Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Where are the "facts" that the Fox deliberately lied? Again, facts not conjecture.

While not proving they lied in this case, Fox went to the courts to defend its right to lie and distort in the past. Just sayin'

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

And these have what to do with the question at hand? You stated that it was a fact that Fox deliberately lied in this case. I simply asked to see those facts and you provide a link about talking points (without mention of direction to lie) and one about Judith Regan (which Fox program was she on?). Neither of which seem to pertain to this instance. Where are the "facts" that the Fox deliberately lied? Again, facts not conjecture.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Did you or did you not claim that <STRIKE>liberals around here said Clinton was a fiscal conservative</STRIKE> that Fox deliberately lied?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Did you or did you not claim that <STRIKE>liberals around here said Clinton was a fiscal conservative</STRIKE> that Fox deliberately lied?

Yes, I did make that claim. I stand by that claim. You can believe it or not.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

While not proving they lied in this case, Fox went to the courts to defend its right to lie and distort in the past. Just sayin'

Fox is nothing more than a bunch of right wing buffoons. IMO, FOX, along with MSNBC are some of the best comedy networks on the tube. Why anyone watches either except for it's sheer entertainment value is beyond me (with the possible exception of Morning Joe). The whole point here is that Priceless castigated Bob for making, then spinning, claims he couldn't back up. Now, in the same position, Priceless is doing the same thing. I find it somewhat humorous.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Did you or did you not claim that <STRIKE>liberals around here said Clinton was a fiscal conservative</STRIKE> that Fox deliberately lied?

Of course they did. They do it all the time. Jon Stewart has pointed it out 1,000's of times. He just did it last night.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Fox is nothing more than a bunch of right wing buffoons.

They aren't even right wing. They're simply an arm of the GOP. MSNBC has an obvious ideological orientation (liberalism), and hate radio has one (anywhere from mainstream to radical conservative populism, depending on which dolt is bloviating). But Fox' entire reason for existing is to herd the sheep into the voting both to pull "R." It's as de facto a part of the party apparatus as Libyan State TV is a part of Quaddafi's, and it has the same commitment to journalistic integrity.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Fox is nothing more than a bunch of right wing buffoons. IMO, FOX, along with MSNBC are some of the best comedy networks on the tube. Why anyone watches either except for it's sheer entertainment value is beyond me (with the possible exception of Morning Joe). The whole point here is that Priceless castigated Bob for making, then spinning, claims he couldn't back up. Now, in the same position, Priceless is doing the same thing. I find it somewhat humorous.

I learned this last November, but the trick for entertainment is to figure out which party is going to get destroyed in the election, and watch "their" channel. MSNBC was hilarious scrambling to a) find a Democratic victory and b) find the craziest Republicans that won or lost to interview.

I'll have to see if FOX is just as awesome the next time the Republicans are expected to be on the short end of the stick.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Fox is nothing more than a bunch of right wing buffoons. IMO, FOX, along with MSNBC are some of the best comedy networks on the tube. Why anyone watches either except for it's sheer entertainment value is beyond me (with the possible exception of Morning Joe). The whole point here is that Priceless castigated Bob for making, then spinning, claims he couldn't back up. Now, in the same position, Priceless is doing the same thing. I find it somewhat humorous.

No spin. The fact that they have lied repeatedly and have taken a vested interest in advancing one side of the political argument is not necessarily evidence that they lied in this instance. Point you. Kudos. Give them the benefit of the doubt if you wish. I give them no benefit of the doubt and recognize them as the propagandists they are. Just do not be surprised the next time they "accidentally" mix up the facts in such a way that it benefits their agenda.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I learned this last November, but the trick for entertainment is to figure out which party is going to get destroyed in the election, and watch "their" channel. MSNBC was hilarious scrambling to a) find a Democratic victory and b) find the craziest Republicans that won or lost to interview.

I'll have to see if FOX is just as awesome the next time the Republicans are expected to be on the short end of the stick.

That's a pretty good rule. Did you watch Fox in 2008? It was hysterical. A vote for Obama means the terrorists win.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

That's a pretty good rule. Did you watch Fox in 2008? It was hysterical. A vote for Obama means the terrorists win.

I was jumping around in 2008 too much to remember. I think I was hoping to see someone blow a call or something. MSNBC basically had Bachmann followed by the Republican candidate for Governor in NY (who was on stage with a baseball bat for his concession speech), and I was hooked. Meanwhile, they spent about 43 seconds per incumbant Dem that got beat by 12 points.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

(shakes head)

$$$$$$

that's what Fox/MSNBC/CNN/ABC/etc etc etc are all about. to think they actually embrace the crap they air ... not.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I was jumping around in 2008 too much to remember. I think I was hoping to see someone blow a call or something. MSNBC basically had Bachmann followed by the Republican candidate for Governor in NY (who was on stage with a baseball bat for his concession speech), and I was hooked. Meanwhile, they spent about 43 seconds per incumbant Dem that got beat by 12 points.

That was great TV.

 

[Tiggsy]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Of course they did. They do it all the time. Jon Stewart has pointed it out 1,000's of times. He just did it last night.

And if Jon Stewart says it, you know it has to be true.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

And if Jon Stewart says it, you know it has to be true.

He doesn't say it. He just shows the clip.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

(shakes head)

$$$$$$

that's what Fox/MSNBC/CNN/ABC/etc etc etc are all about. to think they actually embrace the crap they air ... not.

Do you know who Roger Ailes is and do you know what his job was before he created Fox?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

and if jon stewart says it, you know it is going to be funny!

fyp.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

They aren't even right wing. They're simply an arm of the GOP. MSNBC has an obvious ideological orientation (liberalism), and hate radio has one (anywhere from mainstream to radical conservative populism, depending on which dolt is bloviating). But Fox' entire reason for existing is to herd the sheep into the voting both to pull "R." It's as de facto a part of the party apparatus as Libyan State TV is a part of Quaddafi's, and it has the same commitment to journalistic integrity.

Roger Ailes has access to fighter planes to strafe Democrats? And this commitment to elect Republicans differs from organized labor's efforts on behalf of Democrats how?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Roger Ailes has access to fighter planes to strafe Democrats? And this commitment to elect Republicans differs from organized labor's efforts on behalf of Democrats how?

You'd think maybe Kepler would be upset about MSNBC's deriliction in not showing the union violence and incivility from the past week?

You'd think maybe an expose on the people who believe "in the power of persuasion and if that doesn't work the persuasion of power" (Obama friend, repeated White House visitor, former SEIU head Andy Stern).

Everybody worries about the "simmering" violence of the "teabaggers" that never occurs... but the ACTUAL violence of the left doesn't register. Way to set the bar people.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Congrats Sconnie you guys got yourself a winner. I thought it was bad when we elected Dayton but you just had to top us didnt you

I love how he keeps claiming that this is "just about balancing the budget". No matter how many times union leaders say that they will concede the pay cuts and increases in their benefit contributions that Walker asks for, he not only won't budge- he's threatening to do massive layoffs of government employees if he doesn't get his way.

A GOP state senator that proposed a compromise bill which gave back the CBA rights after a few years, in exchange for having state employees contribute more to their benefits than Walker's current plan... and was roundly talked down by his colleagues.

Yeah... it's all about the budget...

Meanwhile, the Democratic state senators are still missing. If you wish to be an elected official in my state, you must either be corrupt to the bone, or your IQ must match your shoe size. This is what happens when political parties replace moderates with hardliners.