People that dont like FOX news

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Oscar10

FOX shows BOTH side ..unlike the Liberal left media who will not report ANYTHIN bad about Obama...and he is not a God. silly liberals ...brains are for intelligent people who know how to use them.



listen to this.....very interesting how person DO NOT WANT to look at both sides..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa_8vBbTsbM

Now that is just total bullshit. Fox is nothing more than a false propaganda machine for the conservative/Republican/Tea Party that misinforms their viewers and tells flat out lies. And there's lots of proof of that.

Here's another example:

Bret Baier Birther Report Draws Journalism Ethics Fire

Journalism veterans and ethics experts are criticizing Fox News' Bret Baier for treating as credible the false claim that President Barack Obama might not have been born in the United States, with one experienced news person calling his recent coverage of the issue "a complete abandonment of integrity and responsibility."


Baier, often viewed as among the more credible news people at Fox News, reported in a news brief Monday night that Arizona Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett threatened to remove Obama's name from the Arizona ballot if Hawaii officials didn't prove to his satisfaction that Obama was born in Hawaii.


Baier stated: "Bennett says he is not, quote 'a birther' but wants to clear up the issue for concerned Arizonans." But Baier failed to "clear up the issue" for Fox's viewers by stating outright that President Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, as indicated by his birth certificate and a contemporaneous newspaper announcement of his birth.



This marked at least the third time this year that Baier reported on developments in the debunked 'birther' movement without providing this crucial context.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205230006

[Alabamajim]

well if people don't like fox , than thats them and people that don't like Obama that them..

[stumbler]

Let's just cross reference what Fox is reporting compared to what is actually happening.

Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

A nearly three-month-long tussle between two states over President Obama's birth records may be at an end.


The state of Hawaii said late Tuesday it has provided verification of the president's birth to Arizona's secretary of state, who claimed he needed proof of Obama's citizenship before he could place his name on the state's November ballot.


Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, told The Associated Press that the matter is now resolved.
Hawaii didn't give in to the request quickly or easily, pressing Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett for proof that the records were needed as part of normal business.


Wisch said Hawaii got the necessary proof, so it sent Bennett's office the verification.


A spokesman for Bennett said he received Hawaii's verification and will comment Wednesday. It was not clear if the new information would satisfy Bennett or bring the dispute to a close.


In a radio interview last week, Bennett insisted he is "not a birther. I believe the president was born in Hawaii — or at least I hope he was."
But, he said, "my responsibility as secretary of state is to make sure the ballots in Arizona are correct and that those people whose names are on the ballot have met the qualifications for the office they are seeking."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/h...082322680.html


Arizona official apologizes for Obama birth verification request

By Kim Geiger May 23, 2012, 9:59 a.m.




Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has apologized for any embarrassment he caused his state when he revived a widely discredited conspiracy theory about President Obama’s birthplace by requesting verification that the president was born in Hawaii.


The apology came on the same day that Hawaii officials finally responded to Bennett’s request for “verification in lieu of” the birth certificate, which he said last week could be a precondition for placing Obama’s name on the Arizona ballot.



“If I embarrassed the state, I apologize, but that certainly wasn’t my intent,” Bennett said Tuesday in an interview with radio station KTAR.
Obama’s name will appear on the ballot “as long as he fills out the same paperwork and does the same things that everybody else has,” Bennett said.


Still, Bennett – who insists he is not a member of the “birther” movement that continues to promote the unsubstantiated claim that Obama was born in Kenya and is therefore ineligible to be president – defended himself for making the request.


“What is so sacred or untouchable about this question that you can’t even ask the question?” he said.


Bennett came under fire last week when it was reported that he had asked the state of Hawaii to verify the existence of Obama’s birth certificate, even though a certified copy of the document has been posted to the White House website for over a year.


Hawaii officials have been inundated with similar requests since Obama first became a presidential candidate, and emails obtained by Talking Points Memo suggest the state was less than eager to fulfill the request.


“My apologies for not responding immediately,” wrote Deputy Atty. Gen. Jill T. Nagamine in an email to Bennett earlier this month. “…We need more information to substantiate that you are eligible to receive verification.”


In submitting his request, Bennett cited a Hawaii law that allows officials from other states to request verification of the existence of a birth certificate. But as recently as Saturday, Nagamine was questioning Bennett’s authority to make the request.



“If I have missed something, please let me know,” Nagamine wrote. “My client stands willing to provide you with the verification you seek as soon as you are able to show that you are entitled to it.”


The matter appeared to have been resolved Tuesday night, when Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii Atty. Gen. David Louie, told the Associated Press that Bennett had given the state what it needed to fulfill the request.


Bennett, a Republican who is exploring a run for governor in 2014, is a co-chairman of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.


Meanwhile, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has sent two men to Hawaii to confirm the existence of the birth certificate, according to the Arizona Republic and the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.


Arpaio is leading an investigation into Obama’s birth certificate and has declared that the copy released by the White House is a fraud.
Brian Mackiewcz and Michael Zullo appeared at the Hawaii Department of Health on Monday, flashing Maricopa County Sheriff’s Offices badges, the Star-Advertiser reports. Mackiewcz produced a business card that said he is part of the Arizona sheriff’s “Threats Management Unit,” and a spokesman for the sheriff’s office told the Star-Advertiser that the men are “authorized by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, who is conducting an official investigation.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,3309012.story

[Kimiko]

I can't begin to imagine how weary Hawaiian officials must be of responding to stupid requests like this.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I can't begin to imagine how weary Hawaiian officials must be of responding to stupid requests like this.

Actually the Hawaiian authorities made him jump through some hoops to get it, making him proof he had authority to even request it. And then after making him jump through a couple hoops they just handed it over to him. It was pretty funny actually and looks more and more like even conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are running from the birthers.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Actually the Hawaiian authorities made him jump through some hoops to get it, making him proof he had authority to even request it. And then after making him jump through a couple hoops they just handed it over to him. It was pretty funny actually and looks more and more like even conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are running from the birthers.

They should have made HIM produce HIS birth certificate. And then they should have told him it looks like a forgery.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

They should have made HIM produce HIS birth certificate. And then they should have told him it looks like a forgery.

I wish they had but never fear they have another chance to humiliate the entire state of Arizona because Sheriff Joe has sent another investigator out there this time at tax payer expense no less.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I wish they had but never fear they have another chance to humiliate the entire state of Arizona because Sheriff Joe has sent another investigator out there this time at tax payer expense no less.

If the taxpayers of Maricopa County are content to have Arpaio wasting tax dollars pursuing this sort of idiocy, they deserve what they get.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

If the taxpayers of Maricopa County are content to have Arpaio wasting tax dollars pursuing this sort of idiocy, they deserve what they get.

Well they are getting it that's for sure. Its really making the whole state look crazier than shit house rats. But that's what happens to people blinded by their on hate and prejudice.

[Empress Lainie]

Me, I do not have a birth certificate. Does that mean I wasn't even born?
The state where I thought I was born has no record either.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Oscar10

..and remember that Stewert show is a COMEDY SHOW..Not a real news show ..it has "its" facts but like any other liberal media ..when confronted on " reportedly correct info" is contridicted..he immediatly Laughs it off and goes" comedian"

i dont alway agree w/ fox..im not a HARD-RIGHT -WING by far..... but IMO it does cover most the news equally better than most..the other repeatt themselves over and over...remember .... the more you repeat something .the more it gets imprinted in ur mind.....so just because 4 mainstream networks say the same thing and FOX doesnt ..doesn make the info correct....do YOUR own research...outside the main stream news box......

I'll bet you don't have guts enough to follow your own advice and do YOUR own research by even reading this thread and noting that Fox News does in fact promote right wing false propaganda and gets caught at it quite regularly. Not to mention constantly making amateur mistakes which they usually don't admit or correct.

Originally Posted by Kimiko

As usual, you're completely full of shit. FDU is a four year university, offering both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and the largest private university in New Jersey.

He is our current resident idiot isn't he? Thanks for catching his latest total bullshit brainwashed parrot statement.

[stumbler]

Mike Huckabee Accidentally Tells The Truth About Fox News

Oops! This slipup by Mike Huckabee accidentally reveals the truth about our favorite non-news channel. In this clip, he declares that the nation would think Barack Obama was doing just fine if it weren't for Fox News. Boy howdy, I'll bet he feels like a weight has lifted from his shoulders after that confession.
Raw Story:

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) had an oops moment on his radio show Monday, and this one’s going to leave a mark.Speaking about America’s media landscape in general, Huckabee suggested that without Fox News acting as a counterweight to “mainstream media,” most Americans “will assume that Obama really is just doing a great job and he just can’t get those crazy Republicans to help him out.”

Why yes, Pastor Huckabee. That happens to be the truth, right there, falling out of your mouth without so much as a second thought. Not only that, but without Fox News, our population would be smarter, more well-informed, and less prone to extreme, ridiculous thoughts about birth certificates and such.



Thanks for clearing that up!

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/mik...lls-truth-abou

[stumbler]

VIDEO: Fox's Gas Price Predictions Fall Flat

In its relentless coverage of rising gas prices, Fox News made some outrageous predictions of $5, $6, $7 and even $8 a gallon gasoline by summer. But these predictions have proven to be nothing more than wishful thinking by a network that hoped to use high prices at the pump as a campaign issue against President Obama.


Although experts agree that U.S. policies have little impact on the global oil market, Fox spent months pushing the narrative that rising prices at the pump were a direct result of President Obama's drilling policies. Rather than pointing out the root of the problem -- that our dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to supply disruptions and volatile prices -- Fox blamed EPA regulations and falsely suggested that the Keystone XL pipeline and expanded domestic drilling could solve our gas price woes.


In line with GOP messaging strategy, Fox anchors hyped rising gas prices as an "opportunity to disrupt" a positive economic narrative and perhaps even "de-rail" President Obama's re-election. Fox's energy "expert" Eric Bolling went so far as to declare that high gas prices "will take down the presidency."


But as oil analyst Tom Kloza anticipated, Fox's astronomical predictions have turned out to be "nonsense."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206060006

[stumbler]

Fuck I give up this time. I'll just post Media Matters entire page.

Fox Finds More Bill Clinton Comments To Distort

June 07, 2012 10:06 pm ET by Zachary Pleat

Another day, another Fox News distortion. To continue its invented storyline that former President Clinton is "at odds" with President Obama, Fox seized on an interview Clinton gave to CNN this afternoon to claim that Clinton made "another swipe at Obama" with his comment that "median income, after inflation, is lower than it was the day I left office."

In fact, it's unclear how Fox arrived at that theory considering that Clinton spent most of the entire interview discussing his support for Obama's economic policies.
Moreover, aside from resting on the false premise that Clinton was taking "another swipe" at Obama, the fact is that median household income has been falling steadily for more than a decade. Income rebounded somewhat in 2004, then started falling again when the recession began in 2007 -- well before Obama took office.

Read the full entry ...

0 Comments
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on reddit Share on tumblr More Sharing Services
Permalink Print Email


No, Fox, Increasing Minimum Wage Does Not Hinder Job Growth

June 07, 2012 9:00 pm ET by Emily Arrowood

Fox News host Neil Cavuto rehashed old myths on his show today to argue against a proposed Democratic bill that would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 an hour and require annual increases for inflation. To make his point, Cavuto claimed the higher wage would negatively impact current unemployment levels, saying to Democratic strategist Malia Lazu: "Do you look around at what's going on? Do you look at 8.2% unemployment? ... You think raising the minimum wage is going to bring those rates down? Do you honestly, seriously think that?"
In reality, contrary to Cavuto's claims, there is no evidence that increasing the minimum wage results in higher unemployment.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research found that raising the minimum wage has no "discernible impact" on employment, and in fact, concluded that wage increases are more likely to result in more jobs rather than less:

The results for fast food, food services, retail, and low-wage establishments in San Francisco and Santa Fe support the view that a citywide minimum wages can raise the earnings of low-wage workers, without a discernible impact on their employment. Moreover, the lack of an employment response held for three full years after the implementation of the measures, allaying concerns that the shorter time periods examined in some of the earlier research on the minimum wage was not long enough to capture the true disemployment effects.
Our estimated employment responses generally cluster near zero, and are more likely to be positive than negative. Few of our point estimates are precise enough to rule out either positive or negative employment effects, but statistically significant positive employment responses outnumber statistically significant negative elasticities.

Read the full entry ...

1 Comments
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on reddit Share on tumblr More Sharing Services
Permalink Print Email


10 Of The Worst Examples Of Michelle Malkin's Inflammatory Rhetoric

June 07, 2012 8:31 pm ET by Marcus Feldman

In a recent post on her website, Fox News contributor Sally Kohn argued that conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, also a Fox News contributor, "condemn[s] supposed incivility on the part of the left while championing incivility on the part of the right," and pointed to examples of Malkin attacking progressives. Malkin responded to Kohn's post on Sean Hannity's radio show today, arguing that instead of using inflammatory rhetoric, she merely makes "funny," "lighthearted jokes":

But the following attacks Malkin has launched against progressives are neither "funny" nor "lighthearted":

• Malkin attacked Michelle Obama for shopping at an Alexandria, VA, Target store, writing that Obama went "about as 'incognito' as Lady Gaga's outfit at her younger sister's graduation." Malkin went on to call the first lady "the glamour queen" and further stated that Obama's Target visit was "to counter the negative diva buzz" and that it "looks like she left the bling at home."
• Malkin called Michelle Obama the president's "bitter half" and the "bitter half of the Obama administration."
• Malkin mocked Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz as nothing more than "Alan Grayson in heels ... Anthony Weiner, only an octave higher."
• Malkin called President Obama "thug-in-chief" and accused his administration of having "boots on the necks of American small business owners."
• Malkin said Obama "has been the Chicago bully in victim's clothing from day one."
• Malkin asserted that with the contraception rule, Obama sided with "femagogues" and "tramplers of religious rights."
• Malkin said that Obama "has embraced an impulse among the cultural left to display hostility to law enforcement."
• Malkin said Obama seems "far more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the most virulently anti-American regimes."
• Malkin called Richard Trumka "thug-in-chief at the AFL-CIO" and accused him of a "bloody legacy."
• Malkin accused the Democratic Party and the White House of "racial demagoguery."

Malkin is not the only conservative to launch attacks that are neither "lighthearted" nor "funny":
Read the full entry ...

12 Comments
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on reddit Share on tumblr More Sharing Services
Permalink Print Email


"Drone"-ing Out The Truth

June 07, 2012 6:22 pm ET by Brian Powell

Right-wing media outlets have been in full freak-out mode this week, fabricating a myth that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been using drones to spy on Midwestern ranchers. In fact, the EPA has been utilizing manned flyovers -- not drones -- to investigate potential polluters since the Bush administration, in an effort to save money and enforce clean water regulations efficiently.
For the past ten years, the EPA has conducted intermittent flyovers "to verify compliance with environmental laws on watersheds," as Reuters reported:

"EPA uses over-flights, state records and other publicly available sources of information to identify discharges of pollution," said a statement issued by the EPA's Kansas City regional office. "In no case has EPA taken an enforcement action solely on the basis of these over-flights."
EPA has for 10 years used flyovers to verify compliance with environmental laws on watersheds as a "cost-effective" tool to minimize inspection costs, according to the statement.

The Lincoln Journal Star has reported the EPA uses four-seat Cessna airplanes -- not drones -- as even the John Birch Society's New American acknowledged in a correction to its report:

This article originally said that the EPA was using drones to monitor feedlots, but a representative from Senator Johanns office has alerted us that in actuality manned aircraft have been used to monitor the feedlots. We apologize for the error.

Nevertheless, right-wing commentators began falsely throwing the word "drone" into their reports about the EPA's enforcement mechanisms. For example, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly:

KELLY: You know, you gotta picture yourself, right, as one of these Midwestern farmers, because what's been in the news lately? The fact that President Obama's killed more terrorists with drones than any other president. That President Obama has a so-called "kill list." And that on that kill list, sometimes civilian casualties go as well, because if you're near an al-Qaeda terrorist, they assume if you're of an adult male age in a certain community, you also are a terrorist.
Even an American terrorist, an American al-Qaeda, was killed by a drone. So now you're in the Midwest, and you know you're not a terrorist, but nonetheless, you gotta get a little squeamish when you see a drone going overhead.

[stumbler]

Fox Lets Mitch McConnell Off The Hook For Blocking Jobs Bill

Fox News covered up GOP obstructionism on jobs creation, letting Senator Mitch McConnell falsely claim that Congress has passed "most" of President Obama's jobs bill.


McConnell appeared on Fox to respond after President Obama appeared at a Friday press conference and urged Congress to pass a jobs bill he has been promoting since September. That proposal included $35 billion for teacher rehiring and first responders, along with $105 billion to fix roads and schools, make long-term investments in the nation's infrastructure and to improve vacant or abandoned properties to revitalize communities. Economist Mark Zandi estimated that the bill would have created 2 million jobs and boosted economic growth by 2 percent.


In pressing Congress to pass the jobs bill, Obama specifically noted: "If Congress had passed it in full, we'd be on track to have a million more Americans working this year. The unemployment rate would be lower. Our economy would be stronger." Fox turned to Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican, to respond, allowing McConnell to argue, "we passed most of what he asked us to pass last fall, and some of the rest of it is about to pass."


Anchor Jon Scott, hosting one of Fox's so-called news shows, made no effort to have McConnell explain what it means to pass "most" of a jobs bill, thereby letting McConnell off the hook for the GOP's efforts to block the bill.


In November, Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, filibustered the bill preventing it from becoming law. CBS News reported at the time:

Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's $447 billion jobs package on Tuesday, putting the brakes on a bill Mr. Obama has been vigorously promoting over the past month.

Fox viewers were left with the impression that that filibuster never happened.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206080013

[CS natureboy]

LOL, Obama is such a loser, stumbler is now left with just crying about FOX news.

Poor baby......

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

No...we just like news organizations that tell the truth, and Fox doesn't qualify.

FOX News won a lawsuit protecting its First Amendment right to lie.

What is frightening is that many Americans want to be lied to.

The lies of Rush Limbaugh have been documented for years, but his dittoheads do not care.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

What is frightening is that many Americans want to be lied to.

Well now, that does explain how Obama got elected.

[xnxxbob]

This explains it......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I&feature=related

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Well now, that does explain how Obama got elected.

Originally Posted by xnxxbob

This explains it......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I&feature=related

Actually you guys remind me of the bird house at the Denver Zoo.

[NoOneFamous]

I don't watch Faux News or MSNBC - neither one can be considered a news organization.

[stumbler]

Fox & Friends Falsely Claims Fed Saw 40% Wealth Drop In “Last Three Years”

If you watched Fox & Friends interview Mitt Romney on Tuesday morning, you heard from the inestimably chipper Steve Doocy that the Federal Reserve announced on Monday that forty percent of Americans’ wealth had been wiped out in “the last three years.” One problem. It’s not true.



No doubt the Fed report made for sober reading, showing that median household net worth was in 2010 at its lowest level since 1992 when adjusted for inflation. But the years studied — the height of the recession with a cratering housing market — were 2007 to 2010. Not (for the time-challenged) the last three years.



A separate Fed survey released last week showed that total family net worth actually climbed 4.7 percent in the first quarter of this year, putting it at about 28 percent above recession lows, according to the AP.


Never mind all that, though. Doocy asked the former Mass. governor and GOP presidential candidate to respond the report thusly:

It was a jaw-dropping statistic that was flashed across the country yesterday, the Federal Reserve has figured out that over the last three years the net worth of the average American family has fallen 40% over three years, wiped out two decades worth of America’s wealth, mainly because house values have dropped. When you saw that number, that American debt, or American wealth down 40% in three years what did you think?

Romney, it should be noted, either didn’t hear Doocy’s error, or didn’t care to correct it.



Subsequent Fox reporting in later hours correctly noted the study’s actual timeframe.
Watch:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...cy.php?ref=fpa

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Fox & Friends Falsely Claims Fed Saw 40% Wealth Drop In “Last Three Years”


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...cy.php?ref=fpa

The economy is in a free fall because of Obama and the liberal democrats failed policies

[NoOneFamous]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

The economy is in a free fall because of Obama and the liberal democrats failed policies

Next you'll tell us that the GOP has pristine clean hands and they are not to blame for any of our nation's problems.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

Next you'll tell us that the GOP has pristine clean hands and they are not to blame for any of our nation's problems.

Well, your moronic half wit comment is really insignificant considering I have never praised the GOP for anything.

I hold all of our elected officials responsible for the mess this Country is in today.

[SexLover32]

I find that the majority of criticism that this respectable news organization receives is unwarranted. How on earth can you believe that Fox News is a right wing propaganda machine spreading lies for the GOP/Tea Party/Birthers? Last I checked the humble service offers the view points of many a verbal liberal. Do the names Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel, and Juan Williams come to mind, all of whom play hardball with the conservative commentators of the late night spectrum. Or the Democratic congressman and senators who are interviewed and speak their peace? Or Chris Wallace, registered democrat and son of the late Mike Wallace, a world renowned interviewer with a penchant for the truth? The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of daytime news coverage on Fox is quite fair and balanced. Yes Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly are conservatives, but they are also commentators who are picking and choosing what they show. Might I add that The O'reilly factor dominates all other cable news stations and comes somewhat close to the network channels. Perhaps the bad rep comes from the great Glenn Beck, who had a show on the channel for several years on the channel and dominated the time slot. Yes the man was a conservative commentator with free reign as to what he aired. But he always backed his facts up with more facts. As of late he has willingly chosen to leave the channel and go it alone, and his success is not fleeting. And if this station is propaganda, what on God's green earth is MSNBC? At least Fox doesn't have racists on the air and hosts wishing prominent politicians dead.

Also, seriously stop with all the hateful comments on this thread, of which I expect to receive. Last I checked we weren't kindergartners.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by SexLover32

I find that the majority of criticism that this respectable news organization receives is unwarranted. How on earth can you believe that Fox News is a right wing propaganda machine spreading lies for the GOP/Tea Party/Birthers? Last I checked the humble service offers the view points of many a verbal liberal. Do the names Alan Colmes, Bob Beckel, and Juan Williams come to mind, all of whom play hardball with the conservative commentators of the late night spectrum. Or the Democratic congressman and senators who are interviewed and speak their peace? Or Chris Wallace, registered democrat and son of the late Mike Wallace, a world renowned interviewer with a penchant for the truth? The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of daytime news coverage on Fox is quite fair and balanced. Yes Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly are conservatives, but they are also commentators who are picking and choosing what they show. Might I add that The O'reilly factor dominates all other cable news stations and comes somewhat close to the network channels. Perhaps the bad rep comes from the great Glenn Beck, who had a show on the channel for several years on the channel and dominated the time slot. Yes the man was a conservative commentator with free reign as to what he aired. But he always backed his facts up with more facts. As of late he has willingly chosen to leave the channel and go it alone, and his success is not fleeting. And if this station is propaganda, what on God's green earth is MSNBC? At least Fox doesn't have racists on the air and hosts wishing prominent politicians dead.

Also, seriously stop with all the hateful comments on this thread, of which I expect to receive. Last I checked we weren't kindergartners.

You are laughable and one look at this thread would prove you can't tell a news organization from a right wing false propaganda machine. Not hardly a day goes by when Fox News does not misinform their audience on very important issues.

And they get caught at it all the time.

Also the major difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that MSNBC admits and publicizes their bias while Fox News lies and claims to be "fair and balanced."

[SexLover32]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You are laughable and one look at this thread would prove you can't tell a news organization from a right wing false propaganda machine. Not hardly a day goes by when Fox News does not misinform their audience on very important issues.

And they get caught at it all the time.

Also the major difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that MSNBC admits and publicizes their bias while Fox News lies and claims to be "fair and balanced."

I do love successful predictions. Sure I'm going to immediately take the word of a thread that is cited heavily with links to Media Matters, a supremely biased left wing organization that lives to decry the activities of Fox. Yes sir, that's going to happen.

Also, if I'm correct, the commentators of Fox quite often admit their conservative bias, with the exception of O'reilly, who is not a true conservative and has never claimed to be.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by SexLover32

I do love successful predictions. Sure I'm going to immediately take the word of a thread that is cited heavily with links to Media Matters, a supremely biased left wing organization that lives to decry the activities of Fox. Yes sir, that's going to happen.

But allow me to point out your fallacy here, which simply put is that if Media Matters was nothing more than a left wing propaganda machine you and many, many others would have no problem at all finding evidence of that and publishing it just like Media Matters does.

However, I haven't seen you nor anyone else ever prove Media Matters wrong or document them putting forth misinformation and propaganda. And they document those things at Fox News on almost a daily basis.

So what your really doing is believing your own bullshit.

Originally Posted by SexLover32

Also, if I'm correct, the commentators of Fox quite often admit their conservative bias, with the exception of O'reilly, who is not a true conservative and has never claimed to be.

You'll have to show me an example of that. Admittedly I don't watch Fox News all day every day but I do try to watch Fox News at least part of the day and I have yet to see any of the commentator admit their conservative bias let alone admit their mistakes or misinformation.

And commentators are one thing but I've posted many, many, examples of what is supposed to be Fox's straight news personalities also broadcasting misinformation and propaganda. So once again I think you're just trying to bullshit yourself and others.

[SexLover32]

Good sir, besides the point that the billionaires of the right won't spend nickel or dime on a powerhouse to refute the findings of the opposite side, the sources that I would site, many of them originating from Glenn Beck, you most likely would not believe.

I do respect your admittance of not being an avid watcher of Fox News. That counts for something. But the commentators do admit their bias. As for the general newscasters, perhaps you are just widening the definition of propaganda, as it is very unlikely that such mistakes, of which are corrected when they occur, are true forms of propaganda.

Might I say that neither of us will believe each other's sources. Can we agree on that?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by SexLover32

Good sir, besides the point that the billionaires of the right won't spend nickel or dime on a powerhouse to refute the findings of the opposite side, the sources that I would site, many of them originating from Glenn Beck, you most likely would not believe.

Oh yes I would if they proved out to be verifiable fact. But if is most often the case Beck was spouting delusional bullshit I would take the time to prove it to be just that. Because no matter how nuts even Glenn Beck might sound there's always the remote chance he might me right sometime.

And even then it does not make much difference what I think of Beck, there's enough Beck fans to earn him the highest paid contract in Radio; $100 million over the next five years.

Originally Posted by SexLover32

I do respect your admittance of not being an avid watcher of Fox News. That counts for something. But the commentators do admit their bias. As for the general newscasters, perhaps you are just widening the definition of propaganda, as it is very unlikely that such mistakes, of which are corrected when they occur, are true forms of propaganda.

No you see this is where I prove I'm at least willing to look at your sources but for what ever reasons you can't bring yourself to look at mine. Because if you did you'd see lots of examples of general newscasters actually reciting the Republican National Committee talking points memo. Or reporting things that have already been proven false. Or joining in cooperative efforts to try and destroy the Chevy Volt. And examples of gross errors that are never corrected.

Examples abound and thinking people will notice that after a while.

Originally Posted by SexLover32

Might I say that neither of us will believe each other's sources. Can we agree on that?

No, because I'm very well aware of the fallibility of my sources and try to be really careful and not post things I can't cross reference to other sources. And even then I get burned occasionally. But I make every effort to make sure what I'm posting is verifiable and factual.

And if you try to do the same with Fox News I bet I can prove them slanting, misinforming, and down right lying. Would you be interested in conducting that experiment?

[stumbler]

Fox Misrepresents Quote To Attack Obama Over Leak Investigation

Fox News misrepresented a quote by President Obama to accuse him of hypocrisy over an investigation of possible national security leaks.
The Fox & Friends co-hosts claimed that Obama had called for a special counsel to investigate the leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame when he said that "a special counsel will ensure the public's confidence in the investigation and prosecution and help to restore its faith in our government." In fact, the quote came in the context of the Jack Abramoff investigation, and the Bush administration rebuffed calls for a special counsel in that case.


Indeed, Obama was not even a U.S. senator at the time a special counsel was appointed to investigate the Plame leak.


Fox also relied on false comparisons between the Plame case and the current leak investigation to push for a special counsel.


Obama Did Not Call For A Special Counsel To Investigate The Plame Case When He Was A Senator

After Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was asking two U.S. attorneys to conduct a special investigation into the possibility of leaks of classified information, right-wing media have repeatedly pushed for an investigation by a special counsel who does not report to the Justice Department, pointing to the investigation into the Bush administration's leak of Plame's identity to the media.


Fox & Friends' latest strategy was to falsely claim that Obama, as a senator, had called for a special counsel to investigate the Plame case. In fact, Obama did not call for a special counsel to investigate the Plame leak as a senator. Indeed, Fitzgerald was appointed in December 2003, close to a year before Obama was even elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004.


Fox aired a quote of Obama saying, "A special counsel will ensure the public's confidence in the investigation and prosecution and help to restore its faith in our government."


Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy even suggested Obama was hypocritical for calling for a special counsel in the Plame case while not appointing one in this case, saying, "when it came to the Valerie Plame case, Mr. Obama ... said you gotta have a special counsel, you just gotta. Today don't gotta."


Actually, the statement in question came in a letter, signed by Obama and 35 other senators, that called for a special counsel to investigate the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal. The Bush administration, however, rebuffed calls for a special counsel who did not report to the Justice Department. Indeed, as late as December 2008, the Criminal Division of the Bush Justice Department was conducting the trial of top General Services Administration official David Safavian on charges related to the Abramoff scandal.


The Plame Case Had Special Circumstances Not Present In The Current Case

Furthermore, contrary to Fox's suggestion, the Plame investigation is not at all comparable to the current leak investigation. In the Plame case, the Justice Department investigated the leak internally until it became clear that a senior member of the Bush administration with ties to the attorney general was involved in the leak. Only at that point did the Bush administration name a special prosecutor. In the current investigation, by contrast, no one has uncovered evidence of senior Obama administration officials with ties to Holder leaking any information.


In 2003, senior officials in the Bush administration -- including Karl Rove and vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- leaked the identity of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame to the media. The CIA asked the Justice Department for an investigation.


As with the current case, the Bush Justice Department initially conducted the investigation under its normal procedures.


However, according to journalist Murray Waas, investigators became concerned that Rove was one of the leakers and had given possibly false statements about the leak. Waas added that Rove's involvement made it problematic for the investigation to continue under the auspices of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft: "Several of the federal investigators were also deeply concerned that then attorney general John Ashcroft was personally briefed regarding the details of at least one FBI interview with Rove, despite Ashcroft's own longstanding personal and political ties to Rove."


Waas reported that investigators were also concerned that "a number among Ashcroft's inner circle had partisan backgrounds that included working closely with Rove."
Waas added:

"It would have been a nightmare scenario if Ashcroft let something slip to an aide or someone else they had in common with Rove . . . and then word got back to Rove or the White House what investigators were saying about him," says a former senior Justice Department official, familiar with the matter.

In late 2003, Ashcroft recused himself from the case. It was only at this point, months after the Justice Department began investigating, that then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to pursue the Plame case, investing Fitzgerald with the full power of the attorney general.


Unlike the Plame case, no one has produced evidence that top administration officials with ties to Attorney General Holder have leaked confidential information or lied to investigators.


Furthermore, veteran reporters say the current claims of leaks are very different from the Plame affair, which they contend was a specific effort to leak classified information to journalists.


Therefore, the conditions that led to the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Plame case simply don't exist in the current investigation.


The Bush Administration Did Not Appoint A Special Counsel In Other Cases Involving Top Administration Officials

The Bush administration did not appoint a counsel with powers similar to Fitzgerald's in multiple other cases involving top administration officials:

• As mentioned above, the Bush Justice Department did not appoint a special counsel to investigate the Abramoff scandal.

• The Bush Justice Department also did not appoint a special counsel to investigate the conduct of top Justice Department lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memos," memos that used questionable legal analysis to justify the use of waterboarding and other interrogation tactics by agents of the U.S. government. Rather, the Bush Justice Department conducted the probe internally.

• The Bush Justice Department did not appoint a special counsel to conduct the investigation of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, who ultimately resigned amid charges of favoritism in the awarding of HUD contracts. Rather, the Justice Department conducted the investigation internally.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206180005

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Fox Misrepresents Quote To Attack Obama Over Leak Investigation
[/LIST]http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206180005

Are the inbred libtards crying about the failed policies of the Obama administration or just the fact that FOX is reporting it?

[stumbler]

4 Minutes And 4 Lies From Karl Rove

Bill O'Reilly brought Karl Rove onto his Fox News show for a dizzying spin session about the Obama administration's announcement that it will allow some young undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. In a short span, Rove managed put forward numerous falsehoods about the new policy and the recent history of the immigration debate.
Here are four facts about immigration -- and how Rove tried to jam them up:
1. The change in deportation policy for young people is legal. The Department of Homeland Security announced that it will exercise its prosecutorial discretion and consider exempting some young immigrants from deportation. This is consistent with current law and has decades of precedent. But on The O'Reilly Factor, Rove claimed that President Obama is saying that "we will selectively apply the laws of the United States" and that "[w]e will exempt a class of people from the statutes. There's no authority, I think, to do that."
2. The new policy will be applied case by case. The DHS press release describing the policy change says, "Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet [certain] criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion ... on a case by case basis." On The O'Reilly Factor, Rove falsely asserted that Obama is saying that "we will selectively apply the laws of the United States, not individual, case by case by case, but by class."
3. Comprehensive reform legislation was introduced in Congress under Obama. In December 2009, Democrats introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the House of Representatives. On The O'Reilly Factor, Rove falsely claimed that in August 2009, Obama promised to introduce comprehensive legislation, but "nothing has happened."
4. Republicans led the way in killing 2007 reform legislation. In June 2007, Senate Republicans played a dominant role in killing comprehensive reform legislation, which was backed by President Bush. A majority of the Democrats in the body voted to advance the legislation, while a majority of the Republicans voted to block it. Rove dubiously claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "was the guy who screwed up comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. He really is not a fan of comprehensive immigration reform."
From the June 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206190003

[stumbler]

Jon Stewart does another hilarious job of catching Fox News broadcasting lies and propaganda.

Fox News Almost Pulled A Fast One On Jon Stewart

Fox News almost fooled Jon Stewart on Tuesday. Sean Hannity recently rolled an old clip showing President Obama admitting he can’t take executive action to prevent deportations.



But after seeing the clip, Stewart thought Obama might have more to say. In fact, he did!


“Mother fuckers!” Stewart said. “You just cut Obama off, just before he very clearly says he can do the exact thing he just did, but which you said he said he’s not supposed to.”


“You almost had me, Fox News!” Stewart added.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ref=fpnewsfeed

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Jon Stewart does another hilarious job of catching Fox News broadcasting lies and propaganda.

Fox News Almost Pulled A Fast One On Jon Stewart




http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ref=fpnewsfeed

[stumbler]

Well Bill O'Reilly sure just proved himself a lying, gutless, fraud.

Those who wanted an apology from Bill O'Reilly after the Supreme Court handed down their landmark health care ruling were disappointed on Thursday.


In a historic decision, the court upheld the individual mandate as a tax. The ruling surprised many observers, including O'Reilly, who believed that the provision would be overturned. He was so sure of it on March 26 that he debated a guest on the issue, and vowed to later replay it on-air and "apologize for being an idiot" if the court upheld the mandate.



O'Reilly, who called into the show while on vacation, made no mention of that previous interview on Thursday night. "I think everybody needs to take a deep breath and step back from emotional analysis," he told guest host Laura Ingraham.



He put the blame squarely on Chief Justice Roberts, who he said "stunned everybody," for the decision. O'Reilly proceeded to lay out the ruling, claiming that it "will allow the federal government to take over the health care system" and that health care "is going to be rationed."



He said that the decision will give poor Americans free insurance, but increase everyone else's taxes in order to pay for it and hurt small businesses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1637023.html

[hawkco119]

Hey Sexlover just alittle bit of advice it is impossible to have a factual civil debate with Stumbler believe me i tried. All he does is just constantly quote left leaning lies and links and never has an open mind and is flat just truely the most ignorant indidviual i have had dialogue with but I do wish you good luck............

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Hey Sexlover just alittle bit of advice it is impossible to have a factual civil debate with Stumbler believe me i tried. All he does is just constantly quote left leaning lies and links and never has an open mind and is flat just truely the most ignorant indidviual i have had dialogue with but I do wish you good luck............

Well no you didn't. All you tried to do was spread right wing false propaganda and then got all butt hurt when I proved them to be lies and you a liar.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Hey Sexlover just alittle bit of advice it is impossible to have a factual civil debate with Stumbler believe me i tried. All he does is just constantly quote left leaning lies and links and never has an open mind and is flat just truely the most ignorant indidviual i have had dialogue with but I do wish you good luck............

Yep, it doesn't take long to figure that out.....

[richief]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Hey Sexlover just alittle bit of advice it is impossible to have a factual civil debate with Stumbler believe me i tried. All he does is just constantly quote left leaning lies and links and never has an open mind and is flat just truely the most ignorant indidviual i have had dialogue with but I do wish you good luck............

There is no point in debating politics with anyone on here, they are all entrenched in their positions and will never move. Watching from the outside I see more propaganda on the right than the left, and some of the GoP supporters here have no interest in whether what is posted is true or not as long as it supports their position. The supporters from the left seem to be a little more rational and will accept that they are wrong if they post false information but will also try to spin it in their favour, they also appear to be less rabid though Stumbler is given to long "walls of text".

But what the fuck does it matter, nothing said here will have any impact on the vote spread, and it comes in third place behind religion and race for fun arguments.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by richief

There is no point in debating politics with anyone on here, they are all entrenched in their positions and will never move. Watching from the outside I see more propaganda on the right than the left, and some of the GoP supporters here have no interest in whether what is posted is true or not as long as it supports their position. The supporters from the left seem to be a little more rational and will accept that they are wrong if they post false information but will also try to spin it in their favour, they also appear to be less rabid though Stumbler is given to long "walls of text".

But what the fuck does it matter, nothing said here will have any impact on the vote spread, and it comes in third place behind religion and race for fun arguments.

Spoken like a true socialist left wing liberal....

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Fox Misrepresents Quote To Attack Obama Over Leak Investigation
[/LIST]http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206180005

Media matters sure is a wholesome bunch of folks that tell the actual facts,, or is it the have the first dibs on sitting at Obama's dinner table,,reciting tomorrows news(lies/propaganda/talking points)

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Media matters sure is a wholesome bunch of folks that tell the actual facts,, or is it the have the first dibs on sitting at Obama's dinner table,,reciting tomorrows news(lies/propaganda/talking points)

Once again a ad hominem fallacy Ace. You can't dispute the facts so all you can do is attack the source. A sure sign you've lost the debate and lack any facts to change that.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Once again a ad hominem fallacy Ace. You can't dispute the facts so all you can do is attack the source. A sure sign you've lost the debate and lack any facts to change that.

I wont waste my time,,attempting to debate you on what media matters states,,every one knows that they are in the bag with the White house,,the leftists White house.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

I wont waste my time,,attempting to debate you on what media matters states,,every one knows that they are in the bag with the White house,,the leftists White house.

What you really don't like about Media Matters is they expose your lies Ace. Just like this.

Fox Vs. Fox On "Massive New Tax" That Only Affects A Small Number Of People

Lines in the sand have been drawn at Fox.


Discussing the Supreme Court's opinion upholding health care reform legislation, Fox White House correspondent Wendell Goler reported today that a fee for individuals who don't have health insurance would only affect one percent of the population. Goler's report is in marked contrast to his Fox News colleagues, who are claiming the fee is a massive tax on all Americans.


In contrast to Goler's report, Fox has been aggressively claiming that the fee would amount to a massive tax on all Americans.


For instance, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley said that the ruling will lead to "one of the biggest tax increases in American history and a highly regressive tax that is going to hit the poor and the middle class," and Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy claimed it creates a tax that is "going to hit everybody."


Likewise, Fox host Sean Hannity claimed that it is "a tax on every single American" and "the largest tax increase in American history," and Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes said it "will force a massive new tax on the American people."



In fact, Goler's reporting is backed up by the facts. In April 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 4 million people will face a fine for not having insurance in 2016.

A March 2012 report by the nonpartisan Urban Institute found that 94 percent of Americans "would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206290018

[hawkco119]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

I wont waste my time,,attempting to debate you on what media matters states,,every one knows that they are in the bag with the White house,,the leftists White house.

Right on a Ace Spoken like a true inteligent person

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by hawkco119

Right on a Ace Spoken like a true inteligent person

No now that's another lie hawkco119 because intelligent people neither use ad hominem fallacies nor endorses them.

[hawkco119]

Stumbler your just ignorant.......

[ELaken-Palmer]

...are destined to repeat it.