huffingtonpost.com— It's becoming increasingly clear that Fox's programming and the radical, fear-based agenda it's setting for Republicans is now doing lasting damage to the Grand Old Party.
Jan 27, 2012View in Crawl 4
I'm pretty sure the republican party has been destroying the republican party since Goldwater. You really can't look at the GOP today and say that they're the party of Madison, Taft, or Goldwater after they sold out to the leviticans and lobbyists.
I love how this submission makes a point to call the Republican party the 'Grand Old Party'.
What most know is that the Republican party started with the Presidency of Lincoln, going back about 150 years.
What most dont know is that the Democratic party is actually 30 years older, going back to the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, about 180 years ago. I mean hell, the Democrats tried to break off and create their own country [the Confederacy].
The Republicans call themselves the GOP. BTW it wasn't the Democrats who tried to start their own country, it was the South. The Dems in the north opposed slavery and the secession of the South, just like the Republicans did.
"In United States history, the term Fire-Eaters refers to a group of extremist pro-slavery politicians from the South who urged the separation of southern states into a new nation, which became known as the Confederate States of America."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Most all secessionists were Democrats." Yes, the Southern slave owning Democrats. The Northern non-slave owning Democrats were not secessionist and they were anti-slavery.
Can you admit that fact, or are you not honest enough?
I can admit that not all people continue in all groups they are a part of forever.
!No s**t!
And also, people [political or not] try to do things which are advantageous to them.
Declaring secession in a state that isnt going to secede might not be a good idea for you as a politician and elected official.
Now, can you link me to the names and political history of these Democrat senators and congressmen that were in the north? How many of them were there compared to anti-slavery Republicans, and how many were replaced by the end of the Civil War?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why are you digging laborer down? You guys are real scumbags. He's not saying anything that isn't true. You don't want to believe it? He's not attacking anyone, just stating facts.
Which is why the Right seems to love to point out that the KKK was started by the Democratic Party.....when they know it was/is a far-right organizations started by slave-owning southerners who banged bibles as much as they lynched blacks. All of which sounds more like the GOP platform than the party of Obama...
I was thinking more of the commenters in the "Low IQ = conservative racist" story. The bulk of the right-wingers responding had a hard time understanding the difference between "Lincoln Republicans" and "George Bush Republicans"....or the Strom Thurmond Democrats and the Dems of today. I dont like Democrats or Republicans...just calling it like I see it....not calling you out for anything at all.
The problem with your characterization is that it's a thinly veiled attempt to malign modern progressives, who align themselves with the modern Democratic party.
Perhaps a better context in which to view the past shape of these two parties is to view them through the lens of the Progressive/Conservative dichotomy, laborer.
In this context, Southern slave-owners that wanted to maintain the status quo were conservatives with conservative ideals. Those that wanted to abolish slavery were progressives, with progressive ideals.
The genuine distinctions between conservatives and progressives are these:
1) Conservatives apply old solutions to both old and new problems. Their aim is to return the nation to a Golden Age (pick one) that never really existed except in cloistered, selective memories of modern conservatives.
2) Progressives tend to apply new solutions and new thinking to both old and new problems. They rely less on logical fallacy and the emotional arguments of demagoguery (Gingrich is a very successful demagogue).
You can claim that you're "just stating facts," but when those facts are used to bolster your creation of false history regarding imaginary and oft-repeated lies about "liberal media," and "political monopoly (huh?), then they become useful half-truths and your political position rests upon a house of cards.
Except Faux Noose presents themselves as a "fair and balanced" network. You cannot be the "dissenting opinion" if you're fair and balanced. Neutrality doesn't mean you get to push out a Repuke agenda.
We don't have to defend other networks. It's your responsibility, as the one claiming all other networks are liberally-biased, to present your evidence to support this claim.
I find it amusing that anyone who counters the whole "Fox News is a propaganda machine" thing comes back with "what about all 5 of these other news sources being a leftist propaganda machine?" Really? One news source is correct but the others aren't? It's a bit farfetched to think that EVERYONE is against you, don't you think? Couldn't reality be somewhere in between (whatever that reality may be)?
That is the mindset of the GOP and fox news Illuminati. Fear, Doubt and uncertainty peppered with paranoia. Let simmer and you will have someone like Glenn Beck, hanninty, Rush, laborer and the like spewing garbage out of orifices.
I find it amusing that anyone who counters the whole "Fox News is a propaganda machine" thing comes back with "what about all 5 of these other news sources being a leftist propaganda machine?" Really? One news source is correct but the others aren't? It's a bit farfetched to think that EVERYONE is against you, don't you think? Couldn't reality be somewhere in between (whatever that reality may be)?
Those five you mentioned are biased news. Fox "News" isn't news at all. They don't even come close to showing news. It's propaganda after propaganda; all full of misinformation, misinterpretation, fabricated polls and bold lies attacking anything the left does all nicely wrapped in Christian dogma. Either way, I get my news from other places. And yes, Comedy Central is one of them.
Sorry to say that Fox news is more extreme leaning than any of the others you brought up. The farthest left network I see is msnbc but let me repeat, they are not as far leaning as murdoch led fox.
I beg to differ that Fox doesn't show news. Here's a little experiment you can try yourself at home. Switch back and forth between FNC, MSNBC & CNN at any given time during the day or night. Now see how they ALL cover virtually the same exact topics at the same exact time. They even cut to commercials at the same exact time. The only difference is each has it's own political bias. So my question to you is if FNC isn't news then what do you call the other channels that have basically set themselves up following the same exact formula as FNC?
All of these statements are far exaggerated, a snowball-like effect of a bunch of people who have never actually watched Fox News. Sure they can have their moments from time to time, but everybody makes it sound like a Nazi-era propaganda machine, which it is not.
It is all kind of ironic, because all of these accusations from everyone are no different than they are all claiming Fox to be.
It is also interesting that no one ever seems to make these claims about MSNBC, which is nothing more than the lefts version of Fox. I watch MSNBC from time to time and they spew just as many lies and misinformation as you are claiming Fox to.
CNN, in my opinion, is really the only "fair and balanced" of the three. Granted some of the people on there have their moments of bias from time to time, but they are generally based on facts and are free of bias.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
False dichotomy, laborer. Fox is consistently far-right, but that does not make the other networks far-left. Fox News is an outlier, not a "dissenting opinion." This notion that there are two valid sides to every argument is logically false. Example:
MSNBC claims 2+2 =4.
FOX repeats story thusly: "Far-left, liberal MSNBC claims everyone must believe that 2+2=4"
The problem is that 2+2 DOES equal 4. There's only one valid side to some claims.
Fox News didn't sue so they could lie. The simply argued that the First Amendment protects news organizations, whether people *think* they're lying or not.
That's literally what happened. "They simply argued that the First Amendment protects news organizations, whether people *think* they're lying or not."
Ah the entire "corporations are people thing" eh? And their defense was that lying was not against any FCC rules...their defense hinged that lying was acceptable.
A "news" network saying that lying isn't acceptable and thus they should be allowed to say whatever they want...clearly the hallmark of a respectable news organization.
They weren't lying. Their argument was NOT "lying was acceptable." Their argument was "It doesn't matter, due to the First Amendment, whether you think they're lying or not."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Clearly you didn't review their case...it had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment and everything to do with the fact that there are no FCC rules against lying. Their defense was "lying is OK" and that's just wrong for a news organization, no matter how much you want to spin it.
mlw4428,
Let me use small words.
FOX NEVER CONCEDED THAT THEY LIED.
Yes, they said there are no FCC rules against lying. (Such rules would violate the Constitution.) But they NEVER ARGUED THE MERITS of the case, never conceded that they lied, and were never convicted of lying.
Could you imagine if the government regulated news stories? Do you want a fascist totalitarian country, like North Korea, where the ruling party regulates the news?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I never said that they conceded to lying. Their defense was that lying was acceptable as there is no FCC rules prohibiting it.
So they are saying "Lying isn't against the rules." and THAT is what makes them a piece of s**t. It doesn't really matter if they lied or didn't in the overall case...what matters is that they're clearly OK with lying. Otherwise that wouldn't have been their appeal.
Faux Noose promotes lying, that is the end discussion. If tomorrow MSNBC came out and said that all of the Republican Presidential Nominees were rapists and child porn peddlers the legal precedence was set by Faux Noose. Thank you Faux Noose for destroying any confidence in news.
I think it was an Ignoratio elenchi fallacy, or more likely a straw man. I'm actually seeing straw man written all over Sloppy Joe's first amendment challenge...
I didn't say he hated America. THAT'S a straw man.
I said he didn't like the first amendment, or "freedom of speech." Which, if he wants the government regulating what the news can say, he clearly doesn't.
I love how all these lefties claim that Fox is garbage and has no valid information while they've never watched it, get all their news from a comedian, and get nourishment from George Soros' teats.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The irony is, Soros is fantastically educated. Something you can't usually say about republicans. Does it hurt to hear the truth that republicans are stupider? Yes, they are. And it's pretty obvious why. Their presidential debates are the evidence that we evolved from apes. Little guns and religion monkeys.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Most liberals have watched FOX... but too much tripe will give you gout. We love John Stewart because he continually show FOX lying. Not Just here and there, continuously. FOX and Republicans are the new Blonde Joke.
Yea, and how many hours a month do you watch The Daily Show... obviously not much at all. He's picks on Obama and other Democrats when they do something stupid; it's just that Republicans give him so much more material!
Stewart spends the majority of his time criticizing conservatives. When he *does* criticize liberals, he often criticizes them for not being *liberal enough.*
Stewart has a continuing feud with FOX. They hate Stewart for calling them out... they have never been able to stump him because you can't stump truth.
And many years ago i DID watch Fox News. However I've stopped watching pretty much all mainstream news (I very occasionally watch CNN or MSNBC) because getting news online is far more accurate, since you're able to look up both sides of the story.
Well said. Fox does what it does because it's not about news, it's about infotainment. They play to their strengths and their viewers. They make a lot of money doing it. Are they "straight news"? Hell no.
It's about a lot more than just infotainment. That part ends when they support highly partisan views of one side of the political spectrum and ONLY that highly partisan view.
The day Fox news stops making money of their practices will be the day they stop doing what they are doing. Just like everything else in this world, follow the money. They are ruled by the profit motive, and very little else.
I think Frog's got it right here - they do what they do because it's profitable, and their viewers watch because they love having their worldview reinforced.
Now, who's to say how much of Fox's profitability comes from right-wing interests supporting them one way or another [aside from viewership, I mean], but at the end of the day it really is all about money for them.
It's understandable why liberals hate Fox and loves MSNBC. However, it's refreshing to have a news network that is not in the tank for Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Actually, that's your interpretation. Not all Republicans love Fox and not all Liberals love MSNBC. That's more of the 'two sides' mindset in which you're trapped. Many networks are not 'in the tank' for Obama. I suspect what you really like is a network that supports your hatred of Obama. It's also not refreshing but completely predictable.
You may 'revel' in your partisanship. I see it as an intellectual weakness.
Sloppy, I'm aware of various studies. Someone almost always posts them when a negative story regarding FOX appears. And no, still not buying the Fair and Balanced taglines. Fox has earned their reputation with shows like Becks (formerly) and others. I'd be thrilled if the country ever got to a point where 'emotion laden' shows pushing extreme agendas were ignored while more objective journalism (often seen as boring) topped the charts.
You forgot the bit about Fox lies, on purpose, for strategic reasons. But that not (or shouldn't be) the point of the thread. The point is Fox seeks profit by lying and giving a rats azz if it hurts the Repugs or not. [well...really...the point _should be how many DB support them in the effort.]
There is no comparison, you're absolutely right. You can't compare MSNBC - an actual news organization, even if they are a flawed one - to FOX - a flat-out propaganda operation with absolute zero in actual journalistic credibility.
Fox was the only majors news station to give fair and equal coverage in the 2008 election, for example.
MSNBC made Olbermann an ANCHOR.
If Fox made Glenn Beck a news anchor, (instead of an opinionist), then you'd have evidence backing up your claim. Instead, I have all the evidence supporting me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
They cover Hannity and O'Reilly like they are news reporters though. Can we agree that O'Reilly and Hannity are the right wing equivalents to Maddow and Olbermann on the left?
O'Reilly calls his show the 'no spin zone' but all it contains is a conservative spin on issues. I will readily admit that Olbermann and Maddow have a liberal spin, but you can't argue that the same is not true of opinion pieces on FOX.
The fox report is OK, shepard smith is the only one I've seen to actually report unbiased news on the channel though. Everyone else played the socialism/fascism/birther card on FOX.
You can tell how balanced they are by the shear number of GOP presidential politicians they employee and sponsored Tea parties they host. The only way anyone considers them balanced is if they personally are as unbalanced as fox news.
Your little boxed up mind works very well for fox news. If they can convince you that only they tell the truth and everyone else is lying, then they can lie and the truth will never be sought.
Who they really target is anyone who can form the world in liberal/conservative black and white view point. After that, its just as easy as defining what a conservative view point is and what a liberal view point is, knowing that you will never truly seek the truth or another way of thinking; or even attempt to understand another way of thinking
Fox news is made for the simplistic of minds, it doesn't matter the issue, if fox news proclaims it is right wing it will be...your mind will shape with them because you have no critical thinking skills to analyze the rhetoric, look at alternate view points and hear a bigger discussion.
Fox news is made for anyone who does not want to do any thinking on their own and do not have the bravery to face oneself in honesty.
Religion uses this same tacit, and its no coincidence that the right wing is considered religious right, its the same kind of people who blindly follow a religion that watch fox news, and for the same reason.
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
Opinions are different from facts. And your statement does not align with facts.
you don't have to read blogs to know Fox News outright lies. This isn't even about conservative biases. Because CNBC has that. But what they don't do when it comes to covering current events is outright lie about it. Fox News does just that. It outright lies. My criticism has nothing to do with ideology. Unless you call my ideology of holding journalist accountable for the things they do and say. If you think that is radical then of course you want a Leave It To Beaver America. That's very very fascist.
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
Fox News likes to act as if their "news" organization and their "opinion" organization are different, but there are numerous examples where what is said on the "opinion" shows drives the dialog on the "news" shows.
If someone can prove that on MSNBC or CNN as it has been proven on Fox, then let them do it.
Until then, saying "not even close" should be "has not shown partisanship."
So you and other liberals claim. Yet record numbers of people watch it, and a number of breaking stories come from there.
The truth is you cannot stand a news organization that has the same partisan spin you prefer. You want to see Fox News die not because they are inaccurate, but because they do not distort the truth in the way YOU prefer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I'd prefer they not 'distort the news', period. I'd like such hyper-partisan sources (of any stripe) to be far less popular. We as a nation would be better off. Instead, a fair number of Americans blindly support and 'root' for a side based on being programmed by these sources.
Republican Party used Fox News to mess up America for along time. Good everyday people are finally waking up to the nastiness Fox News promotes. It's not another POV, it's lies.
People may disagree with Dems / Obama but they don't want to be lied to. If people are never given the truth then their reasons for not liking Dems / Obama suddenly fade away when confronted with the reality of GOP policies since 2001 vs Dems / Obama's efforts since 2009.
Then other questions start to pop up. How long have they been feeding US this crap? Answer: a long time. UK is waking up to the mess of Murdoch's evil empire too with the phone hacking scandal. Time for US to put Fox News away. Obama is doing the best job any POTUS could under the circumstances and is leading America back to greatness. Fox News crap can't drown Obama2012 out but Fox News can muddy the discussion and drag people down.
GOP primaries are a prime example. The GOP are eating each other alive with the same nasty tactics they used against the Dems since 1988 on... America is getting a full taste of how sick and creepy Fox News and GOP really are and they do not like it one bit.
At this point, the party is doing a pretty good job of looking silly without any help from fox "news." Putting those debates on TV has done more damage than fox could ever do.
I think that to a certain degree Fox is responsible for how these debates are unfolding though. There can be no disagreement on issues (as we have seen with Huntsman and Paul), so it ends up more like an episode of Jerry Springer where the candidates just keep marching their opponents' skeletons out of the closet.
The relationship between Fox and the GOP is symbiotic though, to be sure. One would not be what it is without the other's influence.
Apparently you are one of those guys I refer to... Lolz...
But you make baseless ad-hominem accusations with no logical support whatsoever, and you call me an idiot? That is then, by the nature of the source, a compliment. Enjoy your WWE you smart fellow. :D
What is really entertaining about threads like this is that people go to bat defending Fox News and get downvoted to smithereens. They either believe that the vast majority of people loathe their favorite news channel because "they don't know the truth" or because they are "an enemy of their side". They seemingly don't care that nobody buys a false equivalence story or that Fox News has been banned from Canada. Fox News shows faulty information over and over again, revels in trumped up non stories and gins up outrage over nonstories.
And of course the news agency's shrill panic creates problems for the people they are supposed to favor. The chip on their shoulder about these non-stories create a political climate that poisons their favorite party. If saying you wanted smaller government and restrained entitlement spending and hawkish foreign policy and so on were legitimate issues then there would be a legitimate party platform. Instead we get people accusing our President of being "the food stamp President". We get racism, bigotry, intolerance, fear-mongering and people complaining about taxes (who will gladly raise taxes on the poor and middle class but not the rich). We get people talking about "death panels" and "Obama is the Antichrist" and "the war on Christmas".
If you guys are the party of Rush Limbaugh, then you marginalize yourselves and the rest of the world is moving on, because we have problems that need solving and better things to do.
A well written article and accurate title (for once). Yes, I know the more typical conservative posters will dismiss it and ride to the aid of Poor Fox news. But really, it's accurate to say that FOX calls the shots now for the Republican party and has helped make it's Listeners more biased, more extreme, less 'thoughtful'. I also would not mark it as a good sign if MSNBC and other Left leaning sources started to get a strong foothold. We don't need more Polarization and Bias. We need less.We'd be better off without all these sources of Propaganda. Watching FOX is like eating too much Junk food. Try some of the healthier options occasionally.
It's not only Fox News that's destroying the GOP, it's also AM talkradio. The party has essentially become the AM talkradio party. Every talkingpoint now heard by any conservative in any venue is a recording of what was heard on one of the AM blowhard freak shows. Even Fox is guilty of this. It has become evident that the party is no longer a party of ideas, but a party of parrots repeating regurgitated talkingpoints. Unfortunately for them, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to live in a Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity trumped up version of America. When you have to get your ideas from a radio disc jockey, you've lost the war of ideas, as well as the culture war.
I picked up some AM radio station last night where a wingnut caller was complaining that "If a raped woman got pregnant and had the baby, you just know all liberal judges would give the rapist visitation rights."
That particular 'wingnut' crowd is one of my 'least favorite' groups involved in politics. There just isn't any apparent critical thought. It's mostly the conspiracy theory, unscientific, and irrational group.
AM Radio is distroying the GOP? Not from where I am at... No one is distroying the GOP except themselves.You mean to tell me that the GOP can't find any better condiates than Gringrich and Romney. Both are big government spenders that want you to think they are conservatives.It sad to see who we have for President and who might be running against him. Just another big show for the dumb american public.
People don't like to be fed extremely negative stories about our government constantly. They eventually begin to simply tune out ... and that is exactly what Fox is causing people to do. They would rather not listen to the news, than listen to high prejudiced hysteria!
Of course there was that wonderful recent study which demonstrated that Americans who watch no news programmes are better informed than those who get their news from Fox. The articles have been posted on digg.
Yeah they have, and I took the time to look into it and debunk it for the utter bulls**t it is:
The survey only asked four questions:
1) These days, there is more going on in politics and the world than anyone can keep track of. We’d like to ask about a few things that have been in the news recently, to see how well the news media has been doing its job. To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in bringing down the regime there?
Not surprising, since FOX hasn't spent a ton of time on the issue since Mubarak was deposed. Left-leaning outlets like MSNBC and The Daily Show have talked about it far more, as they've (amazingly) tied the OWS protests to the struggle for freedom in the Middle East.
And in fact, although Mubarak is gone it's essentially the same power structure--including many of his former military henchmen--who are still running the show.
So were they really successful in bringing down the regime? Perhaps in a technical sense but as a practical matter it's pretty ambiguous. 'Right' and 'wrong' answers here aren't so easily defined. FOX viewers are more conservative and therefore less likely to associate the notion of success with the fall of the Mubarak regime, and for good reason. I have a sneaking suspicion that if Daily Show viewers were asked if the Egyptian protests help lead to more freedom in that country they'd probably answer that they did. The reality is that's not the case.
2) How about the opposition groups in Syria? Have they been successful in bringing down the regime there?
Again, a related question about the Arab Spring, which as I've noted, left-leaning outlets have devoted a lot more airtime to. No surprise that they'd be a bit more informed about it.
3) A large group of protestors has been camped out on Wall Street for the last couple of weeks. To the best of your knowledge, are these protestors mostly Republicans or Democrats?
Is there really a right or wrong answer here? To my knowledge no poll or study has been done to try and confirm party affiliation, so how the survey can deduce what's an "informed" opinion here is beyond me.
And what's a bit striking about the answers to this question is that OWS has gone out of its way to proclaim that the movement is NOT all about Democrats and Republicans...that it's a grassroots effort encompassing people from all sides of the political spectrum.
4) Right now, which candidate seems to be leading in the polls for Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?
Seriously? What day is it?
So...two ambiguous questions about the Arab Spring, one about who the GOP frontrunner is in a race in which different polls have various candidates leading, and another about OWS party affiliation which has never been documented, and the poll-takers conclude:
"..the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."
That is patently ridiculous and patently unfair, but apparently hacks like these aren't concerned with such things. Without looking into the meat of it, it makes a convenient spear-tip to once again marginalize a network which Progressives see as a threat. f**king disgusting, and these pricks ought to be fired.
Here's the steaming offering, which most people won't bother looking at since the headline is quite enough for propaganda purposes. Judge for yourself:
The GOP has their collective heads stuck in the sand. They're like that NFL team that continues to stick to the game plan even when they're down five touchdowns. Not only does the GOP not have a solution, I'm astonished that they still haven't realized that they have a problem. Obama is going to win. It's going to be another landslide. And the GOP will, once again, be left standing around the water cooler on Monday morning scratching their heads wondering what the hell just happened. "We thought SURE that was going to work..."
The GOP has their collective heads stuck in the sand. They're like that NFL team that continues to stick to the game plan even when they're down five touchdowns. Not only does the GOP not have a solution, I'm astonished that they still haven't realized that they have a problem. Obama is going to win. It's going to be another landslide. And the GOP will, once again, be left standing around the water cooler on Monday morning scratching their heads wondering what the hell just happened. "We thought SURE that was going to work..."
Not really the republican party in it self is self destructive, however Fox"News" does a damn good job at representing what they stand for!
Just look at these freaking GOPbots with their brainless factless BS responses.
They all just sound like they just got of of kindergarden.
FOX"News" Is the biggest Piece of s**t stew factless BS hate spilling and spining mashine we have in the media today.
If you defent or support that ludacris Channel in anyway you don't diserve a place in humanity!
Do the world a favor and go ctrl ald delete your self please!
It is Fox New's job in addition with Hannity, Savage, Paggs, and Limbaugh to keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination. That's job one for them right now.
Ron Paul can't help the suckers who fall for all the anti-liberty, anti-Ron Paul messages from Big Media and the statist puppets like Hannity, Savage, Paggs and Limbaugh.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Perhaps you identify with the statists? You can always move to N. Korea, you might enjoy some of the big government benefits of living there. Ron Paul hates N. Korea probably for the same reasons you might love it. You got nothin to lose...check it out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Let me pose a hypothetical....if there are three people on a particular thread and two of the three happen to be literate and are rooted in reality, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're the same people.
Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage are trying their hardest to get people to not vote for the one candidate who is not a big government guy. They absolutely are puppets to someone.
And the wierd thing is, Savage will puppet everything Ron Paul says...the federal reserve, the police state stuff, but then, when it counts, he will do everything in his power to get people nominate anyone but Ron Paul. And then when this is all over, he'll go back to puppeting him again. He's the very worse type of rat. Unlike a liberal who will at least stand by his statist principles the whole time, Savage will try and blend in with opposition and try and deceive them.
And what do you think Ron Paul would accomplish once he got in office? He still has to go through congress. You Ron Paul folks really live in a fairytale land.
What could he accomplish? Ill tell you one easy thing he could accomplish day *1* that congress has no control over. He could close down every overseas military base and bring every single soldier HOME to the United States as commander in chief, gutting close to a trillion dollars from the budget on day *1*. How's that for a start?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boy our friends in Europe wont like that when their economies collapse over the loss of the American welfare we have been sporting the European economies the last 60 years.
that would be just the kick in the balls the euro would need...
Their economy has already collapsed. And Europe survived for centuries without our bases I think they will be ok. But thanks for throwing a red hearing around.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
And what part of that is OUR problem? No where in the US Constitution does it say "...provide for the common defense of EUROPE." No where. Are you so blind you can't understand that?
That certainly has some truth. The establishment (definitely includes FOX) must protect itself. Thus, more people need to understand that 'any candidate' that steps outside of the party line will be vilified and have his character attacked. I wish more people were 'less susceptible' to such tactics.
I like a lot what Ron Paul says. But, he has one problem, He is UN-ELECTABLE. Even if hell was to freeze over and it won't, he can not beat Obama. He might get 20% the vote.
"It is Fox New's job in addition with Hannity, Savage, Paggs, and Limbaugh to keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination. That's job one for them right now."
Sorry, but their "job one" is to keep eyeballs on the idiot box and to sell soap; they are in the entertainment business. Ron Paul is an interesting side show, but he never did (and never will) have a chance of being nominated by the republicans. The republicans will nominate a republican, not a libertarian. Paul knows this as well as (almost) everyone else in america. His agenda is to publicize the libertarian platform, and he is doing a pretty good job of that. Maybe the libertarians can convert this into an independent campaign in 2016?
There's a reason Savage parrots everything Ron Paul says, as if those were his ideas, and then turns around and tells everyone to not vote for him.
He's either incredibly stupid, or he's doing his job, which is to get people to not vote for Ron Paul.
Sorry, but have no idea who "Savage" is. I'm assuming he is not a professional wrestler?
Keep in mind that most people will not even begin to think about the election until six months from now. Ron Paul will almost certainly not be on the ballot. If he does somehow run as an independent, he will just take a few percent of the vote away from the republican nominee. He is being ignored because he is not a factor. If he got on the ballot, he would be covered as a potential spoiler by the media.
Republican Party used Fox News to mess up America for along time. Good everyday people are finally waking up to the nastiness Fox News promotes. It's not another POV, it's lies.
People may disagree with Dems / Obama but they don't want to be lied to. If people are never given the truth then their reasons for not liking Dems / Obama suddenly fade away when confronted with the reality of GOP policies since 2001 vs Dems / Obama's efforts since 2009.
Then other questions start to pop up. How long have they been feeding US this crap? Answer: a long time. UK is waking up to the mess of Murdoch's evil empire too with the phone hacking scandal. Time for US to put Fox News away. Obama is doing the best job any POTUS could under the circumstances and is leading America back to greatness. Fox News crap can't drown Obama2012 out but Fox News can muddy the discussion and drag people down.
GOP primaries are a prime example. The GOP are eating each other alive with the same nasty tactics they used against the Dems since 1988 on... America is getting a full taste of how sick and creepy Fox News and GOP really are and they do not like it one bit.
I didn't think it was, but I'm starting to wonder. They have pushed the republicans to crazy areas, and when they have success, then just keep pushing.
However, so far, the republican electorate (a slavish bunch of sheep to begin with) have just went with them. But now they are starting to actually get burned by it. So I think they are near being damaged. Destroyed might be hyperbole, but damaged is clear. Once the slow moving, slow thinking republicans pull away from them it will take a long time for that ilk to come back. We may be looking at a long time of republicans being out of office.
No you didn't. Obama is not, and has never been a radical anything. 2010 came as a relief, not a concern. Yeah! At last someone I'm happy to vote for. But there is no such thing as a non-radical republican right now. The bulk of the country knows that. It's a completely different issue. Republicans run the gambit between 'same old' and 'very similar.' There is simply nobody they want to vote for.
Now, they'll still get a lot of votes. The racists will always vote republican. The 'Fox News' crowd as well. Big business and their employees will always vote for the party of 'zero sum' poverty. But will that be enough? I doubt it, especially if Newt is your man.
Not just the republican party but the whole nation with it's fact-free and hate-mongering filling the air 24 hrs a day, complaining constantly about what President Obama did or did not do especially the same things the former presidents had done or not done when they were in charge, or calling any republican politician that got into trouble democrat even the republican governor who actually worked for Fox News for yrs when he was defeated on his union-bursting law.
Not really. The Republican party was once a viable alternative, but years of having Fox pander to the craziest of humanity, has left the Republicans under the control of those crazies. Fox is the one that pushes nominees like Gingrich into the spotlight.
"Even Ronald Reagan would not get elected by todays Republicans."
Yup:
"As president, the conservative icon approved several tax increases to deal with a soaring budget deficit, repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit, signed into law a bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and, despite his anti-Washington rhetoric, oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government. Before that, as California governor, he enacted what at the time was the largest state tax increase in American history. He also signed into law one of the nation's most permissive abortion bills; any Republican who tried that today would be cast out of the party." http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-reagan-revisionism-20110907
As all Republicans practically have to sign a new tax pledge to even stand a chance of even getting party support it means the end of Reagan republicans. The party has move so far to the extreme the moderates are at a loss to who to support.
I still can't shake the feeling that this is part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to throw the election and let Obama win, thus ensuring that by 2016 people will be so sick of the Democrats and Obama in particular that the Republicans will have free reign to do whatever the f**k they want. And before anyone starts cheering for that, let's not forget what lying s**theads the Republicans all are, and that those promises of small government and fiscal responsibility don't mean jack s**t once they get their hands on the wheel.
I've wondered that conspiracy too. If that's the case, I can only hope that the Tea Party actually gets that 2016 nod because I trust them much more to actually carry out on their promises. Although I'd love an OWS-candidate to challenge Obama this year...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Well, Obama could throw a massive wrench in that cog, by governing the nation responsibly and honestly; but, that would require him to disassociate himself from many of the entities responsible for financing his campaigns - an unlikely scenario.
Give any politician enough time to talk or govern and they'll prove their ineptitude.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I know a lot of people like to mention this, but I think Obama might have a legitimate reason for doing what he is doing. I think if you become POTUS the powers that be control you a lot more than people think or would like to think. Its quite scary.
what is this war on christmas thing. because no one else talked about it. I have a few ppl on my FB who wrote weird statuses last month like "Merry Christmas, and if you're offended by it then you can go to hell and die!!"
I was like "WTF?" I don't think anybody is caring about it. But then again this guy lives in a small town in Oklahoma. Sooooooooooooo they're not connected to the real world or anything outside of their town.
I hate to be cynical, but I'd go to Huffington Post to learn how they think Fox is destroying the Republican party as likely as I would go to a wolf and ask for vegetarian receipts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Of course. Why trust an outside source when Murdoch's Corporation News will tell you to think?
As Bush speechwriter David Frum is quoted at the end of the article: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox."
But I'm sure "no true republican" would say that. Huffington Post made it up.
It's not conservatives who are the problem, it's people like Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.
They could call themselves the Moderate-and-Reasonable Party of America and they'd still be every bit as dangerous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It's always fun to hear Repukes bitching about how there are "sooo many liberal news networks."
I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but: reality is liberal...when you live in the REAL world most of the s**t the Repuke party comes up with is pure s**t.
The fact that you and others can't see some of those biases is what is disturbing and why it is so dangerous. Let's take ABC as an example and one of the most glaring . George Stephanopolous is as staunch of a liberal as you will find in all of media, but he hides it well. Prior to getting involved in news, every job he had was for a Democrat--first as aide to Ed Feighan, then working on Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign in '88, then as an assistant to Dick Gephardt and finally as an adviser on Bill Clinton's campaign during his initial run for the White House. For all his efforts, he was appointed as a senior adviser in the Clinton administration on policy and was pretty much the brains behind Hillary's healthcare reform package.
Now, I think George is a sharp political mind, but there is little doubt that he leans hard to the left and having watched him for nearly 20 years, especially over the last decade as he has become more involved in day to day media, his liberal tendencies show constantly in how he handles interviews and reporting. He is regularly soft with Democrats and more aggressive and inflammatory with Republicans. The most recent example of this was when he moderated the GOP debate in New Hampshire. He went beyond the role of moderator and chose to take on the role of antagonist in regards to much of his questioning.
While ABC or other major media outlets might not be entirely liberal, they employ liberal journalists who at times show a complete lack of ability to be objective. It's no secret that Fox as a whole swings right, but in my opinion that is far less dangerous than having left leaning journalists appear to be objective while undermining their opponents and enemies.
Even Fox hires liberals (sort of.) But there is no network out there that has an 'agenda.' Only Fox. If there stopped being money in 'liberal opinion' then MSNBC would turn on a dime. It's not ideologically liberal. It simply isn't. ABC is owned by Disney. The evil empire, we like to call them. Disney is on the social right. But don't think for a minute that makes ABC a 'right wing' outfit. It's a MONEY MAKING outfit.
There is only one outlet that truly is intentionally slanted and that is Fox. When the public turns away from the right, they will still be doing what they do despite the profit loss. Because profit is not their main thing. They are a propaganda outlet. This is just a fact.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The Republican party CANNOT be hurt by anything -- not by Fox or some other Ministry of Truth, subtle or not. It is a sock puppet -- just like the Democratic party.
When War Criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others can go on lecture circuits and book tours explaining; "What happened" during their administration -- and there are no rebuttals to their STORY. Then the next administration -- allegedly the Opposition, holds no investigations and does not change policies that have almost made the Constitution null and void -- that to me means that we just saw a "victory lap."
The winners of wars write the history -- and since 2000 when Bush was appointed to office by the Supreme Court, and 2001 when they investigated their own crimes and led us to war -- we as a country are merely coming to terms with the fact that the Oligarchs won and the PEOPLE lost.
If Germany had won WW II, there would have been no trials in the Hague, unless of course FDR were held to account for the internment of Japanese, or some French resistance fighter were hung for opposing a "lawful occupation."
Anyone who said that the Polish had not attacked the Reichstag and Germany 21 times would be called a Conspiracy Theorist and laughed at -- because by that time, the Nazis would be feeling a lot more secure about their position in this world, and would not need to kill everyone who disagreed -- they'd merely have their spokespeople in the Media subject dissenters to ridicule.
>> I don't wish to push a bunch of hyperbole -- but sometimes I have to reflect on how much we've lost of our soul as a nation since 2000. And when people look at the tempest in the Tea Pot that is Fox News, they forget that CNN and NPR don't cover the REAL issues either. Fox is for the Brown Shirts, and the rest of the media is for the Good Germans.
The elections now are pointless -- they are merely an audition for the best Sock Puppet. A few "factions" that wish to WIN are all factions that merely compete for who can best herd the sheep. Is it going to be the thoughtful and kindly Obama who gets pushed around by the big bad Republicans, yet he allows the NDAA and another bill that can make anyone called a Terrorist no longer a citizen and therefore have no rights under the NDAA? Is it going to be Mitt, who appeals to the Big Business fans. Is it going to be Newt who gets cover by the Mossad?
Maybe there is a point to local elections and who gets in the House and Senate -- maybe a few righteous people slip through the cracks. But all our Presidential hopefuls are vetted (compromised), and none of them would work for the people.
Horses**t. FOX has been supporting those devils always. Who is writing for huffy butt to spread propaganda to get back all those CONsumers they lost? Never mind, I'll go look.
mikeymondaviJan 27, 2012
I'm pretty sure the republican party has been destroying the republican party since Goldwater. You really can't look at the GOP today and say that they're the party of Madison, Taft, or Goldwater after they sold out to the leviticans and lobbyists.
laborerJan 27, 2012
I love how this submission makes a point to call the Republican party the 'Grand Old Party'.
What most know is that the Republican party started with the Presidency of Lincoln, going back about 150 years.
What most dont know is that the Democratic party is actually 30 years older, going back to the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, about 180 years ago. I mean hell, the Democrats tried to break off and create their own country [the Confederacy].
Davis was a Democrat Senator.
So the GOP is actually the "Grand Young Party' in comparison to that other political [and media] monopoly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
The Republicans call themselves the GOP. BTW it wasn't the Democrats who tried to start their own country, it was the South. The Dems in the north opposed slavery and the secession of the South, just like the Republicans did.
laborerJan 27, 2012
Most all secessionists were Democrats.
One of their major concerns pre-Lincoln was the spread of the Republican party.
They actually feared handing off the government. So they didnt.
Of the 11 Fire-Eaters listed on Wikipedia, only 3 were not elected Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-Eaters
"In United States history, the term Fire-Eaters refers to a group of extremist pro-slavery politicians from the South who urged the separation of southern states into a new nation, which became known as the Confederate States of America."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
BluntzworthJan 27, 2012
"Most all secessionists were Democrats." Yes, the Southern slave owning Democrats. The Northern non-slave owning Democrats were not secessionist and they were anti-slavery.
Can you admit that fact, or are you not honest enough?
laborerJan 27, 2012
I can admit that not all people continue in all groups they are a part of forever.
!No s**t!
And also, people [political or not] try to do things which are advantageous to them.
Declaring secession in a state that isnt going to secede might not be a good idea for you as a politician and elected official.
Now, can you link me to the names and political history of these Democrat senators and congressmen that were in the north? How many of them were there compared to anti-slavery Republicans, and how many were replaced by the end of the Civil War?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepJan 27, 2012
The the answer is that no, he can not admit it.
craig304958Jan 28, 2012
Ha ha ha another southern Repuglican, I bet. @inajeep is right - this character is not operating in reality mode.
josh53188Jan 28, 2012
Why are you digging laborer down? You guys are real scumbags. He's not saying anything that isn't true. You don't want to believe it? He's not attacking anyone, just stating facts.
barmatJan 28, 2012
Because he's talking out his ass.
nitoriJan 27, 2012
Actually the Democratic and Republican parties of 1860 are nothing like the versions we're with today.
igorunchainedJan 27, 2012
Which is why the Right seems to love to point out that the KKK was started by the Democratic Party.....when they know it was/is a far-right organizations started by slave-owning southerners who banged bibles as much as they lynched blacks. All of which sounds more like the GOP platform than the party of Obama...
laborerJan 27, 2012
Me pointing to the Democrats media and political monopoly through time is no different than the liberals doing the same to Republicans.
igorunchainedJan 28, 2012
I was thinking more of the commenters in the "Low IQ = conservative racist" story. The bulk of the right-wingers responding had a hard time understanding the difference between "Lincoln Republicans" and "George Bush Republicans"....or the Strom Thurmond Democrats and the Dems of today. I dont like Democrats or Republicans...just calling it like I see it....not calling you out for anything at all.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
@laborer,
The problem with your characterization is that it's a thinly veiled attempt to malign modern progressives, who align themselves with the modern Democratic party.
Perhaps a better context in which to view the past shape of these two parties is to view them through the lens of the Progressive/Conservative dichotomy, laborer.
In this context, Southern slave-owners that wanted to maintain the status quo were conservatives with conservative ideals. Those that wanted to abolish slavery were progressives, with progressive ideals.
The genuine distinctions between conservatives and progressives are these:
1) Conservatives apply old solutions to both old and new problems. Their aim is to return the nation to a Golden Age (pick one) that never really existed except in cloistered, selective memories of modern conservatives.
2) Progressives tend to apply new solutions and new thinking to both old and new problems. They rely less on logical fallacy and the emotional arguments of demagoguery (Gingrich is a very successful demagogue).
You can claim that you're "just stating facts," but when those facts are used to bolster your creation of false history regarding imaginary and oft-repeated lies about "liberal media," and "political monopoly (huh?), then they become useful half-truths and your political position rests upon a house of cards.
BluntzworthJan 30, 2012
I am well aware of that fact.
RavenshoodieJan 27, 2012
It's true. Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats started the KKK. Not that it really matters anymore as it seem the roles have reversed.
barmatJan 28, 2012
Wrong. check your facts. The emancipation proclamation freed the southern slaves. Your right though facts don't matter any more.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
Splitting hairs. A Republican President issued an executive order, the emancipation proclamation, that freed slaves in the South, but not the North.
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
Given that Fox news is just a propaganda branch of the Republican party, you are absolutely right.
laborerJan 27, 2012
What are CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC but wings of the Democratic [Obama re-election] party?
Consider that Fox News is one [1] news channel, and CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC are five [5].
That would make Fox the dissenting opinion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2012
Except Faux Noose presents themselves as a "fair and balanced" network. You cannot be the "dissenting opinion" if you're fair and balanced. Neutrality doesn't mean you get to push out a Repuke agenda.
laborerJan 27, 2012
Does CNN make clear they are for the re-election of Obama?
Dont be such a hypocrite.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2012
I don't own, work, or care about CNN...that's not being hypocritical.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
We don't have to defend other networks. It's your responsibility, as the one claiming all other networks are liberally-biased, to present your evidence to support this claim.
sndsJan 27, 2012
I find it amusing that anyone who counters the whole "Fox News is a propaganda machine" thing comes back with "what about all 5 of these other news sources being a leftist propaganda machine?" Really? One news source is correct but the others aren't? It's a bit farfetched to think that EVERYONE is against you, don't you think? Couldn't reality be somewhere in between (whatever that reality may be)?
inajeepJan 27, 2012
That is the mindset of the GOP and fox news Illuminati. Fear, Doubt and uncertainty peppered with paranoia. Let simmer and you will have someone like Glenn Beck, hanninty, Rush, laborer and the like spewing garbage out of orifices.
josh53188Feb 2, 2012
@injeep
But that's not what Pat Robertson told me.
sndsJan 27, 2012
I find it amusing that anyone who counters the whole "Fox News is a propaganda machine" thing comes back with "what about all 5 of these other news sources being a leftist propaganda machine?" Really? One news source is correct but the others aren't? It's a bit farfetched to think that EVERYONE is against you, don't you think? Couldn't reality be somewhere in between (whatever that reality may be)?
dilberterJan 27, 2012
Those five you mentioned are biased news. Fox "News" isn't news at all. They don't even come close to showing news. It's propaganda after propaganda; all full of misinformation, misinterpretation, fabricated polls and bold lies attacking anything the left does all nicely wrapped in Christian dogma. Either way, I get my news from other places. And yes, Comedy Central is one of them.
laborerJan 27, 2012
I would say the same of the other propaganda news networks.
You just happen to like the taste of their CoolAid.
inajeepJan 27, 2012
Sorry to say that Fox news is more extreme leaning than any of the others you brought up. The farthest left network I see is msnbc but let me repeat, they are not as far leaning as murdoch led fox.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
Is your position now changed from "FOX news is a counterpoint" to "FOX news serves my kind of CoolAid [sic]?"
RavenshoodieJan 27, 2012
I beg to differ that Fox doesn't show news. Here's a little experiment you can try yourself at home. Switch back and forth between FNC, MSNBC & CNN at any given time during the day or night. Now see how they ALL cover virtually the same exact topics at the same exact time. They even cut to commercials at the same exact time. The only difference is each has it's own political bias. So my question to you is if FNC isn't news then what do you call the other channels that have basically set themselves up following the same exact formula as FNC?
MustardTigersJan 28, 2012
All of these statements are far exaggerated, a snowball-like effect of a bunch of people who have never actually watched Fox News. Sure they can have their moments from time to time, but everybody makes it sound like a Nazi-era propaganda machine, which it is not.
It is all kind of ironic, because all of these accusations from everyone are no different than they are all claiming Fox to be.
It is also interesting that no one ever seems to make these claims about MSNBC, which is nothing more than the lefts version of Fox. I watch MSNBC from time to time and they spew just as many lies and misinformation as you are claiming Fox to.
CNN, in my opinion, is really the only "fair and balanced" of the three. Granted some of the people on there have their moments of bias from time to time, but they are generally based on facts and are free of bias.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeJan 27, 2012
"What are CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC but wings of the Democratic [Obama re-election] party?"
Well, given the Sunday morning political shows, where:
"Republican lawmakers appeared nearly twice as often as Democratic ones last year" http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/01/24/410742/sunday-morning-talk-shows-featured-twice-as-many-republicans-as-dems-last-year/
I would consider them very useless Democratic wings.
Seems like Fox has many network friends on its side.
greengrocerJan 28, 2012
False dichotomy, laborer. Fox is consistently far-right, but that does not make the other networks far-left. Fox News is an outlier, not a "dissenting opinion." This notion that there are two valid sides to every argument is logically false. Example:
MSNBC claims 2+2 =4.
FOX repeats story thusly: "Far-left, liberal MSNBC claims everyone must believe that 2+2=4"
The problem is that 2+2 DOES equal 4. There's only one valid side to some claims.
consciousmanJan 27, 2012
FOX News is a bad source for information
charlotte_webJan 27, 2012
How many hours a month do you spend watching Fox News? Zero?
miklkitJan 27, 2012
Ayup! Ever since I learned that faux noise sued so that they could lie on national television. And faux noise lies every single day.
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
Oh, and the republicon party is destroying itself. Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!
mattbrad2Jan 27, 2012
You sound like a 3rd grader
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
yet he's *still* smart enough to know that Fox news is propaganda, not news.
miklkitJan 28, 2012
Says the guy wearing the straight jacket.............
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Fox News didn't sue so they could lie. The simply argued that the First Amendment protects news organizations, whether people *think* they're lying or not.
So, do you hate the First Amendment? Is that your argument?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
Nice SPIIIIINNNN!
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
That's literally what happened. "They simply argued that the First Amendment protects news organizations, whether people *think* they're lying or not."
The spin is claiming "they fought for the right to lie." That's the definition of "spin."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2012
Ah the entire "corporations are people thing" eh? And their defense was that lying was not against any FCC rules...their defense hinged that lying was acceptable.
A "news" network saying that lying isn't acceptable and thus they should be allowed to say whatever they want...clearly the hallmark of a respectable news organization.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
They weren't lying. Their argument was NOT "lying was acceptable." Their argument was "It doesn't matter, due to the First Amendment, whether you think they're lying or not."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2012
Clearly you didn't review their case...it had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment and everything to do with the fact that there are no FCC rules against lying. Their defense was "lying is OK" and that's just wrong for a news organization, no matter how much you want to spin it.
Faux Noose can go f**k itself.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
mlw4428,
Let me use small words.
FOX NEVER CONCEDED THAT THEY LIED.
Yes, they said there are no FCC rules against lying. (Such rules would violate the Constitution.) But they NEVER ARGUED THE MERITS of the case, never conceded that they lied, and were never convicted of lying.
Could you imagine if the government regulated news stories? Do you want a fascist totalitarian country, like North Korea, where the ruling party regulates the news?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2012
I never said that they conceded to lying. Their defense was that lying was acceptable as there is no FCC rules prohibiting it.
So they are saying "Lying isn't against the rules." and THAT is what makes them a piece of s**t. It doesn't really matter if they lied or didn't in the overall case...what matters is that they're clearly OK with lying. Otherwise that wouldn't have been their appeal.
Faux Noose promotes lying, that is the end discussion. If tomorrow MSNBC came out and said that all of the Republican Presidential Nominees were rapists and child porn peddlers the legal precedence was set by Faux Noose. Thank you Faux Noose for destroying any confidence in news.
sloppyjoes7Jan 28, 2012
"Faux Noose promotes lying, that is the end discussion."
No, they promote freedom of speech. End of discussion.
(You apparently disapprove of freedom of speech.)
ethanleducJan 28, 2012
You're disagreeing with me, you must hate America!
Out-friggin'-standing.
maximillionteeJan 28, 2012
I think it was an Ignoratio elenchi fallacy, or more likely a straw man. I'm actually seeing straw man written all over Sloppy Joe's first amendment challenge...
sloppyjoes7Jan 28, 2012
I didn't say he hated America. THAT'S a straw man.
I said he didn't like the first amendment, or "freedom of speech." Which, if he wants the government regulating what the news can say, he clearly doesn't.
equinox2o12Jan 27, 2012
I see Fox News every time I flush the toilet. Let's face it, time not watching Fox is time well spent.
drmangrumJan 27, 2012
I love how all these lefties claim that Fox is garbage and has no valid information while they've never watched it, get all their news from a comedian, and get nourishment from George Soros' teats.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Jan 27, 2012
I love how a conservative can't reference any point without bringing up Soros. That obsession is more than a little pathetic.
drmangrumJan 27, 2012
You mean like how liberals can't help but bring up the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch?
ninhJan 27, 2012
It's reflexive, like saying socialism or Soros for a rightie.
bluto36Jan 27, 2012
if you are a lefty you have to talk about koch sucking
it is what you do
miklkitJan 28, 2012
Does that mean you are in favor of Fascism?
http://unknownjournal.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/%e2%96%bc-report-the-kochs-their-nazi-past-american-oil-the-foundation-of-republican-ideology/
TheNoizeJan 29, 2012
The irony is, Soros is fantastically educated. Something you can't usually say about republicans. Does it hurt to hear the truth that republicans are stupider? Yes, they are. And it's pretty obvious why. Their presidential debates are the evidence that we evolved from apes. Little guns and religion monkeys.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mattbrad2Jan 27, 2012
I think its funny how lefties bring up the topic of obsession while posting on an article about fox news.
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
Seriously, if I used "Murdoch" or "Koch" as frequently as these people use "Soros" I would drive *myself* insane.
equinox2o12Jan 27, 2012
Most liberals have watched FOX... but too much tripe will give you gout. We love John Stewart because he continually show FOX lying. Not Just here and there, continuously. FOX and Republicans are the new Blonde Joke.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Stewart does no such thing. He's a partisan who criticizes news which doesn't support his (and his viewers') liberal viewpoint.
emo110Jan 27, 2012
Yea, and how many hours a month do you watch The Daily Show... obviously not much at all. He's picks on Obama and other Democrats when they do something stupid; it's just that Republicans give him so much more material!
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
I used to watch it constantly and regularly.
Stewart spends the majority of his time criticizing conservatives. When he *does* criticize liberals, he often criticizes them for not being *liberal enough.*
And there's plenty of material given out by Democrats. You don't know about it, because you watch a partisan hack.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
equinox2o12Jan 28, 2012
Stewart has a continuing feud with FOX. They hate Stewart for calling them out... they have never been able to stump him because you can't stump truth.
mtownJan 27, 2012
How about http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/11/viewers-fox-news-be-uninformed-about-current-events-including-climate-change/
And many years ago i DID watch Fox News. However I've stopped watching pretty much all mainstream news (I very occasionally watch CNN or MSNBC) because getting news online is far more accurate, since you're able to look up both sides of the story.
MrFrogyJan 27, 2012
Well said. Fox does what it does because it's not about news, it's about infotainment. They play to their strengths and their viewers. They make a lot of money doing it. Are they "straight news"? Hell no.
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
It's about a lot more than just infotainment. That part ends when they support highly partisan views of one side of the political spectrum and ONLY that highly partisan view.
MrFrogyJan 27, 2012
The day Fox news stops making money of their practices will be the day they stop doing what they are doing. Just like everything else in this world, follow the money. They are ruled by the profit motive, and very little else.
ethanleducJan 28, 2012
I think Frog's got it right here - they do what they do because it's profitable, and their viewers watch because they love having their worldview reinforced.
Now, who's to say how much of Fox's profitability comes from right-wing interests supporting them one way or another [aside from viewership, I mean], but at the end of the day it really is all about money for them.
kamtsaJan 27, 2012
It's understandable why liberals hate Fox and loves MSNBC. However, it's refreshing to have a news network that is not in the tank for Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
Actually, that's your interpretation. Not all Republicans love Fox and not all Liberals love MSNBC. That's more of the 'two sides' mindset in which you're trapped. Many networks are not 'in the tank' for Obama. I suspect what you really like is a network that supports your hatred of Obama. It's also not refreshing but completely predictable.
You may 'revel' in your partisanship. I see it as an intellectual weakness.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Fox is much, much, much more balanced than MSNBC. There's no comparison.
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
Honestly, I don't watch either. Well OK, I watch MSNBC when they show 'locked up'.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
I don't watch either one any more, due to the internet.
That's why I got my information from multiple scientific studies on the subject.
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
Sloppy, I'm aware of various studies. Someone almost always posts them when a negative story regarding FOX appears. And no, still not buying the Fair and Balanced taglines. Fox has earned their reputation with shows like Becks (formerly) and others. I'd be thrilled if the country ever got to a point where 'emotion laden' shows pushing extreme agendas were ignored while more objective journalism (often seen as boring) topped the charts.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Beck is highly partisan.
That is entirely beside the point. The point is simple: is your NEWS biased?
Most news outlets have a liberal bias in their NEWS. This is simply because most people in news are Democrats, so they can't help it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
juststeveJan 28, 2012
You forgot the bit about Fox lies, on purpose, for strategic reasons. But that not (or shouldn't be) the point of the thread. The point is Fox seeks profit by lying and giving a rats azz if it hurts the Repugs or not. [well...really...the point _should be how many DB support them in the effort.]
sloppyjoes7Jan 28, 2012
"You forgot the bit about Fox lies, on purpose, for strategic reasons."
False. If people employed by Fox sometimes lie, they don't lie any more than those employed by other news station.
bookantJan 27, 2012
There is no comparison, you're absolutely right. You can't compare MSNBC - an actual news organization, even if they are a flawed one - to FOX - a flat-out propaganda operation with absolute zero in actual journalistic credibility.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Fox was the only majors news station to give fair and equal coverage in the 2008 election, for example.
MSNBC made Olbermann an ANCHOR.
If Fox made Glenn Beck a news anchor, (instead of an opinionist), then you'd have evidence backing up your claim. Instead, I have all the evidence supporting me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
n0diggityJan 28, 2012
They cover Hannity and O'Reilly like they are news reporters though. Can we agree that O'Reilly and Hannity are the right wing equivalents to Maddow and Olbermann on the left?
O'Reilly calls his show the 'no spin zone' but all it contains is a conservative spin on issues. I will readily admit that Olbermann and Maddow have a liberal spin, but you can't argue that the same is not true of opinion pieces on FOX.
The fox report is OK, shepard smith is the only one I've seen to actually report unbiased news on the channel though. Everyone else played the socialism/fascism/birther card on FOX.
sloppyjoes7Jan 28, 2012
"They cover Hannity and O'Reilly like they are news reporters though."
They have never, ever portrayed those people as news reporters.
inajeepJan 27, 2012
You can tell how balanced they are by the shear number of GOP presidential politicians they employee and sponsored Tea parties they host. The only way anyone considers them balanced is if they personally are as unbalanced as fox news.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
All major scientific studies have consistently shown Fox is one of the fairest and most balanced outlets in existence.
Liberals hate all these studies, because liberals don't recognize the liberal bias by NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, Newsweek, USA Today, etc.
Because they think those liberal stations are actually centrist, their basis for comparison is flawed from the beginning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ethanleducJan 28, 2012
"All major scientific studies have consistently shown Fox is one of the fairest and most balanced outlets in existence."
Conservative think-tank opinion pieces =! scientific studies.
Links or STFU.
withearsJan 28, 2012
Is this the award one gets for winning "All major scientific studies"?
http://www.redriderleglamps.com/productDetails.cfm?merchID=100324231322531154&category=100324202230765104&position=1
letherialJan 27, 2012
Your little boxed up mind works very well for fox news. If they can convince you that only they tell the truth and everyone else is lying, then they can lie and the truth will never be sought.
Who they really target is anyone who can form the world in liberal/conservative black and white view point. After that, its just as easy as defining what a conservative view point is and what a liberal view point is, knowing that you will never truly seek the truth or another way of thinking; or even attempt to understand another way of thinking
Fox news is made for the simplistic of minds, it doesn't matter the issue, if fox news proclaims it is right wing it will be...your mind will shape with them because you have no critical thinking skills to analyze the rhetoric, look at alternate view points and hear a bigger discussion.
Fox news is made for anyone who does not want to do any thinking on their own and do not have the bravery to face oneself in honesty.
Religion uses this same tacit, and its no coincidence that the right wing is considered religious right, its the same kind of people who blindly follow a religion that watch fox news, and for the same reason.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
I wasn't convinced by Fox.
I was convinced by the overwhelming data and studies from multiple independent researchers.
withearsJan 27, 2012
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
Opinions are different from facts. And your statement does not align with facts.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
You think Fox has a large number of biased stories because you read liberal blogs.
I can link TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples of liberal bias gathered by conservative blogs, if you want to play that game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kuzotzJan 28, 2012
you don't have to read blogs to know Fox News outright lies. This isn't even about conservative biases. Because CNBC has that. But what they don't do when it comes to covering current events is outright lie about it. Fox News does just that. It outright lies. My criticism has nothing to do with ideology. Unless you call my ideology of holding journalist accountable for the things they do and say. If you think that is radical then of course you want a Leave It To Beaver America. That's very very fascist.
juststeveJan 28, 2012
I don't thumb up easily ... but you earned it.
sloppyjoes7Jan 28, 2012
Fox doesn't outright lie, unless you're such a radical left-winger, you have lost any concept of fairness or accuracy.
withearsJan 29, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
Cited cases under "Liberal bias" ... Empty.
But under "Conservative bias," well...
withearsJan 27, 2012
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
Opinions are different from facts. And your statement does not align with facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
withearsJan 27, 2012
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
Opinions are different from facts. And your statement does not align with facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
withearsJan 27, 2012
That's the strawman that the right puts out there and wants you to believe, but there the number of distortions and inaccuracies that Fox News puts out regarding Obama and Democrats in general makes it obvious that Fox is less of a news organization and more of an arm of the republican party.
While you are entitled to your opinion about MSNBC and CNN, you cannot present the same tangible evidence of misrepresentation with regard to those 2 news organizations that can be presented against Fox.
Opinions are different from facts. And your statement does not align with facts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
False statement and false equivalence. MSNBC is not even close to the 24/7 partisan propaganda network that Fox is.
withearsJan 27, 2012
I don't think that even touches it.
Fox News likes to act as if their "news" organization and their "opinion" organization are different, but there are numerous examples where what is said on the "opinion" shows drives the dialog on the "news" shows.
If someone can prove that on MSNBC or CNN as it has been proven on Fox, then let them do it.
Until then, saying "not even close" should be "has not shown partisanship."
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
MSNBC made Olbermann a news anchor.
Meanwhile, Fox kept Beck as an opinionist.
ammattikiJan 28, 2012
An anchor pretty much just reads from a propter. He doesnt just make s**t up as he goes like an opinionist.
withearsJan 28, 2012
Keith Olbermann was never a news anchor on MSNBC.
superkendallJan 27, 2012
So you and other liberals claim. Yet record numbers of people watch it, and a number of breaking stories come from there.
The truth is you cannot stand a news organization that has the same partisan spin you prefer. You want to see Fox News die not because they are inaccurate, but because they do not distort the truth in the way YOU prefer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
I'd prefer they not 'distort the news', period. I'd like such hyper-partisan sources (of any stripe) to be far less popular. We as a nation would be better off. Instead, a fair number of Americans blindly support and 'root' for a side based on being programmed by these sources.
sloppyjoes7Jan 27, 2012
Fox is the least partisan major news station. Therefore, you should be watching Fox, if you actually believe what you posted.
murxJan 27, 2012
White noise is not information - even if you apply chaos theory to decrypt it....
eagle3300Jan 27, 2012
Republican Party used Fox News to mess up America for along time. Good everyday people are finally waking up to the nastiness Fox News promotes. It's not another POV, it's lies.
People may disagree with Dems / Obama but they don't want to be lied to. If people are never given the truth then their reasons for not liking Dems / Obama suddenly fade away when confronted with the reality of GOP policies since 2001 vs Dems / Obama's efforts since 2009.
Then other questions start to pop up. How long have they been feeding US this crap? Answer: a long time. UK is waking up to the mess of Murdoch's evil empire too with the phone hacking scandal. Time for US to put Fox News away. Obama is doing the best job any POTUS could under the circumstances and is leading America back to greatness. Fox News crap can't drown Obama2012 out but Fox News can muddy the discussion and drag people down.
GOP primaries are a prime example. The GOP are eating each other alive with the same nasty tactics they used against the Dems since 1988 on... America is getting a full taste of how sick and creepy Fox News and GOP really are and they do not like it one bit.
craig1958Jan 27, 2012
At this point, the party is doing a pretty good job of looking silly without any help from fox "news." Putting those debates on TV has done more damage than fox could ever do.
drewdaddy213Jan 27, 2012
I think that to a certain degree Fox is responsible for how these debates are unfolding though. There can be no disagreement on issues (as we have seen with Huntsman and Paul), so it ends up more like an episode of Jerry Springer where the candidates just keep marching their opponents' skeletons out of the closet.
The relationship between Fox and the GOP is symbiotic though, to be sure. One would not be what it is without the other's influence.
scottkeefeJan 27, 2012
Anyone who at this point still thinks that Fox News actually provides "news" probably also still also swears that professional wrestling is REAL...
I wonder if Fox will re-brand themselves "News-Entertainment" when the idiot stragglers figure it out.
The parallels in the professional wrestling analogy are actually quite spot on and funny when you think about it. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestling#United_States
lastvisibledogJan 27, 2012
You are an idiot - a party tool parrot that could not think their way out of a wet paper bag
scottkeefeJan 27, 2012
Apparently you are one of those guys I refer to... Lolz...
But you make baseless ad-hominem accusations with no logical support whatsoever, and you call me an idiot? That is then, by the nature of the source, a compliment. Enjoy your WWE you smart fellow. :D
equinox2o12Jan 27, 2012
@lastvisibledog
You need to concern yourself with your own wet paper bag. You're pretty much a one trick pony on the comments.
charlotte_webJan 27, 2012
Yeah, because your scatological comments have added so much to this discussion.
equinox2o12Jan 27, 2012
Just trying to make you guys feel like you're doing well. Once we start applying facts, your eyes glaze over like a doughnut.
usarugulaJan 27, 2012
Careful, lastvisibledog, he might sap and impurify all of your precious bodily fluids.
ethanleducJan 28, 2012
While you could think your way out of any bag of any kind, using your telekinetic abilities.
kuzotzJan 28, 2012
an article on the obvious. I normally bury these but I must digg it so that it is drilled into the idiots heads that Fox News is bad for America.
SauntOroloJan 28, 2012
What is really entertaining about threads like this is that people go to bat defending Fox News and get downvoted to smithereens. They either believe that the vast majority of people loathe their favorite news channel because "they don't know the truth" or because they are "an enemy of their side". They seemingly don't care that nobody buys a false equivalence story or that Fox News has been banned from Canada. Fox News shows faulty information over and over again, revels in trumped up non stories and gins up outrage over nonstories.
And of course the news agency's shrill panic creates problems for the people they are supposed to favor. The chip on their shoulder about these non-stories create a political climate that poisons their favorite party. If saying you wanted smaller government and restrained entitlement spending and hawkish foreign policy and so on were legitimate issues then there would be a legitimate party platform. Instead we get people accusing our President of being "the food stamp President". We get racism, bigotry, intolerance, fear-mongering and people complaining about taxes (who will gladly raise taxes on the poor and middle class but not the rich). We get people talking about "death panels" and "Obama is the Antichrist" and "the war on Christmas".
If you guys are the party of Rush Limbaugh, then you marginalize yourselves and the rest of the world is moving on, because we have problems that need solving and better things to do.
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
A well written article and accurate title (for once). Yes, I know the more typical conservative posters will dismiss it and ride to the aid of Poor Fox news. But really, it's accurate to say that FOX calls the shots now for the Republican party and has helped make it's Listeners more biased, more extreme, less 'thoughtful'. I also would not mark it as a good sign if MSNBC and other Left leaning sources started to get a strong foothold. We don't need more Polarization and Bias. We need less.We'd be better off without all these sources of Propaganda. Watching FOX is like eating too much Junk food. Try some of the healthier options occasionally.
kuzotzJan 28, 2012
people who eat junk food have bodies that can't handle healthy things. giving them a carrot is giving them a vomit attack. They just can't handle it.
skews13Jan 27, 2012
It's not only Fox News that's destroying the GOP, it's also AM talkradio. The party has essentially become the AM talkradio party. Every talkingpoint now heard by any conservative in any venue is a recording of what was heard on one of the AM blowhard freak shows. Even Fox is guilty of this. It has become evident that the party is no longer a party of ideas, but a party of parrots repeating regurgitated talkingpoints. Unfortunately for them, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to live in a Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity trumped up version of America. When you have to get your ideas from a radio disc jockey, you've lost the war of ideas, as well as the culture war.
usarugulaJan 27, 2012
I picked up some AM radio station last night where a wingnut caller was complaining that "If a raped woman got pregnant and had the baby, you just know all liberal judges would give the rapist visitation rights."
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
That particular 'wingnut' crowd is one of my 'least favorite' groups involved in politics. There just isn't any apparent critical thought. It's mostly the conspiracy theory, unscientific, and irrational group.
kuzotzJan 28, 2012
people still listen to the radio?
roywrJan 27, 2012
AM Radio is distroying the GOP? Not from where I am at... No one is distroying the GOP except themselves.You mean to tell me that the GOP can't find any better condiates than Gringrich and Romney. Both are big government spenders that want you to think they are conservatives.It sad to see who we have for President and who might be running against him. Just another big show for the dumb american public.
deborahdianeJan 28, 2012
People don't like to be fed extremely negative stories about our government constantly. They eventually begin to simply tune out ... and that is exactly what Fox is causing people to do. They would rather not listen to the news, than listen to high prejudiced hysteria!
eagle3300Jan 27, 2012
oops, sorry for the double post!
tcbishop12Jan 27, 2012
Fox News is evil.
phillyoverclockJan 27, 2012
Well they are obviously doing something for the common good if they are destroying the Republican Party like the article says. :D
rixar13Jan 28, 2012
Yes, I agree...
MikeGeorgesJan 27, 2012
Of course there was that wonderful recent study which demonstrated that Americans who watch no news programmes are better informed than those who get their news from Fox. The articles have been posted on digg.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Yeah they have, and I took the time to look into it and debunk it for the utter bulls**t it is:
The survey only asked four questions:
1) These days, there is more going on in politics and the world than anyone can keep track of. We’d like to ask about a few things that have been in the news recently, to see how well the news media has been doing its job. To the best of your knowledge, have the opposition groups protesting in Egypt been successful in bringing down the regime there?
Not surprising, since FOX hasn't spent a ton of time on the issue since Mubarak was deposed. Left-leaning outlets like MSNBC and The Daily Show have talked about it far more, as they've (amazingly) tied the OWS protests to the struggle for freedom in the Middle East.
And in fact, although Mubarak is gone it's essentially the same power structure--including many of his former military henchmen--who are still running the show.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0913/Why-some-Egyptians-see-military-rulers-as-worse-than-Mubarak
So were they really successful in bringing down the regime? Perhaps in a technical sense but as a practical matter it's pretty ambiguous. 'Right' and 'wrong' answers here aren't so easily defined. FOX viewers are more conservative and therefore less likely to associate the notion of success with the fall of the Mubarak regime, and for good reason. I have a sneaking suspicion that if Daily Show viewers were asked if the Egyptian protests help lead to more freedom in that country they'd probably answer that they did. The reality is that's not the case.
2) How about the opposition groups in Syria? Have they been successful in bringing down the regime there?
Again, a related question about the Arab Spring, which as I've noted, left-leaning outlets have devoted a lot more airtime to. No surprise that they'd be a bit more informed about it.
3) A large group of protestors has been camped out on Wall Street for the last couple of weeks. To the best of your knowledge, are these protestors mostly Republicans or Democrats?
Is there really a right or wrong answer here? To my knowledge no poll or study has been done to try and confirm party affiliation, so how the survey can deduce what's an "informed" opinion here is beyond me.
And what's a bit striking about the answers to this question is that OWS has gone out of its way to proclaim that the movement is NOT all about Democrats and Republicans...that it's a grassroots effort encompassing people from all sides of the political spectrum.
4) Right now, which candidate seems to be leading in the polls for Republican Presidential nomination in 2012?
Seriously? What day is it?
So...two ambiguous questions about the Arab Spring, one about who the GOP frontrunner is in a race in which different polls have various candidates leading, and another about OWS party affiliation which has never been documented, and the poll-takers conclude:
"..the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."
That is patently ridiculous and patently unfair, but apparently hacks like these aren't concerned with such things. Without looking into the meat of it, it makes a convenient spear-tip to once again marginalize a network which Progressives see as a threat. f**king disgusting, and these pricks ought to be fired.
Here's the steaming offering, which most people won't bother looking at since the headline is quite enough for propaganda purposes. Judge for yourself:
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wdrummondJan 27, 2012
So is Fox New now the Tea Party Channel?
dauntless1Jan 27, 2012
Um, look at what Fox news posts day by day, and then compare it to this:
http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
And you'll see the entire Murdoch playbook unfold. And this is the exact thing he's been working on since the moment he set foot here.
asfinktersezwutJan 27, 2012
Oh man.... you let the secret out.
The Masters will kill you for this.
miklkitJan 28, 2012
Yes, the similarities are there. Very similar...........
huubvanoverveldJan 28, 2012
Taking Fox news seriously is like taking vogue seriously. Just adds and lies.
iphonequeJan 27, 2012
The GOP has their collective heads stuck in the sand. They're like that NFL team that continues to stick to the game plan even when they're down five touchdowns. Not only does the GOP not have a solution, I'm astonished that they still haven't realized that they have a problem. Obama is going to win. It's going to be another landslide. And the GOP will, once again, be left standing around the water cooler on Monday morning scratching their heads wondering what the hell just happened. "We thought SURE that was going to work..."
iphonequeJan 27, 2012
The GOP has their collective heads stuck in the sand. They're like that NFL team that continues to stick to the game plan even when they're down five touchdowns. Not only does the GOP not have a solution, I'm astonished that they still haven't realized that they have a problem. Obama is going to win. It's going to be another landslide. And the GOP will, once again, be left standing around the water cooler on Monday morning scratching their heads wondering what the hell just happened. "We thought SURE that was going to work..."
favuquadJan 27, 2012
Not really the republican party in it self is self destructive, however Fox"News" does a damn good job at representing what they stand for!
Just look at these freaking GOPbots with their brainless factless BS responses.
They all just sound like they just got of of kindergarden.
FOX"News" Is the biggest Piece of s**t stew factless BS hate spilling and spining mashine we have in the media today.
If you defent or support that ludacris Channel in anyway you don't diserve a place in humanity!
Do the world a favor and go ctrl ald delete your self please!
FPSmotoJan 27, 2012
Should read: How the Mainstream Media is destroying politics.
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
aka how corporate owned media is destroying America
limitgovJan 27, 2012
It is Fox New's job in addition with Hannity, Savage, Paggs, and Limbaugh to keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination. That's job one for them right now.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Ron Paul is who's keeping Ron Paul from getting the nomination.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
Ron Paul can't help the suckers who fall for all the anti-liberty, anti-Ron Paul messages from Big Media and the statist puppets like Hannity, Savage, Paggs and Limbaugh.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Yes of course. I've never heard that before.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
Perhaps you identify with the statists? You can always move to N. Korea, you might enjoy some of the big government benefits of living there. Ron Paul hates N. Korea probably for the same reasons you might love it. You got nothin to lose...check it out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Yeah, you've got me and everyone else who understands that Dr. Paul can't win figured out....we're all statists who love N. Korea.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
the only guy who's not a big government guy is the one you don't support. Either you're incredibly stupid or confused.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Why do I have to be confused...maybe I'm just a statist who loves N. Korea?
limitgovJan 27, 2012
could be a little of both.
drmangrumJan 27, 2012
I'm still crying over the loss of Dear Leader....
I need a hug.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
you have two accounts at digg? wouldn't it just be easier to stay logged into one?
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
gov, your paranoia runs deep, doesn't it?
limitgovJan 27, 2012
I'm just sayin...that seems like a real time waster. I'm trying to help you out here, get you to be more efficient.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Let me pose a hypothetical....if there are three people on a particular thread and two of the three happen to be literate and are rooted in reality, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're the same people.
I'm just sayin'
limitgovJan 27, 2012
I wouldn't exactly say neocons are rooted in reality.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
I thought I (we) was a statist. Make up your mind.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
neocons are the dumbest kinds of statists...they're statists, but they don't know it.
drmangrumJan 27, 2012
Wow, you think me and AHM are the same person? You must be new here.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Ronulans see conspiracies behind every statement/person not in support of their aged anarchist.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
Who do you look up to more...Hannity or Savage?
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Unlike you hero-worshipers I don't "look up to" any one pundit or politician.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
come on...don't be shy...tell the truth. You worship Savage...or is it Hannity?
They'll teach you the ways of the neocon.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Only people I see with a seemingly one-track fixation on their guy and to the exclusion of all else are you Ronulans.
Pot and kettle.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
well, neocons have a hard time looking inward, I suppose.
superkendallJan 27, 2012
Big Media is for sure a "statist puppet" but none of the other guys you listed are.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage are trying their hardest to get people to not vote for the one candidate who is not a big government guy. They absolutely are puppets to someone.
And the wierd thing is, Savage will puppet everything Ron Paul says...the federal reserve, the police state stuff, but then, when it counts, he will do everything in his power to get people nominate anyone but Ron Paul. And then when this is all over, he'll go back to puppeting him again. He's the very worse type of rat. Unlike a liberal who will at least stand by his statist principles the whole time, Savage will try and blend in with opposition and try and deceive them.
usarugulaJan 27, 2012
And what do you think Ron Paul would accomplish once he got in office? He still has to go through congress. You Ron Paul folks really live in a fairytale land.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
So, you want a Big government guy in office because the president doesn't have complete dictator power? Use some logic for a change.
x86bsdJan 27, 2012
What could he accomplish? Ill tell you one easy thing he could accomplish day *1* that congress has no control over. He could close down every overseas military base and bring every single soldier HOME to the United States as commander in chief, gutting close to a trillion dollars from the budget on day *1*. How's that for a start?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bluto36Jan 27, 2012
boy our friends in Europe wont like that when their economies collapse over the loss of the American welfare we have been sporting the European economies the last 60 years.
that would be just the kick in the balls the euro would need...
sweet plan
x86bsdJan 27, 2012
Their economy has already collapsed. And Europe survived for centuries without our bases I think they will be ok. But thanks for throwing a red hearing around.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
x86bsdJan 28, 2012
And what part of that is OUR problem? No where in the US Constitution does it say "...provide for the common defense of EUROPE." No where. Are you so blind you can't understand that?
JustSayNoPartyJan 27, 2012
That certainly has some truth. The establishment (definitely includes FOX) must protect itself. Thus, more people need to understand that 'any candidate' that steps outside of the party line will be vilified and have his character attacked. I wish more people were 'less susceptible' to such tactics.
roywrJan 27, 2012
I like a lot what Ron Paul says. But, he has one problem, He is UN-ELECTABLE. Even if hell was to freeze over and it won't, he can not beat Obama. He might get 20% the vote.
limitgovJan 27, 2012
according to the polls, he's about the only candidate that can beat obama.
craig1958Jan 27, 2012
In that case, obama will be reelected.
ethanleducJan 28, 2012
Maybe if the polls you're referring to are samplin the comments section on Murray Rothbard's blog.
Otherwise, no.
Schweppesale2Jan 28, 2012
There are plenty of left leaning independents who would only vote (R) if Paul was on the ballot.
craig1958Jan 27, 2012
"It is Fox New's job in addition with Hannity, Savage, Paggs, and Limbaugh to keep Ron Paul from getting the nomination. That's job one for them right now."
Sorry, but their "job one" is to keep eyeballs on the idiot box and to sell soap; they are in the entertainment business. Ron Paul is an interesting side show, but he never did (and never will) have a chance of being nominated by the republicans. The republicans will nominate a republican, not a libertarian. Paul knows this as well as (almost) everyone else in america. His agenda is to publicize the libertarian platform, and he is doing a pretty good job of that. Maybe the libertarians can convert this into an independent campaign in 2016?
limitgovJan 27, 2012
There's a reason Savage parrots everything Ron Paul says, as if those were his ideas, and then turns around and tells everyone to not vote for him.
He's either incredibly stupid, or he's doing his job, which is to get people to not vote for Ron Paul.
craig1958Jan 27, 2012
Sorry, but have no idea who "Savage" is. I'm assuming he is not a professional wrestler?
Keep in mind that most people will not even begin to think about the election until six months from now. Ron Paul will almost certainly not be on the ballot. If he does somehow run as an independent, he will just take a few percent of the vote away from the republican nominee. He is being ignored because he is not a factor. If he got on the ballot, he would be covered as a potential spoiler by the media.
asfinktersezwutJan 27, 2012
It's Vandal Savage I think... he fights Superman and the Justice League in my nephew's comics.
craig1958Jan 27, 2012
Thanks.
ethanleducJan 28, 2012
"Sorry, but have no idea who "Savage" is. I'm assuming he is not a professional wrestler?"
I've been asking myself the same thing for like 8 comments.
Google is only a couple of clicks away, but... meh.
eraptorJan 27, 2012
Shh...we're enjoying the implosion.
eagle3300Jan 27, 2012
Republican Party used Fox News to mess up America for along time. Good everyday people are finally waking up to the nastiness Fox News promotes. It's not another POV, it's lies.
People may disagree with Dems / Obama but they don't want to be lied to. If people are never given the truth then their reasons for not liking Dems / Obama suddenly fade away when confronted with the reality of GOP policies since 2001 vs Dems / Obama's efforts since 2009.
Then other questions start to pop up. How long have they been feeding US this crap? Answer: a long time. UK is waking up to the mess of Murdoch's evil empire too with the phone hacking scandal. Time for US to put Fox News away. Obama is doing the best job any POTUS could under the circumstances and is leading America back to greatness. Fox News crap can't drown Obama2012 out but Fox News can muddy the discussion and drag people down.
GOP primaries are a prime example. The GOP are eating each other alive with the same nasty tactics they used against the Dems since 1988 on... America is getting a full taste of how sick and creepy Fox News and GOP really are and they do not like it one bit.
roguegeniusJan 27, 2012
I didn't think it was, but I'm starting to wonder. They have pushed the republicans to crazy areas, and when they have success, then just keep pushing.
However, so far, the republican electorate (a slavish bunch of sheep to begin with) have just went with them. But now they are starting to actually get burned by it. So I think they are near being damaged. Destroyed might be hyperbole, but damaged is clear. Once the slow moving, slow thinking republicans pull away from them it will take a long time for that ilk to come back. We may be looking at a long time of republicans being out of office.
Here's hoping.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
I heard that very same thing from a lot of libs soon after Obama was elected.
Then Nov. 2010 came.
roguegeniusJan 27, 2012
No you didn't. Obama is not, and has never been a radical anything. 2010 came as a relief, not a concern. Yeah! At last someone I'm happy to vote for. But there is no such thing as a non-radical republican right now. The bulk of the country knows that. It's a completely different issue. Republicans run the gambit between 'same old' and 'very similar.' There is simply nobody they want to vote for.
Now, they'll still get a lot of votes. The racists will always vote republican. The 'Fox News' crowd as well. Big business and their employees will always vote for the party of 'zero sum' poverty. But will that be enough? I doubt it, especially if Newt is your man.
ObaAdeleJan 28, 2012
Not just the republican party but the whole nation with it's fact-free and hate-mongering filling the air 24 hrs a day, complaining constantly about what President Obama did or did not do especially the same things the former presidents had done or not done when they were in charge, or calling any republican politician that got into trouble democrat even the republican governor who actually worked for Fox News for yrs when he was defeated on his union-bursting law.
primeonly27116Jan 28, 2012
Find it hard to believe that only one media company alone could do such damage or be the leading cause.
erik1421Jan 27, 2012
Keep it going Fox! We support ya'll!
greatwhitmonkeyJan 27, 2012
So Fox news is good now?...
langfordJan 27, 2012
Not really. The Republican party was once a viable alternative, but years of having Fox pander to the craziest of humanity, has left the Republicans under the control of those crazies. Fox is the one that pushes nominees like Gingrich into the spotlight.
amnesia10Jan 27, 2012
Even Ronald Reagan would not get elected by todays Republicans.
auditortuxJan 27, 2012
And Kennedy wouldn't stand a chance for today's Democrats.
amnesia10Jan 27, 2012
He probably would but not get the funding from Wall Street.
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
You're so right. Kennedy was a genuine tax cutter. Pro military.
A genuine war hero. Rabidly anti Communist.
Today, he'd be a Republican.
geejayeJan 27, 2012
"Even Ronald Reagan would not get elected by todays Republicans."
Yup:
"As president, the conservative icon approved several tax increases to deal with a soaring budget deficit, repeatedly boosted the nation's debt limit, signed into law a bill granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and, despite his anti-Washington rhetoric, oversaw an increase in the size and spending of the federal government. Before that, as California governor, he enacted what at the time was the largest state tax increase in American history. He also signed into law one of the nation's most permissive abortion bills; any Republican who tried that today would be cast out of the party." http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-reagan-revisionism-20110907
amnesia10Jan 27, 2012
As all Republicans practically have to sign a new tax pledge to even stand a chance of even getting party support it means the end of Reagan republicans. The party has move so far to the extreme the moderates are at a loss to who to support.
miklkitJan 28, 2012
Moderate republicons are still extremely far to the right. The rightwingnuts are off the charts.
leonard2Jan 28, 2012
The only reason it appears that way to you Miklkit is because you are way out there on the left-wing lunatic fringe.
leodinJan 27, 2012
I still can't shake the feeling that this is part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to throw the election and let Obama win, thus ensuring that by 2016 people will be so sick of the Democrats and Obama in particular that the Republicans will have free reign to do whatever the f**k they want. And before anyone starts cheering for that, let's not forget what lying s**theads the Republicans all are, and that those promises of small government and fiscal responsibility don't mean jack s**t once they get their hands on the wheel.
auditortuxJan 27, 2012
I've wondered that conspiracy too. If that's the case, I can only hope that the Tea Party actually gets that 2016 nod because I trust them much more to actually carry out on their promises. Although I'd love an OWS-candidate to challenge Obama this year...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chadpyleJan 27, 2012
Well, Obama could throw a massive wrench in that cog, by governing the nation responsibly and honestly; but, that would require him to disassociate himself from many of the entities responsible for financing his campaigns - an unlikely scenario.
Give any politician enough time to talk or govern and they'll prove their ineptitude.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kuzotzJan 28, 2012
I know a lot of people like to mention this, but I think Obama might have a legitimate reason for doing what he is doing. I think if you become POTUS the powers that be control you a lot more than people think or would like to think. Its quite scary.
usarugulaJan 27, 2012
It's not about 2016. It's about profits. Fox sells snake oil to people who believe they are infected with communism and wars on Christmas.
kuzotzJan 28, 2012
what is this war on christmas thing. because no one else talked about it. I have a few ppl on my FB who wrote weird statuses last month like "Merry Christmas, and if you're offended by it then you can go to hell and die!!"
I was like "WTF?" I don't think anybody is caring about it. But then again this guy lives in a small town in Oklahoma. Sooooooooooooo they're not connected to the real world or anything outside of their town.
asfinktersezwutJan 27, 2012
You're not the first to posit that theory - I've even heard it in jest from a Republican Senator at a dinner party.
auditortuxJan 27, 2012
I hate to be cynical, but I'd go to Huffington Post to learn how they think Fox is destroying the Republican party as likely as I would go to a wolf and ask for vegetarian receipts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Ouzel7Jan 27, 2012
"Senior Fellow, Media Matters for America"
This is the author of the piece. He's stuffing his piehole with food bought with Soros money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaJan 27, 2012
Of course. Why trust an outside source when Murdoch's Corporation News will tell you to think?
As Bush speechwriter David Frum is quoted at the end of the article: "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox."
But I'm sure "no true republican" would say that. Huffington Post made it up.
auditortuxJan 27, 2012
You missed the entire point of my comment, you realize that right?
Would you trust Rush to tell you whether the Democratic party was sick or not?
ericschc1Jan 27, 2012
Psst...I think you missed the part where he said how one of the Republicans' own self-identified their "illness".
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
Yes. One guy. BFD.
atomheartmotherJan 27, 2012
Bush speechwriter? Is that supposed to have any validity in painting Frum as in any way, shape or form a conservative? He's far from it, you know.
ethanleducJan 28, 2012
It's not conservatives who are the problem, it's people like Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney.
They could call themselves the Moderate-and-Reasonable Party of America and they'd still be every bit as dangerous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jan 27, 2012
It's always fun to hear Repukes bitching about how there are "sooo many liberal news networks."
I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but: reality is liberal...when you live in the REAL world most of the s**t the Repuke party comes up with is pure s**t.
roguegeniusJan 27, 2012
There are no liberal news networks. MSNBC is the closest, but... Hello! Joe Scarborough! CNN is just bad, not liberal.
miklkitJan 28, 2012
But, the people on MSNBC use some of the same charts and graphs that I do, and they apologize on air when they make a mistake.
I will take facts and honesty over fear and smear every time.
bossm4nJan 28, 2012
The fact that you and others can't see some of those biases is what is disturbing and why it is so dangerous. Let's take ABC as an example and one of the most glaring . George Stephanopolous is as staunch of a liberal as you will find in all of media, but he hides it well. Prior to getting involved in news, every job he had was for a Democrat--first as aide to Ed Feighan, then working on Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign in '88, then as an assistant to Dick Gephardt and finally as an adviser on Bill Clinton's campaign during his initial run for the White House. For all his efforts, he was appointed as a senior adviser in the Clinton administration on policy and was pretty much the brains behind Hillary's healthcare reform package.
Now, I think George is a sharp political mind, but there is little doubt that he leans hard to the left and having watched him for nearly 20 years, especially over the last decade as he has become more involved in day to day media, his liberal tendencies show constantly in how he handles interviews and reporting. He is regularly soft with Democrats and more aggressive and inflammatory with Republicans. The most recent example of this was when he moderated the GOP debate in New Hampshire. He went beyond the role of moderator and chose to take on the role of antagonist in regards to much of his questioning.
While ABC or other major media outlets might not be entirely liberal, they employ liberal journalists who at times show a complete lack of ability to be objective. It's no secret that Fox as a whole swings right, but in my opinion that is far less dangerous than having left leaning journalists appear to be objective while undermining their opponents and enemies.
roguegeniusJan 28, 2012
Even Fox hires liberals (sort of.) But there is no network out there that has an 'agenda.' Only Fox. If there stopped being money in 'liberal opinion' then MSNBC would turn on a dime. It's not ideologically liberal. It simply isn't. ABC is owned by Disney. The evil empire, we like to call them. Disney is on the social right. But don't think for a minute that makes ABC a 'right wing' outfit. It's a MONEY MAKING outfit.
There is only one outlet that truly is intentionally slanted and that is Fox. When the public turns away from the right, they will still be doing what they do despite the profit loss. Because profit is not their main thing. They are a propaganda outlet. This is just a fact.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
carlmosconiJan 27, 2012
Go Fox!
nitoriJan 27, 2012
I always called Fox News "Faux News"or " Fox Snooze" I also Call CNN the Crap News Network or the Cirno News Network as it's just as screwed up.
vitriolandangstJan 27, 2012
I have to disagree with the HuffingtonPost.
The Republican party CANNOT be hurt by anything -- not by Fox or some other Ministry of Truth, subtle or not. It is a sock puppet -- just like the Democratic party.
When War Criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others can go on lecture circuits and book tours explaining; "What happened" during their administration -- and there are no rebuttals to their STORY. Then the next administration -- allegedly the Opposition, holds no investigations and does not change policies that have almost made the Constitution null and void -- that to me means that we just saw a "victory lap."
The winners of wars write the history -- and since 2000 when Bush was appointed to office by the Supreme Court, and 2001 when they investigated their own crimes and led us to war -- we as a country are merely coming to terms with the fact that the Oligarchs won and the PEOPLE lost.
If Germany had won WW II, there would have been no trials in the Hague, unless of course FDR were held to account for the internment of Japanese, or some French resistance fighter were hung for opposing a "lawful occupation."
Anyone who said that the Polish had not attacked the Reichstag and Germany 21 times would be called a Conspiracy Theorist and laughed at -- because by that time, the Nazis would be feeling a lot more secure about their position in this world, and would not need to kill everyone who disagreed -- they'd merely have their spokespeople in the Media subject dissenters to ridicule.
>> I don't wish to push a bunch of hyperbole -- but sometimes I have to reflect on how much we've lost of our soul as a nation since 2000. And when people look at the tempest in the Tea Pot that is Fox News, they forget that CNN and NPR don't cover the REAL issues either. Fox is for the Brown Shirts, and the rest of the media is for the Good Germans.
The elections now are pointless -- they are merely an audition for the best Sock Puppet. A few "factions" that wish to WIN are all factions that merely compete for who can best herd the sheep. Is it going to be the thoughtful and kindly Obama who gets pushed around by the big bad Republicans, yet he allows the NDAA and another bill that can make anyone called a Terrorist no longer a citizen and therefore have no rights under the NDAA? Is it going to be Mitt, who appeals to the Big Business fans. Is it going to be Newt who gets cover by the Mossad?
Maybe there is a point to local elections and who gets in the House and Senate -- maybe a few righteous people slip through the cracks. But all our Presidential hopefuls are vetted (compromised), and none of them would work for the people.
treehugger87Jan 27, 2012
This!
laurahoustonJan 27, 2012
when you kiss rabid fox ass, you ask to get bitten
bluto36Jan 27, 2012
when you "progressively" fixate on putting your lips on someones ass you will end up with a liberal case of ass breath.
laura you may need to invest in a case of mintsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leonard2Jan 27, 2012
More BS from the leftist whack-jobs at the Huffin'gluepost. Buried
kasha34Jan 28, 2012
I'm touched. Really. The Huffington Post cares, really cares, about the Republican party.
rixar13Jan 28, 2012
Fox Snooze on LSD... wink ;-)
rixar13Jan 28, 2012
Fox News on LSD ~ while I flush the toilet... Yeah ~ wink ;-)
TheDon24Jan 27, 2012
I'm sure both equally screws each other back and forward
CornermanJan 27, 2012
It's not fox news doing it, it's the republican presidential candidates themselves doing it. Cant trust any of em.
KapsiotJan 27, 2012
Things seemed to work out pretty well in the 2010 elections.
dauntless1Jan 27, 2012
Yeah, all those guys got elected on a jobs campaign and then did.......
nothing, which is both a description of what they are, what they are worth, and what their party will always be.
KapsiotJan 27, 2012
They were elected on a smaller govt. fiscal responsibility platform. Obama hadn't ruined the economy enough by 2010 for a jobs platform.
dauntless1Jan 27, 2012
Lies, I was actually WATCHING the campaign stuff from 2010, and it was jobs jobs jobs.
That tone didn't change until AFTER they got elected.
johnnallJan 27, 2012
True they got elected and now they are being recalled. So yeah it worked out great.
bohdan69Jan 29, 2012
Readon TV Movie Radio Player http://softdam.ru/?p=53
anglosaxongalJan 29, 2012
Aaahhh....let me guess; Eric Boehlert is a member of the Nazi party in America? Or just getting paid by them?
anglosaxongalJan 29, 2012
Horses**t. FOX has been supporting those devils always. Who is writing for huffy butt to spread propaganda to get back all those CONsumers they lost? Never mind, I'll go look.