
They get informed from the NET.

TV news, and especially Faux, is constructed to appeal to the No Child Left Behind, semi-literate, poorly educated, hoi poloi.
Maybe that's why you like it so much.

[red states rule]

No.

Ratings show that the types they poll are ignorant redneck losers and right-wing chickenhawks.

Nobody with any sense watches TV for news anyway.
They get informed from the NET.

TV news, and especially Faux, is constructed to appeal to the No Child Left Behind, semi-literate, poorly educated, hoi poloi.
Maybe that's why you like it so much.

So now the left wing moonbat dismisses the ratings that blows their rants out of the water

[gabosaurus]

Conservatives have gone after advertisers in shows they don't like for years. No one is afraid of Fox. They merely dislike the network's one-sided view of the news. It's all ConRep, all the time.

[red states rule]

Conservatives have gone after advertisers in shows they don't like for years. No one is afraid of Fox. They merely dislike the network's one-sided view of the news. It's all ConRep, all the time.

Then why do libs not demand balance from the liberal biased CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBS, ABC, and HN?

[gabosaurus]

The stations you mention extend coverage to all candidates, regardless of political affiliation. You will never see positive coverage of a non-ConRep candidate or issue on Fox.

[red states rule]

The stations you mention extend coverage to all candidates, regardless of political affiliation. You will never see positive coverage of a non-ConRep candidate or issue on Fox.

Oh?

Fox News has twice the number of liberals on then the number of conservatives on CNN and MSNBC combined

Fox News does give both sides and allows libs on to voice their POV. Something CNN and MSNBC does not do

[gabosaurus]

Fox has on "liberals" that would be termed as conservatives by other sources.
You get that shit over on other conservative idiots, but not on someone who can actually think for themselves.

[red states rule]

Fox has on "liberals" that would be termed as conservatives by other sources.
You get that shit over on other conservative idiots, but not on someone who can actually think for themselves.



As I posted before, libs dismiss those libs who dare to appear on Fox news as not "real" liberals

I am sure such blue blood libs like Juan Williams, Bob Shrum, Bob Beckel, and Wesley Clarke would take exception to being called conservatives

[Gaffer]

Fox has on "liberals" that would be termed as conservatives by other sources.
You get that shit over on other conservative idiots, but not on someone who can actually think for themselves.

If the fools FOX gets on with liberal views are considered conservative. The no TRUE liberal better ever come near me.

I could pull the heads off of combes and clark and the other and shit down their necks. So anyone that considers them conservative had best stay very far away from me.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

So anyone that considers them conservative had best stay very far away from me.

Why?

Run in terror from the truth much?

[Yurt]

No.

Ratings show that the types they poll are ignorant redneck losers and right-wing chickenhawks.

Nobody with any sense watches TV for news anyway.
They get informed from the NET.

TV news, and especially Faux, is constructed to appeal to the No Child Left Behind, semi-literate, poorly educated, hoi poloi.
Maybe that's why you like it so much.

Then why are you even posting in this thread :poke:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Because I like bitchslapping conservatard republifascists.

Are you gettin in line?

[avatar4321]

Why?

Run in terror from the truth much?

no. most people cant handle idiots for too long before getting annoyed with them. its probably why everyone is frustrated with you.

[nevadamedic]

Then why are you even posting in this thread :poke:

Because he's not bright at all.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

no. most people cant handle idiots for too long before getting annoyed with them. its probably why everyone is frustrated with you.


Man, for a buncha internet tough guys, you fucks sure do WHINE a lot.

I thought I'd have some kinda challenge from you sad pukes.
This board has a rep like yer such all-out badasses, cruel and heartless, wishin' death on others and talkin all manne rof hateful shit.
But, when someone else shows up to smack you around for it its whine whine, pule pule.

Its disgusting.
And sad.

The posters who invited me said "aren't these people crazy and mean?"

I think yer a pack o' tools.

[Yurt]

Because I like bitchslapping conservatard republifascists.

Are you gettin in line?

Oh, thanks for the notice and admission that you have no logical point to this thread given your idiotic post. You could have actually looked half way smart by replying to my "bitchslap" as you call a logical throwdown. Though given your gutter language, there is no doubt where you mind references your sorry logic.


If all you have is stupid bitch/ho/ass one liners, STFU. And here is a quarter to go back to the corner you came from.

[nevadamedic]

Oh, thanks for the notice and admission that you have no logical point to this thread given your idiotic post. You could have actually looked half way smart by replying to my "bitchslap" as you call a logical throwdown. Though given your gutter language, there is no doubt where you mind references your sorry logic.


If all you have is stupid bitch/ho/ass one liners, STFU. And here is a quarter to go back to the corner you came from.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Yurt]

Because he's not bright at all.

This fool thrives on insults, I am trying to thresh him out of just ignorant one liners and get him to actually debate. When it comes to debate AND insults mingled into one, the I would defer to OCA at this point. As far as I can tell, when it comes to the one liners/debate, OCA has this guy beat hands down. I have yet to see this "tool" (as he is so fond of using, hmmmm) actually put a debate.

[nevadamedic]

This fool thrives on insults, I am trying to thresh him out of just ignorant one liners and get him to actually debate. When it comes to debate AND insults mingled into one, the I would defer to OCA at this point. As far as I can tell, when it comes to the one liners/debate, OCA has this guy beat hands down. I have yet to see this "tool" (as he is so fond of using, hmmmm) actually put a debate.

Kinda reminds you of Obama and Gabby doesn't it?

[avatar4321]

Man, for a buncha internet tough guys, you fucks sure do WHINE a lot.

I thought I'd have some kinda challenge from you sad pukes.
This board has a rep like yer such all-out badasses, cruel and heartless, wishin' death on others and talkin all manne rof hateful shit.
But, when someone else shows up to smack you around for it its whine whine, pule pule.

Its disgusting.
And sad.

The posters who invited me said "aren't these people crazy and mean?"

I think yer a pack o' tools.

Who on earth should we waste our time with you? You are free to participate in any intelligent conversation. but you are going to get what you give. You give crap you are going to get it. We arent going to waste our time with you.

You arent even in the same league as a majority of the posters on this board. You havent even tried to be. All you do is come off insulting people and acting like you are better. You havent added any intelligent thought into any discussion you've ever participated in on this book. Heck, you couldn't even keep yourself from acting like a child in a discussion on books people were reading.

A good rule of thumb, when you go somewhere and you think everyone is a tool, the problem is generally with yourself and not with everyone else.

[nevadamedic]

Who on earth should we waste our time with you? You are free to participate in any intelligent conversation. but you are going to get what you give. You give crap you are going to get it. We arent going to waste our time with you.

You arent even in the same league as a majority of the posters on this board. You havent even tried to be. All you do is come off insulting people and acting like you are better. You havent added any intelligent thought into any discussion you've ever participated in on this book. Heck, you couldn't even keep yourself from acting like a child in a discussion on books people were reading.

A good rule of thumb, when you go somewhere and you think everyone is a tool, the problem is generally with yourself and not with everyone else.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap: Well Put.

[Yurt]

Kinda reminds you of Obama and Gabby doesn't it?

Actually no, their arguments are much more coherent. And sans the insults.

[nevadamedic]

Actually no, their arguments are much more coherent. And sans the insults.

Ummmm were talking about Gabby..............:laugh2:

[avatar4321]

Ummmm were talking about Gabby..............:laugh2:

yeah but atleast Gabby, Obama, and even psycho have some lucid moments sometimes.

[Yurt]

Ummmm were talking about Gabby..............:laugh2:

You can't really compare her to this poster, IMO.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

You give crap you are going to get it.

That's just what I was tellin' nevadamedic.

She's getting what she's givin'.
Just like you.

Be reasonable, and fairly civil, and I will do the same.
keep up the bullshit, and I'll give it back in spades.

It really is that simple.

I don't chew on anyone who doesn't deserve it.


You havent added any intelligent thought into any discussion you've ever participated in on this book.
Yes I have, yer just too thick to get it.


A good rule of thumb, when you go somewhere and you think everyone is a tool, the problem is generally with yourself and not with everyone else.
Bullshit.

I just calls em likes I sees em.
And, so far, I've run across some here who aren't total nutballs and idjits.

So I don't think everyone here is a tool.
Just certain ones.

You know who you are.


All you do is come off insulting people and acting like you are better.
Its not acting.


Well Put.
Leave it to one idiot to cheer another idiot for saying the same thing I said five minutes ago.
You really are dumb, aintcha?

Well, I'm sorry for yer intellectual poverty, and I'll try to have more pity in the future and keep my vocabulary down to one and two syllable common words just for you, okie dokie?
Babe?

[avatar4321]

That's just what I was tellin' nevadamedic.

She's getting what she's givin'.
Just like you.

Be reasonable, and fairly civil, and I will do the same.
keep up the bullshit, and I'll give it back in spades.

It really is that simple.

I don't chew on anyone who doesn't deserve it.


Yes I have, yer just too thick to get it.


Bullshit.

I just calls em likes I sees em.
And, so far, I've run across some here who aren't total nutballs and idjits.

So I don't think everyone here is a tool.
Just certain ones.

You know who you are.


Its not acting.


Leave it to one idiot to cheer another idiot for saying the same thing I said five minutes ago.
You really are dumb, aintcha?

Well, I'm sorry for yer intellectual poverty, and I'll try to have more pity in the future and keep my vocabulary down to one and two syllable common words just for you, okie dokie?
Babe?

Thanks for proving my point.

And you are right. You arent acting. Acting requires talent. Pretending to act, maybe... that sounds a little better.

[Yurt]

That's just what I was tellin' nevadamedic.

She's getting what she's givin'.
Just like you.

Be reasonable, and fairly civil, and I will do the same.
keep up the bullshit, and I'll give it back in spades.

It really is that simple.

I don't chew on anyone who doesn't deserve it.


Yes I have, yer just too thick to get it.


Bullshit.

I just calls em likes I sees em.
And, so far, I've run across some here who aren't total nutballs and idjits.

So I don't think everyone here is a tool.
Just certain ones.

You know who you are.


Its not acting.


Leave it to one idiot to cheer another idiot for saying the same thing I said five minutes ago.
You really are dumb, aintcha?

Well, I'm sorry for yer intellectual poverty, and I'll try to have more pity in the future and keep my vocabulary down to one and two syllable common words just for you, okie dokie?
Babe?

Facts = 0%

Bullshit = 100%


Another win spydeeeee :laugh2:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Facts = 100%

Bullshit = 0%


I never lie.

[avatar4321]

Facts = 100%

Bullshit = 0%


I never lie.

I thought you said everyone lies. In fact, you were quite proud of lying yesterday.

Can't keep your stories straight?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Everyone in politics.

I never do.

[red states rule]

If the fools FOX gets on with liberal views are considered conservative. The no TRUE liberal better ever come near me.

I could pull the heads off of combes and clark and the other and shit down their necks. So anyone that considers them conservative had best stay very far away from me.

Libs have to lie about their own so they can repeat the talking points about Fox news

They do have many liberals on - even former Clinton staff members

[red states rule]

Facts = 100%

Bullshit = 0%


I never lie.

Except when you post

[red states rule]

another example of the slanted liberal coverage of current events


Broder Baffled Why Bush 'Against Providing Health Insurance for Kids'
By Brent Baker | July 30, 2007 - 00:41 ET
Washington Post reporter and columnist David Broder, known as the “dean” of the Washington press corps, perfectly encapsulated, on Friday's Washington Week on PBS, the media establishment's more government spending is the answer to everything attitude when he acted bewildered as to how anyone could oppose a massive expansion of a federal health insurance program. When host Gwen Ifill raised how “Congress would like to double the number of children covered” by the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Broder marveled at how “the President has threatened the veto, and everybody I've talked to in the administration this past week says take that threat seriously.” Broder equated federal spending with resolving a problem as he wondered: “I mean, who can be against providing health insurance for kids?” Talking over him, Ifill, a veteran of the New York Times and NBC News, echoed, “yeah.” Neither Ifill nor Broder noted the amount of the proposed additional spending Bush would veto: $50 billion.

Broder did at least go on to explain how Bush “wants a much bigger change, a change that would involve rewriting the way in which we provide for deductions for health insurance, that would enable people to buy individual health insurance policies themselves. But he is opposed to anything that says federal government is going to underwrite more health insurance for more people. That, to him, is creeping socialism.” Maybe because it is.

The exchange on the July 27 Washington Week, provided by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth who corrected the closed-captioning against the video:


GWEN IFILL: Well, every other dispute we've talked about tonight is basically rooted in partisanship. But another looming clash has Republicans and Democrats on one side and the White House on the other. The disagreement is over the federally funded state children's health insurance program. Congress would like to double the number of children covered. The administration says that would simply cost too much. So is this all going to come to a head in a presidential veto, David?

DAVID BRODER: Well, the President has threatened the veto, and everybody I've talked to in the administration this past week says take that threat seriously. He's on possibly the worst possible domestic issue to which to threaten the veto. I mean, who can be against providing health insurance-

IFILL: Yeah.

BRODER: -for kids?

IFILL: So what's the reason?

BRODER: But he has drawn the line. Why has he drawn the line? Because in the seventh year of his presidency, he decided that he has his own way of reforming health care, and he is very frustrated that the Congress won't pay attention to the proposal that he has put. He wants a much bigger change, a change that would involve rewriting the way in which we provide for deductions for health insurance, that would enable people to buy individual health insurance policies themselves. But he is opposed to anything that says federal government is going to underwrite more health insurance for more people. That, to him, is creeping socialism.

PETE WILLIAMS: Is it the coverage for children or is it their concern that it also covers parents and it's beginning to spread it around more than just children?

BRODER: Well, the program is primarily for children. But because states have been encouraged by the administration for the last six years to use this money in creative ways, the states, many of them, have said we'll not only take care of the kids, but if their parents aren't insured, we will extend the insurance to the uninsured parents. The idea being the more people you can provide coverage for, the better. The President now says we want to draw the line, it should be only for children and only for the poorest children.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/07/30/broder-baffled-why-bush-against-providing-health-insurance-kids

[dan]

So, is this thread about defending Fox News, or agreeing on how evil all liberals are? Because there are already about four million threads on that.

I can't believe this is even an issue. The only part of Fox that isn't biased is the two-minute recap of the top stories every hour. Everything else is opinion pieces by their hosts, all of whom are very obviously conservatives, except Alan Colms, a timid, soft-spoken liberal seated next to Sean Hannity, one of the biggest loudmouths in the business (guess whose ideology wins out every time!). Rupert Murdoch is proud of his conservativism and contributes money to conservative causes.

[Dilloduck]

So, is this thread about defending Fox News, or agreeing on how evil all liberals are? Because there are already about four million threads on that.

I can't believe this is even an issue. The only part of Fox that isn't biased is the two-minute recap of the top stories every hour. Everything else is opinion pieces by their hosts, all of whom are very obviously conservatives, except Alan Colms, a timid, soft-spoken liberal seated next to Sean Hannity, one of the biggest loudmouths in the business (guess whose ideology wins out every time!). Rupert Murdoch is proud of his conservativism and contributes money to conservative causes.

Not to get off on a rant here, but this rampant, line-in-the-sand, us-against-them thing is really ruining our country, and it's the primary reason young people have no interest in politics at all. Politics these days has nothing to do with what's right for the country (all of the country, not just "our" states), and everything to do with hurling insults. And I'm speaking to liberals and conservatives here.

It's time someone said, 'look, our country's in trouble right now. It's not the hellpit liberals make it out to be, and it's not the Xanadu-like climate that conservatives make it out to be. Things have been worse, things have been better, let's work together and figure this out.'

But, that won't happen. Because it's more important to prove that every liberal in the country is a flag-burning faggot or that every conservative is a backward redneck. Ugh, this stuff gets on my nerves, sorry.

I'm in total agreement. People are lost in the process and have turned into what amounts to rabid sports fans.

[OCA]

Man, for a buncha internet tough guys, you fucks sure do WHINE a lot.

I thought I'd have some kinda challenge from you sad pukes.
This board has a rep like yer such all-out badasses, cruel and heartless, wishin' death on others and talkin all manne rof hateful shit.
But, when someone else shows up to smack you around for it its whine whine, pule pule.

Its disgusting.
And sad.

The posters who invited me said "aren't these people crazy and mean?"

I think yer a pack o' tools.

I've completely fucked you up to the point of you denying facts put right in front of you.

You ain't shit, I crap better debaters than you......mr "no evidence neccessary" LMFAO!:laugh2:

[OCA]

Facts = 100%

Bullshit = 0%


I never lie.

If facts equal 100% why deny facts from the CDC dumbass?

You are a habitual fucking liar, mr. "i've been published" and "you'd know my name if I told you".:laugh2::laugh2:

My guess is you are Dr. Chump.

[OCA]

Everyone in politics.

I never do.

You've lied habitually right on this very board, sorry dumbass, you posted the shit.

[Sitarro]

I'm not surprised that a republifascist would view dissent as "un American".

For fucks like you its all about the goosestep, ain't it?

You claim that you are nearly half a century old.......is that in dog years?

[glockmail]

....

The posters who invited me said "aren't these people crazy and mean?"

... .

A clue. He was referred to us by some liberals who felt dissed by our use of facts.

:laugh2:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

I've completely fucked you up to the point of you denying facts put right in front of you.

You ain't shit, I crap better debaters than you......mr "no evidence neccessary" LMFAO

What you do, sandwich boy, is not "debate".
Its just raw antagonism and inane line-toeing.

When you decide you want to actually debate, lemme know.

I won't hold my breath.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

A clue. He was referred to us by some liberals who felt dissed by our use of facts.

Actually, no.

If you wanna talk to someone who knows me and my history, ask Gunny.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

You claim that you are nearly half a century old.......is that in dog years?
If dogs lived to be half a millennia, then, yes.

You need to come up with far cleverer insults if you wanna compete at my level, Mr. Used-to-crossing-words-with-semi-literate-numbskulls-like-sandwich-boy-and-red-state-fool.

If you need some tutoring, PM me.

[Gaffer]

Man, for a buncha internet tough guys, you fucks sure do WHINE a lot.

I thought I'd have some kinda challenge from you sad pukes.
This board has a rep like yer such all-out badasses, cruel and heartless, wishin' death on others and talkin all manne rof hateful shit.
But, when someone else shows up to smack you around for it its whine whine, pule pule.

Its disgusting.
And sad.

The posters who invited me said "aren't these people crazy and mean?"

I think yer a pack o' tools.

Your not smacking anyone around, your just making a fool of yourself. If have yet to post any legitimate comments or links to anything. You came here purely to attack other posters and troll the board. Go back to your liberal friends an brag about how you made everyone look small and tell more lies to make yourself look important.

A POX on your house.

[glockmail]

Actually, no.

If you wanna talk to someone who knows me and my history, ask Gunny. Another clue. Do you like cold weather?

[Sitarro]

If dogs lived to be half a millennia, then, yes.

You need to come up with far cleverer insults if you wanna compete at my level, Mr. Used-to-crossing-words-with-semi-literate-numbskulls-like-sandwich-boy-and-red-state-fool.

If you need some tutoring, PM me.

Your level? Is that the comic book level? You are a joke, a simpleton that hides behind what he thinks is a badass persona but is in actuality a poorly drawn, lame ass comic book dildo without hair and a very poor choice in eye wear....... see ya and thanks for playing.....bah by.:fu:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

But I sure stuck it in you enough to make you squeal, didn't I pussycat?

If I was such a joke, someone as superiro as you wouldn't deign to acknowledge me, now would they?

Every time you respond, I win.

[Said1]

So now it is OK to take "creative license" when reporting the NEWS?

It is that attitude that has driven away viewers/readers from the liberal media

Help me out here. Where did I say it was ok to lie or use creative license?

[OCA]

What you do, sandwich boy, is not "debate".
Its just raw antagonism and inane line-toeing.

When you decide you want to actually debate, lemme know.

I won't hold my breath.


You couldn't debate your way out of a juco hygeine class, pick the subject professor and i'll have you licking my nutsack in no time flat.

[Said1]

And, so far, I've run across some here who aren't total nutballs and idjits.


My real name is Idjit. I demand you cease using that name in a derogitory manner.

[OCA]

If dogs lived to be half a millennia, then, yes.

You need to come up with far cleverer insults if you wanna compete at my level, Mr. Used-to-crossing-words-with-semi-literate-numbskulls-like-sandwich-boy-and-red-state-fool.

If you need some tutoring, PM me.


Shit, you ain't shit, just a court fucking jester, a fluff boy, not even out of the minor leagues yet.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

My real name is Idjit. I demand you cease using that name in a derogitory manner.

Don't blame me, slap yer mom.


pick the subject professor
Nono, I'll allow you the honor of choosing that.

Just start the thread, sandwich, and I'll be there with bells on.

Some ground rules:

Back up everything you say with a link, from an accredited news service.
No blogs, other forums, or WorldNetDaily.
Stick to the subject.
No personal attacks.
Pick a neutral moderator, who will be responsible for deciding who won each round.
After each volley between us, the moderator must post a decision for that round before either of us may post.
Posts MUST be in response to the points made in the opponents post, no starting new points of argument, no changing subject.

I doubt you'll be much more than a mannequin in this one, if you can follow the rules at all.

Lemme know when yer ready.


Shit, you ain't shit, just a court fucking jester, a fluff boy, not even out of the minor leagues yet.
Then why do you keep responding?

I think its fear.

[nevadamedic]

My real name is Idjit. I demand you cease using that name in a derogitory manner.

:laugh2:

[Said1]

Don't blame me, slap yer mom.

I'm not placing blame on vous, I'm simply misdirecting all my anger, frustration and bitterness towards you. Duh.

This thread sucks now anyway.


Smell yer fat head later!

[Spyder Jerusalem]

I'm simply misdirecting all my anger, frustration and bitterness towards you.
I've heard Welbutrin works wonders....


Smell yer fat head later!
Not if I smell ya comin, ya won't.

:cool:

[Said1]

I've heard Welbutrin works wonders....


Not if I smell ya comin, ya won't.

:cool:

Hardly. I'll see that fat zeppelin head of yours long before you'll EVER smell me.

And besides. I live in Canada. My smell is froze off right after I step out the front door everyday. So there.

Who's Idjit now, mofo. :laugh2:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

I hear that in Canada, in the deep winter, you peel the frozen bedfarts out from between the mattress and box spring and toss'em outside.

Is that true?

Or do you save them in a memory book?

"Christmas Farts", "New Year's Farts", "Boxing Day Farts" etc. etc.


that fat zeppelin head of yours

I can't help it.
I blame my gigantic brain....

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Wouldja mind sendin' me some poutine'?

When I tell people about it, they think I'm kiddin', but I love the stuff.

[nevadamedic]

I'm not placing blame on vous, I'm simply misdirecting all my anger, frustration and bitterness towards you. Duh.

This thread sucks now anyway.


Smell yer fat head later!

There he goes talking about members family members again...............

[Said1]

I hear that in Canada, in the deep winter, you peel the frozen bedfarts out from between the mattress and box spring and toss'em outside.

Is that true?

Or do you save them in a memory book?

"Christmas Farts", "New Year's Farts", "Boxing Day Farts" etc. etc.



I can't help it.
I blame my gigantic brain....

Yep. Cartoon brains rock. Frozen farts blow them up real good too. Especially grandpa's. We only save his. I don't know about everyone else though. Most probably just use them like dung, after the baby is finished teething.

[Said1]

Wouldja mind sendin' me some poutine'?

When I tell people about it, they think I'm kiddin', but I love the stuff.

Heart attack on a plate? Who else but a bunch of frogs would come up with that, le?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Yep. Cartoon brains rock. Frozen farts blow them up real good too. Especially grandpa's. We only save his. I don't know about everyone else though. Most probably just use them like dung, after the baby is finished teething.

:lol:

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Heart attack on a plate? Who else but a bunch of frogs would come up with that, le?

MMMMM, pommefrites, fromage, an ze gravy brown.


http://electron.mit.edu/~gsteele/poutine/new_photos/plate_poutine_1.jpg

[red states rule]

So, is this thread about defending Fox News, or agreeing on how evil all liberals are? Because there are already about four million threads on that.

I can't believe this is even an issue. The only part of Fox that isn't biased is the two-minute recap of the top stories every hour. Everything else is opinion pieces by their hosts, all of whom are very obviously conservatives, except Alan Colms, a timid, soft-spoken liberal seated next to Sean Hannity, one of the biggest loudmouths in the business (guess whose ideology wins out every time!). Rupert Murdoch is proud of his conservativism and contributes money to conservative causes.

and what about all the liberal Fox News Contributers that appear on a daily basis?

[red states rule]

I did not se the left upset over the report that showed reporters gave to Democrats by a 9 to 1 ratio


Most journalists in US donate to Democrats, left-wing groups
BY A CORRESPONDENT

23 June, 2007:

An investigation has disclosed that about 9 out of 10 journalists in the United States who made political donations gave money to Democrats or left-wing groups. The list includes the writer of ‘The Ethicist’ column for The New York Times.

The investigation made into ‘media bias’ by Bill Dedman, MSNBC’s investigative reporter, reveals the names of 144 employees – reporters, editors and producers – from media organisations across the United Nations who have contributed money to candidates since 2004.

Highlighting the leftward bias of the press, 125 of the workers (or, 87%) financially supported only Democrats and liberal causes, while only 17% aided Republicans, says a report in New York Post. Two reporters gave money to both parties.

Candidates are required to file with the US Federal Election Commission the names of all donors and their employers, which provided MSNBC the starting point for its investigation.

A majority of those who donated to politicians work for mainstream daily newspapers and wire services. Others come from ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as two donors from Fox News Channel and three from Fox affiliates around the United States.

Fox is the only one of the four networks that does not bar employees from making such contributions.

Codie Brooks, a researcher for Brit Hume’s Special Report on Fox News, collected $2,600 from friends and donated it to the Senate campaign of Democrat Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee.

Corey Flintoff, who works with National Public Radio, gave $538 to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004.

Timesman Randy Cohen, whose column The Ethicist is syndicated across the United States, donated $585 to MoveOn.org in 2004 as the radically left-wing group was doing its best to oust President George W Bush, end the Iraq war and expel a number of other Republican candidates from office.

Cohen was among three at The New York Times mentioned in Bill Dedman’s report. Of seven separate donations by The New York Times staffers, just one went to a Republican.

A good number of other New York-based journalists favoured the Democrats.

Two people at the New York Daily News donated to Democrats, but none to Republicans. Among them, Celia McGee, former reporter of Daily News, gave $1,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2005. Celia McGee gave another $1,000-donation in 2007 while freelancing for The New York Times.

A photographer of Daily News donated to John Kerry’s failed presidential attempt in 2004, according to MSNBC’s investigative report.

No reporters for New York Post were named in the report.

In all, 10 writers and editors for The New Yorker donated over $13,000 to political candidates and organisations – all of which went to Democrats or liberal groups.

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/media/journalist-left-wing-donations.asp

[PostmodernProphet]

Everything else is opinion pieces by their hosts

Fox revolutionized news by admitting that everyone has opinions....they are upfront about it and identify their liberal contributors and conservative contributors.....on major issues they sit them down in debate....

in the meantime, the rest of the news sources hide the fact they have NO conservative contributors......

[red states rule]

Fox revolutionized news by admitting that everyone has opinions....they are upfront about it and identify their liberal contributors and conservative contributors.....on major issues they sit them down in debate....

in the meantime, the rest of the news sources hide the fact they have NO conservative contributors......

On the Sunday talk shows, it is usally an all liberal panel or they may have one conservative

On "Inside Washington" with host Gordon Peterson (who is a liberal) there are 4 libs against the lone conservative - Charles Krauthammer

To libs, that is fair and balanced

[red states rule]

Fox revolutionized news by admitting that everyone has opinions....they are upfront about it and identify their liberal contributors and conservative contributors.....on major issues they sit them down in debate....

in the meantime, the rest of the news sources hide the fact they have NO conservative contributors......

The liberal media is really afraid of News Corp

I wonder why?


Networks Fret Over Agenda Murdoch Will 'Impose' on Wall Street Journal
By Brent Baker | July 31, 2007 - 22:17 ET
Though many journalists impose their views regularly in biased political coverage, and last year the New York Times publisher made clear his left-wing world view, on Tuesday night the broadcast networks framed Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall Street Journal around what agenda the “controversial” Murdoch will “impose.” That matches the “fear” expressed in online journalism forums and media magazines about Murdoch's “conservative” agenda. Leading into pro and con soundbites, CBS's Kelly Wallace described Murdoch as “a conservative who put his imprint on the New York Post and brought topless women to the Sun in London. His critics say he may not impose tabloid on the Journal, but will impose his point of view.”

NBC's Andrea Mitchell called Murdoch “a controversial press lord” and declared Murdoch “deeply conservative,” but noted he's also a “pragmatic” man who has been “a supporter of liberal politicians.” Mitchell relayed how Murdoch insists he “does not mix politics and business,” but, she cautioned, “still, some are skeptical.” The liberal Ken Auletta of The New Yorker contended Murdoch “often” uses “his publications and his media to advance either his business or his political interests.” Over on ABC, David Muir warned that Murdoch “already wields great power over much of what we watch and read” and asserted that “critics caution being a brilliant businessman does not guarantee brilliant journalism.” After a soundbite from Auletta about how Murdoch's politics influence his publications, Muir worried: “For that reason, this has turned into a painful decision for members of the Bancroft family, who controlled the Wall Street Journal for more than 100 years. Sell for $5 billion? Or is that selling out? There were tears within the Bancroft family and fears in the newsroom.” On screen, a WSJ headline: “Fear, Mixed with Some Loathing; Many Reporters at Wall Street Journal Fret Over Murdoch's Arrival.”

Muir did at least uniquely point out how “others say critics are missing the point, that in an aging newspaper industry, it is Murdoch who is keeping the Wall Street Journal alive.”

Paranoia about Murdoch's supposed right-wing agenda is not new, especially to CBS News. On the January 19, 1997 60 Minutes, barely four months after the launch of the Fox News Channel -- a time when very few could even see it -- Mike Wallace warned that “on Murdoch's new cable channel the news also comes with a conservative spin.” Wallace's expert authority? Ted Turner, I kid you not: “Ted Turner disdains all this. He believes Murdoch's political bias contaminates his news coverage.”

An excerpt from a January 20, 1997 MRC CyberAlert article with a transcript of a January 19, 1997 piece on 60 Minutes about the business feuds between and Murdoch and Turner:


Mike Wallace: "In the last election campaign Murdoch contributed more than a million and a half dollars to political candidates, most of them Republicans."

Andrew Neal, former editor of a London newspaper: "Rupert is a political ideologue. He has his right wing Republican agenda."

Wallace: "Is it a fact that he once said that Oliver North, quote 'deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor'?"

Neal: "He thought Oliver North was one of the greatest heroes in American history."

Wallace: "He's genuinely a conservative?"

Neal: "When you regard Pat Robertson in 1988 as the best Republican candidate you can see just how conservative he is. Reagan was his hero. He hated Clinton."

Wallace: "Which was obvious during the election campaign to readers of the Post."
[Video of New York Post headline with photo of Clinton: "America Decides: Is He Worthy?"]

Wallace: "And on Murdoch's new cable channel the news also comes with a conservative spin."

Clip of Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel: "Those who are street wise in America's big cities know that drug pushers and liquor stores make a ton of money the day the welfare checks arrive. It's a tough thing to say, but it's true."

Wallace: "Ted Turner disdains all this. He believes Murdoch's political bias contaminates his news coverage."

Turner: "He looks down his nose at do-good, honest journalism. He thinks that his media should be used by him to further his own goals."

In a May of 2006 commencement address, as detailed by NewsBusters with video, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. delivered a left wing rant in which he presumed liberal policy goals are more noble than conservative ones as he offered an “apology” for the nation his generation has left to the next generation:


“You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it's the rights of immigrants to start a new life; or the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drove policy and environmentalists have to fight relentlessly for every gain. You weren't. But you are. And for that I'm sorry.”

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the July 31 stories on the CBS, NBC and ABC evening newscasts:

CBS Evening News:


KATIE COURIC: Now to a huge deal tonight. Rupert Murdoch is about to add the Wall Street Journal to his collection. Enough members of the family that has controlled the Journal empire for more than a century agreed to sell it to Murdoch for $5 billion. So what will that mean for the best-known financial newspaper? Kelly Wallace takes a look.

KELLY WALLACE: Is Rupert Murdoch a white knight trying to save the Wall Street Journal or a tabloid tycoon focused on shoring up his other businesses? Outside the Journal's offices, on a painting of Murdoch, mixed opinions on the media mogul [Zoom in on “Good Move!” and “NEWS SHOULD BE UNBIASED!”]. He's the man behind Fox News Channel and Britain's Sky News, a conservative who put his imprint on the New York Post and brought topless women to the Sun in London. His critics say he may not impose tabloid on the Journal, but will impose his point of view.

ARLENE MORGAN, Columbia School of Journalism: It's almost naive for anybody to believe that he's going to buy the Journal and keep his hands off of the editorial product.

WALLACE: The former Managing Editor of the Journal thinks Murdoch will keep his distance.

NORMAN PEARLSTINE, Former Wall Street Journal Managing Editor: He must protect the reputation for editorial independence that the business world expects from that newspaper.

WALLACE: Murdoch's banking on that prestige and the army of 750 reporters in 89 bureaus worldwide to bolster his latest venture, the Fox Business Network, which takes on financial TV news leader CNBC this fall. At stake, hundreds of millions in advertising revenue. Murdoch laid out his vision for the paper on Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto.

RUPERT MURDOCH: This is the greatest newspaper in America, one of the greatest in the world. It has great journalists, which deserve, I think, a much wider audience.

WALLACE: Murdoch already has more than 100 newspapers, but adding to his collection America's second most widely read paper after USA Today extends his reach even more. Kelly Wallace, CBS News, New York.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/07/31/networks-fret-over-what-agenda-murdoch-will-impose-wall-street-journal

[actsnoblemartin]

because unlike other networks, they will ask them tough questions.

[dan]

because unlike other networks, they will ask them tough questions.

Translation: They will scream at them until they give up trying to have a thoughtful debate.

[Said1]

Translation: They will scream at them until they give up trying to have a thoughtful debate.

And CNN has that program "The Righ and the Left". That's an example of "balance". Or, more to the point, guess who the loud mouth is? :laugh1:

Is it wrong to judge someone's natural oral expression and mannerisms based on his political leanings? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Translation: They will scream at them until they give up trying to have a thoughtful debate.


To Dems, they are going to a "debate", the last thing they want to do is to answer a bunch of questions?

[red states rule]

And CNN has that program "The Righ and the Left". That's an example of "balance". Or, more to the point, guess who the loud mouth is? :laugh1:

Is it wrong to judge someone's natural oral expression and mannerisms based on his political leanings? :laugh2:


The last thing libs want is to reminded of what they say, what they do, and they say they are for