MediaMatters:"Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam."

[Baculus]

Remember those debates on this forum last year on whether or not some of the Tea Party groups were astroturf in nature? Well, this is what some of us were talking about.

"Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam.

December 31, 2009 4:00 pm ET by Matt Gertz

TPM Media's Zachary Roth reported earlier in the week that the political action committee that organized the Tea Party Express -- Our Country Deserves Better PAC -- funneled almost two-thirds of its spending from July to November back to the political consulting firm from which it was spawned, Russo, Marsh, and Associates. More than $850,000 of the money the supposedly grassroots PAC collected went to the firm of GOP political operatives who ran it."

Click the below link for the rest of the article:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912310008

The original TPM article:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/majority_of_tea_party_groups_spending_went_to_gop. php?ref=fpa

Thanks, Fox News, for your "Fair and Balanced" reporting. :doh:

And these are the people who want to defeat health care reform?

[Larry]

Uh, to me, the term "AstroTurf" implies that the money comes from the GOP. Not goes to.

(If the money goes to the GOP, then it's a front, but I wouldn't call it AstroTurf.)

[Baculus]

Uh, to me, the term "AstroTurf" implies that the money comes from the GOP. Not goes to.

(If the money goes to the GOP, then it's a front, but I wouldn't call it AstroTurf.)

Not true. It is still an astroturf group, because it is a front group created by certain interests above and beyond the original stated intention and nature of the organization. Astroturf groups are often corporate in nature, though they are sometimes political front groups as well -- the end result of the money isn't the final determination.

Astroturf groups are fronts -- that is the issue.

[Baculus]

Here is another article on this group:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/tea-party-group-accused-o_n_319443.html

[Bang]

No no no ,, the liberal media is just taking things out of context blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

It's the same old story, same old song and dance. The fact that people can actually believe anything that comes from the purely propagandist political shill that is Fox News is downright sad on one hand, and disturbing on the other.
And the only ones who don't seem to notice are the locksteppers who bleat what they're told and when they're told.

~Bang

[Burgold]

It was pretty obvious bull. They were having protests against tax raises as taxes were being cut (surely, not as much as anyone liked), but there was such a dissociation with reality. Making the news, is probably one of the worst thing a news station can do. For all those tens of thousands who were honestly trying to protest out of control spending and espouse an honest conservative viewpoint I feel sorry that you were duped and just wound up funding the status quo.

[polywog999]

I don't think these are valid sources. I'll wait before I pass judgment.

[twa]

If you believe the Tea Party movement is simply astroturf you will find out different before long.:evilg:

It is the result of pissed off people.

And for the record,I have nothing to do with them or Fox.

[GoSkins561]

It must be true if TPM is reporting it, btw, who is TPM?

[Bang]

I don't think anybody is saying it's purely astroturf.. there's no doubt there's plenty of people out there who are genuinely and suddenly pissed off about a problem that has been here for 30 years. (Don't bill my grandkids! My first exposure to the fact that we're leaving a huge debt to our future generations was during Reagan's 1980 campaign. Interesting it is suddenly a "new" problem causing people to get up in arms, when they spent the 80s, 90s and most of the 00s spending their fool heads off.)

But the notion that Fox is just a detached bystander who covered it is and always has been a sham. Fox is more a political organization than a news network. The fact they try to deny this and their legions of followers argue tooth and nail against the very idea is and always has been a complete joke that everyone seems to get but them.

~Bang

And now for your regularly scheduled misdirection arguments

[polywog999]

It must be true if TPM is reporting it, btw, who is TPM?
If Its a right-wing blog, there's a huge ruckus for sure and I'm the first one to say B.S. I'm also glad to say it here!

[SkinsHokieFan]

Man, I got ripped off! Nobody paid me ****

[Hubbs]

It must be true if TPM is reporting it, btw, who is TPM?

Talking Points Memo. I'm surprised that a politically-interested guy like yourself hasn't heard of it.

Anyway, I miss the days when the whole "tea party" thing was just an idea thrown out there by Rick Santelli.

[twa]

Man, I got ripped off! Nobody paid me ****

Amateurs...gotta love em:silly:

[Rex Tomb]

Say what you want, but that "astroturf" will become as real as a bent-grass fairway on a golf course. It will become truly apparent ten months from now when the Democrats are shaking their heads wondering how they lost the majority in both the House and the Senate. They tried to do way too much in such a short amount of time, similar to the Republicans in the mid-90s. Change is coming; the American people are pissed off and they will voice it in the upcoming elections.

[Baculus]

If you believe the Tea Party movement is simply astroturf you will find out different before long.:evilg:

It is the result of pissed off people.

And for the record,I have nothing to do with them or Fox.

No one ever said that the entire tea party movement is astroturf -- there are certainly some people who are earnestly invested with their efforts. But I've said all along that libertarian roots of the movement have been coopted by the right-wing, in particular Fox News and big money interests. That is why libertarians who talk at tea party rallies get booed whenever they step outside of the "neo" tea-party rhetoric.

[ACW]

No one ever said that the entire tea party movement is astroturf -- there are certainly some people who are earnestly invested with their efforts. But I've said all along that libertarian roots of the movement have been coopted by the right-wing, in particular Fox News and big money interests. That is why libertarians who talk at tea party rallies get booed whenever they step outside of the "neo" tea-party rhetoric.Ain't that the truth :(:mad:

[Baculus]

Say what you want, but that "astroturf" will become as real as a bent-grass fairway on a golf course. It will become truly apparent ten months from now when the Democrats are shaking their heads wondering how they lost the majority in both the House and the Senate. They tried to do way too much in such a short amount of time, similar to the Republicans in the mid-90s. Change is coming; the American people are pissed off and they will voice it in the upcoming elections.

Folks like you ignore the entire point of the article. I have no idea why you seem to ignore the reality that some people are exploiting, for financial and political gain, the frustration of some American citizens.

I guess you don't care who gloms onto the "movement," eh?

Americans have been pisssed for a long time. That is why Democrat won many seats in Congress in 2006; that is why Obama won the Presidency.

Oh, I forget: You are talking about right-wing anger over Obama winning office. Those "American people," right?

I guess everyone else don't matter, do they?

Sorry, but there is more to America than right-wing populist anger.

And it would take A LOT of seats for the Democrats to lose a majority in Congress. You are really investing in some wishful thinking. And thank goodness -- we saw what happened when the Republicans had power in Congress and the Presidency.

How quickly we forget.

[robotfire]

Given Rush Limbaugh's recent health problems, can't we just put politics on hold for a while? I mean, the man almost died.

[twa]

No one ever said that the entire tea party movement is astroturf -- there are certainly some people who are earnestly invested with their efforts. But I've said all along that libertarian roots of the movement have been coopted by the right-wing, in particular Fox News and big money interests. That is why libertarians who talk at tea party rallies get booed whenever they step outside of the "neo" tea-party rhetoric.

The GOP attempts to coopt it out of self defense and in hopes of harnessing it and deflecting it from it's targets..

They ain't just pissed at the Dems:evilg:

The Libertarian agenda is not the focus of the Tea Party either and attempts to use it for their whole agenda is no different than the GOP's.


God I love Chaos:)

added
Bac ...you are priceless

[GoSkins561]

The thing is, baculus lives next to a small town where the tax day tea party was organized by a yocal local radio host by the name of Blaine Young. Seemed pretty grass roots if you ask me.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The thing is, baculus lives next to a small town where the tax day tea party was organized by a yocal local radio host by the name of Blaine Young. Seemed pretty grass roots if you ask me.

It is.

This whole "astroturf" nonsense is a lame attempt to silence legit criticsm of the President. Quite frankly its been insulting

[jnhay]

The thing is, baculus lives next to a small town where the tax day tea party was organized by a yocal local radio host by the name of Blaine Young. Seemed pretty grass roots if you ask me.

Frederick's considered a small town?

[Rex Tomb]

Folks like you ignore the entire point of the article. I have no idea why you seem to ignore the reality that some people are exploiting, for financial and political gain, the frustration of some American citizens.

I guess you don't care who gloms onto the "movement," eh?

Americans have been pisssed for a long time. That is why Democrat won many seats in Congress in 2006; that is why Obama won the Presidency.

Oh, I forget: You are talking about right-wing anger over Obama winning office. Those "American people," right?

I guess everyone else don't matter, do they?

Sorry, but there is more to America than right-wing populist anger.

And it would take A LOT of seats for the Democrats to lose a majority in Congress. You are really investing in some wishful thinking. And thank goodness -- we saw what happened when the Republicans had power in Congress and the Presidency.

How quickly we forget.

Okay, fine. We'll agree to disagree, but your completely ignoring the fact that many moderates and independents have jumped from the Obama-bandwagon. I think the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races (a GOP sweep in the top 3 positions for VA) speak for themselves. Virginia had voted Democrat a year earlier by a fairly large percentage. McDonnell won in Fairfax, for crying out loud! Any GOP success in NOVA should surely tell you something. But, just keep pretending that doesn't matter.

Your last point also sounds a bit contradictory and play right into the point I was making. The Democrats have overplayed their power and are ignoring the wishes of the people to further their own political agenda. Fortunately, history will repeat itself again.

Do I think it's right that some people are profiting from the misfortunes and anger of others. Not on your life. But do I for one second believe that all of the tea parties were not genuine? Not at all.

[Baculus]

The thing is, baculus lives next to a small town where the tax day tea party was organized by a yocal local radio host by the name of Blaine Young. Seemed pretty grass roots if you ask me.

How many times do we have to say this? No one ever said that all the tea party groups and organizations were astroturf. But that doesn't change the realty that some are, indeed, astroturf in nature, whose motives are questionable.

Again -- I guess some of you don't care if the movement is being exploited. But I guess that isn't surprising, judging by the neo-Tea Party tendency to veer from one direction to another.

[Baculus]

Frederick's considered a small town?

I live in Mount Airy. :-) If you go to the Upper Deck, it is possible I have even talked with you in the past!

[twa]

Frederick's considered a small town?

Less than 60k pop?...yeah

[jnhay]

I live in Mount Airy. :-) If you go to the Upper Deck, it is possible I have even talked with you in the past!
Ditto, but it sounded like he was referring to Frederick (the city you live next to). Mount Airy, on the other hand, is a small town IMO


Less than 60k pop?...yeah

Okay, I guess I just don't think of 60k when I think of a "small" town, but really it doesn't matter anyway haha.

[Baculus]

It is.

This whole "astroturf" nonsense is a lame attempt to silence legit criticsm of the President. Quite frankly its been insulting

Complete and utter rubbish. We hear criticism of the President every single day, on TV, radio, in print and on the Internet. This suggestion that, somehow, criticism of the President is being "silenced" is ridiculously absurd.

It is terribly, terribly disappointing that you have even made this absurd suggestion, which is entirely removed from reality.

Seriously -- did some of you even read this article? Or do you just jerk your knees before you post your indignant replies?

[SkinsHokieFan]

It is terribly, terribly disappointing that you have even made this absurd suggestion, which is entirely removed from reality.



No Bac, everyone sees through your transparent agenda. Any criticsm of the President you have attempted to discredit and mock, and quite frankly its ridiculous and idiotic

You have been on this "astroturf" agenda since Krugman came up with the term. But based on your posting history, I shouldn't be surprised by your views on this

[Hubbs]

Okay, fine. We'll agree to disagree, but your completely ignoring the fact that many moderates and independents have jumped from the Obama-bandwagon. I think the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races (a GOP sweep in the top 3 positions for VA) speak for themselves.

There are those of us who don't equate the original feelings behind the whole Tea Party thing with a "GOP sweep."

[Baculus]

Okay, fine. We'll agree to disagree, but your completely ignoring the fact that many moderates and independents have jumped from the Obama-bandwagon.

I never even discussed this issue, so how am I "ignoring" it?

If anyone is going to benefit from any disillusioned moderates, it is possible third party candidates. But I don't see many moderates flocking to the Republican party, when the Republicans want to PURGE their party of moderates.

You're simply acting as if moderates are going to vote GOP. Why would they? Because of the Republican "death panel" accusations? Because Michele Bachmann said that the census is going to be used to "put Americans into work camps"? Because Glenn Beck tells them the country is about to collapse? Because the GOP claims that Obama is a Marxist Muslim who cares more about the "rights of terrorists" than national security?

Seriously -- you are banking on the GOPs fear-mongering playbook to somehow bring them back to Republican party, just a few scant years after they were in charge of the country.

If you think moderates are going to veer to the hard right-wing, I think you are wrong.


I think the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races (a GOP sweep in the top 3 positions for VA) speak for themselves.

How? Both NJ and VA have voted Republican in the past. This isn't anything new. Compare this to the house seat in NY which was lost to a Democrat after being held for decades by the GOP.


Virginia had voted Democrat a year earlier by a fairly large percentage. McDonnell won in Fairfax, for crying out loud! Any GOP success in NOVA should surely tell you something. But, just keep pretending that doesn't matter.

I never said it does not matter, but the McDonnell victory is not a representation of the entire nation. Also, how a state votes in the Presidential election is not always indicative of how they vote in Congressional elections.


Your last point also sounds a bit contradictory and play right into the point I was making. The Democrats have overplayed their power and are ignoring the wishes of the people to further their own political agenda. Fortunately, history will repeat itself again.

Explain further how it is contradictory.

The Democrats haven't overplayed their power, because they have barely passed any meaningful legislation. You know what is overplaying your power? Getting the country involved in two wars and giving tax cuts which benefit the wealthy -- THAT is overplaying one's power.

It's people like you who make a big fuss over ANY Democratic efforts which creates this atmosphere that "Democrats have overplayed their power." It is the same atmosphere that's been created during the health care debate, or during the cap and trade debate.

And the Democrats aren't ignoring the wishes of "the people." Obama was elected President on a platform of health care reform, of environmental reform, among other planks, from THE PEOPLE. That is why he is President. The problem is that people such as yourself act as if the millions of people who voted for Obama aren't "the American people."

I forget: Obama and the people who voted for him aren't "real Americans" and don't count. Right?


Do I think it's right that some people are profiting from the misfortunes and anger of others. Not on your life. But do I for one second believe that all of the tea parties were not genuine? Not at all.

*Sigh*

NO ONE EVER SAID THEY WERE.

[Hubbs]

You have been on this "astroturf" agenda since Krugman came up with the term. But based on your posting history, I shouldn't be surprised by your views on this

I think Paul Krugman would be very surprised to hear that he came up with the (political) term "Astroturf."

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think Paul Krugman would be very surprised to hear that he came up with the (political) term "Astroturf."

It was the first time I had heard it, from Krugman.

I'm glad to hear its not a 2009 phenomenon :)

[Baculus]

No Bac, everyone sees through your transparent agenda. Any criticsm of the President you have attempted to discredit and mock, and quite frankly its ridiculous and idiotic

Prove it. Prove that I have "attempted to discredit and mock" any "criticism of the President."

I HAVE certainly mocked the "Obama is a communist-Marxist Muslim who wants to destroy the country" angle. I have certainly discredited the misrepresentation of, for example, the language of bills such as H.R. 3200.

I am calling you out on this. I will debate you anywhere, any time on this. Show me the evidence and prove it. SHOW me how criticism of the President is being silenced.

You cannot, because you are full of it. You are disingenuous.

The sad thing is, while you made the accusation that "criticism of Obama is being silenced," YOU are attempting to "discredit and mock" MY opposition to the views of others. More so, over an article which discusses the money-making objectives of some astroturfers.

Bloody hypocrite.

"HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT!"

Yes, NOW I am mocking you.


You have been on this "astroturf" agenda since Krugman came up with the term. But based on your posting history, I shouldn't be surprised by your views on this

Whatever. I have been talking about "astroturfing" when it became obvious that SOME GROUPS ARE ASTROTURF.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Prove it. Prove that I have "attempted to discredit and mock" any "criticism of the President."

I HAVE certainly mocked the "Obama is a communist-Marxist Muslim who wants to destroy the country" angle. I have certainly discredited the misrepresentation of, for example, the language of bills such as H.R. 3200.

I am calling you out on this. I will debate you anywhere, any time on this. Show me the evidence and prove it. SHOW me how criticism of the President is being silenced.

You cannot, because you are full of it. You are disingenuous.

The sad thing is, while you made the accusation that "criticism of Obama is being silenced," YOU are attempting to "discredit and mock" MY opposition to the views of others. More so, over an article which discusses the money-making objectives of some astroturfers.

Bloody hypocrite.

"HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT!"

Yes, NOW I am mocking you.



Whatever. I have been talking about "astroturfing" when it became obvious that SOME GROUPS ARE ASTROTURF.

Don't be insulted that I don't get this done tonight, because I am going out to eat with the lady :)

However, just a quick search of your posts gave me plenty to link. Tomorrow I'll have quite a bit of material for you.

And I hate to do this, because in the end it gets us nowhere, but I am amused of your metamorphisis from 9/11 truther/faux libertarian, into an FDR new deal era "any spending is good spending!" Democrat

[Baculus]

The GOP attempts to coopt it out of self defense and in hopes of harnessing it and deflecting it from it's targets..

Certainly true.


They ain't just pissed at the Dems:evilg:

Sure. There is definitely some anger at Republicans.


The Libertarian agenda is not the focus of the Tea Party either and attempts to use it for their whole agenda is no different than the GOP's.

You have to remember that libertarians originally started the "tea party" movement several years ago, in 2007. This is when they opposed policies of both parties -- now, some Republicans are most certainly trying to invest into this anger.


God I love Chaos:)

added
Bac ...you are priceless

I like to think so as well. ;-)

[Baculus]

Don't be insulted that I don't get this done tonight, because I am going out to eat with the lady :)

However, just a quick search of your posts gave me plenty to link. Tomorrow I'll have quite a bit of material for you.

Material. Whatever.

You aren't going to silence MY opinion, and I will most certainly continue to criticize where and when I see fit. Don't like it? Tough cookies.


And I hate to do this, because in the end it gets us nowhere, but I am amused of your metamorphisis from 9/11 truther/faux libertarian, into an FDR new deal era "any spending is good spending!" Democrat

I am STILL a libertarian -- I said a long time ago I went from a right-leaning to a left-leaning one. Just because I don't agree with Glenn Beck or the Republican party, or just because I am hoping Obama has some success doesn't mean anything. I don't follow narrow platforms to please anyone else.

And I NEVER said "any spending is good spending!" If that is a demonstration of your "evidence" against me, then you aren't going to succeed too well.

That is the problem with the "Tea Party" movement -- you think everyone has to believe in your "platform."

BTW, I see you have changed the focus of this entire thread . . . to me. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, you are attacking the messenger.

It's sad. And a bit cowardly, if you ask me.

[GoSkins561]

Baculus, I thought you bellied up at Cozy Corner?

[Baculus]

Baculus, I thought you bellied up at Cozy Corner?

I haven't for a little while now. :-) Actually, these days, I barely go out. It's a shame! (Are you familiar with Krugs up in Frederick?)

[Burgold]

It is.

This whole "astroturf" nonsense is a lame attempt to silence legit criticsm of the President. Quite frankly its been insulting

SHF,

You are usually one of the more sincere political posters... usually :D

You got to admit that all the "news" reports multiplying the numbers of people in a tea party rallies by 2, 3, 20 times or using footage that was not related to it or using news airtime to try to get people to come to these rallies seems... well... more than a touch dishonest.

There was a lot of hokum and manipulation behind the whole tea party rhetoric (esp. at the higher levels) and if it turns out that it was just a GOP inspired/funded stunt and not a true grass roots movement I don't think many will be surprised, but many should feel upset.

[Seabee1973]

SHF,

You are usually one of the more sincere political posters... usually :D

You got to admit that all the "news" reports multiplying the numbers of people in a tea party rallies by 2, 3, 20 times or using footage that was not related to it or using news airtime to try to get people to come to these rallies seems... well... more than a touch dishonest.

There was a lot of hokum and manipulation behind the whole tea party rhetoric (esp. at the higher levels) and if it turns out that it was just a GOP inspired/funded stunt and not a true grass roots movement I don't think many will be surprised, but many should feel upset.

So where you against ABC and their 24 hour white house sleep over?

[Burgold]

I think the difference (if there is one) is that there have been "fireside" chats with the President since the early days of radio and the "getting to know you thing" is pretty common place. Clearly, ABC wanted to do this as a quasi-news story and the White House agreed to do it as a PR event. Everyone knew that this was going to be a fuzzy story and it was never broadcast as a breaking news event.

The tea parties were supposed to be a bunch of fed up regular Joes and Sarahs who just couldn't take the government largess anymore and were going to demand that they be heard! If it turns out that Joe and Sarah happened to be working for the GOP and it was basically just a political stunt it goes from something very American to something very cynical (which I guess is also very American)

[Baculus]

So where you against ABC and their 24 hour white house sleep over?

Where you against Fox News, when they were crowing about "unprecedented access, and their "24 hour white house sleep over"? Seriously -- no media should be THAT embedded with the Presidency, but since the days of JFK, when Jacqueline Kennedy gave a tour of "Camelot," there has been a close media connection with the White House, for good or bad.

It is really inventive, though, to act as if ABC's relationship with the Obama White House is a new development in media.

Again, though, You have not addressed the issue at hand: "Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam." Defenders "of the faith" have shifted the argument to "attacking the liberals" instead of offering a reasonable defense to the content of the article I originally posted.

It is puzzling, though not unexpected.

[Bang]

Diversionary arguments being "not unexpected" is an understatement. It's the gameplan, or at least one would figure it was with the frequency and consistency in which anything other than glowing praise of Fox are addressed by their supporters.

Ninja code follows:
Back on page one in my second post in this thread I placed a "ninja" prediction beneath my usual "~Bang" signature. As demonstrated, it's as regular as the sunrise.
It makes it practically impossible to have any form of discussion on the topic of Fox and their propaganda. But then again, misdirection and stonewalling is the favored tactic. The fact that it happens so quickly and so regularly should be very telling, but I doubt those who need to listen will bother to hear. As I see it, only TWA addressed anything close to the topic.. while avoiding the Fox is a Shill end of it .. RexTomb and his use of the usual threats are pretty comical, and Seabee flat out ignores anything about the accusation leveled (again) at Fox to drag the "liberal media" angle into it.

Hey! Look over there! Its
~Bang

[Special K]

This thread is funny. I particularly like the exchange between Bac and SHF, lol.

As to the topic, this is news? I thought all of this was already pretty widely known...like, at least common sense-wise.

Obviously there are several agendas at play at these tea parties, but I don't doubt there are many, many people legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing.

[Larry]

Obviously there are several agendas at play at these tea parties, but I don't doubt there are many, many people legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing.

Agreed that "politics makes strange bedfellows". (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

OTOH, how many of these people who are "legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing", were "legitimately pissed off" five years ago, when the government was doing the same thing?

As opposed to how many of them are "pissed off that Obama isn't Republican, and will complain no matter what he does"?

[ACW]

Agreed that "politics makes strange bedfellows". (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

OTOH, how many of these people who are "legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing", were "legitimately pissed off" five years ago, when the government was doing the same thing?

As opposed to how many of them are "pissed off that Obama isn't Republican, and will complain no matter what he does"?:excited: ME!

[Special K]

OTOH, how many of these people who are "legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing", were "legitimately pissed off" five years ago, when the government was doing the same thing?

As opposed to how many of them are "pissed off that Obama isn't Republican, and will complain no matter what he does"?
Well, there are certainly a lot of the latter.

However, we did see many of the Republicans get voted the heck out of office in '08...I think that demonstrated that a lot of people, even conservatives, were pissed off at what was going on in Washington 5 years ago and since.

We've seen a surge in independent and libertarian voters recently; I think that too is indicative of people just being plain pissed off at nearly everyone in Washington who's recklessly spending, adding their stupid little pork projects to bills, and acting like a bunch of pompous jackasses in general.

There are certainly those who are going to decry everything Obama does because he's not attached to their political party, but there are a lot of people who are legitimately pissed at a LOT of stuff that's gone on in Washington, and not just stuff that's gone on during the Obama admin.

[stevenaa]

[QUOTE=Baculus;7173958]
I am STILL a libertarian [\QUOTE]

That was good for a laugh. You can say you are until you are blue in the face, but your posts certainly don't bear that out.

[Prosperity]

If you believe the Tea Party movement is simply astroturf you will find out different before long.:evilg:

It is the result of pissed off people.

And for the record,I have nothing to do with them or Fox.

yeah the

"take your government hands off my medicare!!"

and

"the moozlems are taken in over!"

groups are fairly sizeable and angry

the libertarians are angry too, but the Tea Party business is like 5% them and 95% generally pissed off right wingers.

[twa]

the libertarians are angry too, but the Tea Party business is like 5% them and 95% generally pissed off right wingers.

If what you claim is true ,the Dems have nothing to fear then:D

We shall see soon enough.

[Larry]

If what you claim is true ,the Dems have nothing to fear then:D

Unless, of course, you think that the thought of mobs of delusional zealots being deceitfully manipulated for the purpose of gaining political power is something to fear.

:halo:

[twa]

Unless, of course, you think that the thought of mobs of delusional zealots being deceitfully manipulated for the purpose of gaining political power is something to fear.

:halo:

I try not to diss the DNC...but feel free;)

If 95% of the Tea Party are truly right wingers ,it is not like they would vote Dem anyway.

[Prosperity]

why should either party be afraid, the more one side stinks the more the other side start liking the smell of their own farts.

[twa]

why should either party be afraid, the more one side stinks the more the other side start liking the smell of their own farts.

Because people might wake up and vote by candidate and demand results?

Crazy talk I know

[Rufus T Firefly]

Because people might wake up and vote by candidate and demand results?

Crazy talk I know

Hopefully they will.

But I hardly think we should take that lesson from the tea-partiers, almost all of whom voted for W twice and then on Jan 21, 2009 started screaming "Oh My God! The deficit is so BIG!"

[Burgundy Burner]

No independent verification. Doubtful it happened. Most likely didn't happen.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Bac I owe you an apology for my posts earlier. Was having a bad 15 minutes and you took the wrath of it. I apologize for my poor posting conduct and personal attacks.

[Hubbs]

Because people might wake up and vote by candidate and demand results?

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/How%20to%20ROFL.png

[AsburySkinsFan]

You mean that Glen Beck and Fox News created and promoted the Tea Party and called it a grass roots movement?! Gee who knew. Personally I didn't think that this was even a question. I bet they didn't falsify the attendance numbers though, I know they are much more honorable than that. :doh:

BTW, Fox News is a sham.

[Vicious]

If you watch Fox News on a regular basis, something is wrong with you. It's not your affiliation either, there is simply something wrong with you. I used to be able to watch it about 7-8 years ago but it just went down the tubes. It was pumping the Iraq war up really hard, it was almost disturbing.

[Fergasun]

What people don't realize is how supposedly "independent" media is co-opted by Republicans. I'm talking about talk radio and the top blogs. On my radio dial daily I hear Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, as well as Medved, Mike Gallagher and Laura Ingraham. None of these people advocate anything other than "Democrats suck, the GOP is better". I naturally have a right-tilting lean, but it is honestly sickening.

When I think of national "independent" radio hosts... just about the only one I can think of as not hard-core affiliated with GOP is Michael Savage... he's way to the right of them on the neocon scale. Maybe Mark Levin? But he has advocated much of the same.

There's only one radio host I have a tremendous amount of respect for, and he distributes online only.

[ACW]

Who is that radio host?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

It is.

This whole "astroturf" nonsense is a lame attempt to silence legit criticsm of the President. Quite frankly its been insulting

I would be inclined to agree with you if the same "legitimate" criticism was aimed at President Bush when he was in office.

So yeah...quite frankly it is insulting.....

[Fergasun]

ACW,
Dan Carlin; who distributes the "Common Sense" and "Hardcore History" podcasts. "Common Sense" is what I would consider his talk radio show; an hour long podcast divided into two 30-minute segments. His website is DanCarlin.com.

The best thing I've done recently was add an AUX jack to my car, so I didn't have to listen to the tripe coming from "talk radio". C-SPAN has a ton of stuff that is also worth listening to, as does straight up listening to Congressional hearings; and some other sources (like old speeches from the 70s, 80s). The main problem I have is a lot of items are served it streaming and require me to convert to a Podcast format. This should be unacceptable for Congressional hearings.

[polywog999]

Fox is an embarrassment to conservatives, but I haven't heard any hard facts about this as of yet.

[Smoot Point Really]

It was pretty obvious bull. They were having protests against tax raises as taxes were being cut (surely, not as much as anyone liked), but there was such a dissociation with reality.

Burgold, you are disassociated from reality with this statement... Which taxes were being decreased? Were these the Bush tax cuts set to expire? Cap-and-trade still being debated? How about new taxes on Smokers? What about paying for a healthcare benefit that doesn't kick in until 2013, but you pay taxes on it soon after the bill is passed? What about proposed VAT taxes that Had been mentioned? You have to admit that even though few new taxes have been passed (assuming only rollback of Bush tax cuts and Smoke taxes are a done deal), the discussions on the Hill involve new taxes. If you are going to protest, you protest what's coming, not just what has passed.

[Smoot Point Really]

I would be inclined to agree with you if the same "legitimate" criticism was aimed at President Bush when he was in office.

So yeah...quite frankly it is insulting.....

Were you just born yesterday? You certainly weren't around during the Bush years.

[Smoot Point Really]

"the moozlems are taken in over!"


Why wouldn't anyway who loves America be concerned about this? Unfortunately, we can see the impact of this on Europe as an example.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Were you just born yesterday? You certainly weren't around during the Bush years.

Actually I was born in 1976 and I stand by my statement.


Many of the same ESers (primarily conservatives) who are criticizing Obama stood silently by while Bush was running up deficits and giving tax cuts to the top 1%.

I'm sorry Smoot but alot of this sudden "patriotic fervor" just rings a little hollow to me.

But maybe I'm just being partisan....

[Thiebear]

Actually I was born in 1976 and I stand by my statement.
Many of the same ESers (primarily conservatives) who are criticizing Obama stood silently by while Bush was running up deficits and giving tax cuts to the top 1%.
I'm sorry Smoot but alot of this sudden "patriotic fervor" just rings a little hollow to me.
But maybe I'm just being partisan....


You've obviously not been paying attention since 2006...
As was stated several time because it was topical: "Bush was Parish Hilton on crack" when it came to spending. (that is not a compliment).

And that was 150billion stimulus bill that gave people that made LESS THAN ME! (but i'm not bitter) thier money back and my money to spend, not save.

Now were being told 700billion is not enough. Stim3 of 150 billion (hmm, sounds like a familiar number) and that the Fannie and Freddie 400billion has been expanded for 3 more years with no cap). The Bush tax cuts will end but its not an increase.. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

So yes, Drug plan was bad, and the Stim was bad and the 1 trillion over 10 years in the War on terror is bad...

And we've taken that and spent that much in 1 year under Obama.
More if Heathcare and CapNTrade actually had made it through in a timely fashion. /pause rant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one and only right leaning news network supports the teaparty stuff (WOW)!
Next someone will point out Mathews tingle etc. etc. etc. adnausem ..
I've yet to see a demonstration that didnt have 10% whackos in it though, not even the St. Patricks day parade makes it through D.C....
Code Pink was radical but even they got distracted by the 5% worse than them Sarge was nice enough to point out daily.

[twa]

Don't forget this little gem which will result in calls for more bailout money for states.

The States and the Stimulus
How a supposed boon has become a fiscal burden.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628633460370644.html

a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future.

The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

[Prosperity]

Why wouldn't anyway who loves America be concerned about this? Unfortunately, we can see the impact of this on Europe as an example.

because it's not true? does that work for you?

[DRSmith]

I like to flip back and forth between Fox and CNN

I find listening to Fox talk about Obama is like listening to Maher talk about religion or the flu shot.

[#98QBKiller]

Didn't Fox News also get busted using footage from the main DC Tea Party last year when covering smaller city's tea parties, just to make them look bigger? I'm pretty sure there was footage of the Fox News crew pumping up these small crowds too and telling them to get louder for the camera.

It's so annoying to see these douchebags compare themselves to actual Patriots of the American Revolution.

[Larry]

What people don't realize is how supposedly "independent" media is co-opted by Republicans. I'm talking about talk radio and the top blogs. On my radio dial daily I hear Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, as well as Medved, Mike Gallagher and Laura Ingraham. None of these people advocate anything other than "Democrats suck, the GOP is better". I naturally have a right-tilting lean, but it is honestly sickening.

When I think of national "independent" radio hosts... just about the only one I can think of as not hard-core affiliated with GOP is Michael Savage... he's way to the right of them on the neocon scale. Maybe Mark Levin? But he has advocated much of the same.

There's only one radio host I have a tremendous amount of respect for, and he distributes online only.

I haven't listened to talk radio for a few years, but one that I thought was pretty good was Neal Boortz, a Libertarian out of Atlanta. (His show is syndicated from 10:00 - 1:00, Eastern. But as I understand it, virtually all of his outlets either don't carry the third hour, or tape the third hour for later broadcast, to avoid conflicting with Rush.)

Yeah, he supports the Republicans a lot more often than the D's. (And, IMO, for the last few years I heard him (say, 06 and 07) he moved a lot closer to the R's.) But I think a big part of that is because he agrees with the R's on the issues that got talked about the most.

He thinks the R's are right in terms of the WoT, and taxation, (he's a fair tax crusader). And those subjects get talked about on his show a lot. OTOH, he has utter contempt for the creationists, and the "preservation of marriage", and pretty much all of the Religious Right. He thinks the "War on Drugs" is idiotic. He has stated that in his legal opinion (he's a lawyer), that the words "under God" in the Pledge are the clearest example of a violation of the First Amendment in the history of this nation.

But his show talks about the WoT and taxes a lot more than it talks about the Pledge or gay marriage. So if you listen to his show for a week, you'll hear him agreeing with the R's a lot more than he disagrees.


(I observe the same type of thing regarding myself, here in Tailgate. My position on gay marriage, and torturing prisoners, and global warming, put me squarely at odds with the R's on here. OTOH, talk about illegal immigration, and it's usually me, Navy Dave, and 81 against everybody else. Larry's idea for welfare reform would probably get me labeled a Nazi. But Tailgate has a lot more gay marriage threads than it has welfare reform threads, which causes a whole bunch of people to label me as a D partisan.)

[Larry]

You've obviously not been paying attention since 2006...

Yeah, you're right.

A whole bunch of Republican partisans started complaining about the only Republican in the US who was prohibited from running for office. Right when the Republican Party told them to.

[mbws]

Given Rush Limbaugh's recent health problems, can't we just put politics on hold for a while? I mean, the man almost died.



Almost doesn't count.

Maybe he should stay home.

[Burgold]

Didn't Fox News also get busted using footage from the main DC Tea Party last year when covering smaller city's tea parties, just to make them look bigger? I'm pretty sure there was footage of the Fox News crew pumping up these small crowds too and telling them to get louder for the camera.


Yes, they did.

[Hubbs]

(I observe the same type of thing regarding myself, here in Tailgate. My position on gay marriage, and torturing prisoners, and global warming, put me squarely at odds with the R's on here. OTOH, talk about illegal immigration, and it's usually me, Navy Dave, and 81 against everybody else. Larry's idea for welfare reform would probably get me labeled a Nazi. But Tailgate has a lot more gay marriage threads than it has welfare reform threads, which causes a whole bunch of people to label me as a D partisan.)

If it makes you feel better, Larry, I've always seen you as one of the least partisan people here - and we all know that my opinion is more important than anyone else's. :silly:

[jnhay]

Given Rush Limbaugh's recent health problems, can't we just put politics on hold for a while? I mean, the man almost died.

What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with anything?

[Prosperity]

Given Rush Limbaugh's recent health problems, can't we just put politics on hold for a while? I mean, the man almost died.

best news I've heard in a long time

[Baculus]

Bac I owe you an apology for my posts earlier. Was having a bad 15 minutes and you took the wrath of it. I apologize for my poor posting conduct and personal attacks.

It is all good, amigo! I offer an apology for my overly-indignant stance as well, and I appreciate your sincerity. It takes a upstanding man to offer an olive branch.

:cheers:

[Baculus]

That was good for a laugh. You can say you are until you are blue in the face, but your posts certainly don't bear that out.

Pffft, like you would know. What, are you Mr. Final Arbitrator on matters? Now that is a good laugh -- you can think that until you are blue in the face.

This is the term I have coined for my stance from over the last year: Progressive libertarian. Maybe you are too constrained by your thinking to understand what that means . . .

[Baculus]

I like to flip back and forth between Fox and CNN

I find listening to Fox talk about Obama is like listening to Maher talk about religion or the flu shot.

I do that as well. It is sometimes interesting, almost amusing, hearing the differences in their reporting.

[Baculus]

Don't forget this little gem which will result in calls for more bailout money for states.

The States and the Stimulus
How a supposed boon has become a fiscal burden.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628633460370644.html

a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future.

The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Well, this article is a bit disingenuous. For example, look at this section: "The stimulus offered $80 billion for Medicaid to cover health-care costs for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But in 2011 most of that extra federal Medicaid money vanishes. Then states will have one million more people on Medicaid with no money to pay for it."

The article doesn't say if these benefits were extended because of the current circumstances. It doesn't state if these programs were newly created programs (if it is Medicaid, it isn't), or benefits extended to those who are unemployed. Which means that those benefits were probably set to expire at some point.

States have extended unemployment benefits, but they are not perpetually financed benefits. They, like the above benefits, are set to expire at some point. If this is the case, I don't why the states would be beholden to continue these programs to that extent.

The article mentions Rick Perry turning down the stimulus funds for this supposed reason, but it doesn't say anything at all about the thousands of thousands of Texans who have been struggling and who could have used some state assistance.

As it is, Texas is one of the most heavily federally subsidized states in the Union. And yet, Perry suddenly decides he doesn't want this money? Well, maybe he should reject the billions each year that the state receives from us -- taxpayers in other states. Does he have the courage to do that? Why doesn't this article mention this detail?

Let's look at poverty levels in Texas:

"Almost six out of 10 Texas public schoolchildren hail from low-income families, marking a troubling spike in poverty over the last decade, a new state report finds."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6795211.html

Yeah -- I am sorry, but I don't think the WSJ article vindicates him.

[twa]

As it is, Texas is one of the most heavily federally subsidized states in the Union. And yet, Perry suddenly decides he doesn't want this money? Well, maybe he should reject the billions each year that the state receives from us -- taxpayers in other states. Does he have the courage to do that? Why doesn't this article mention this detail?

Let's look at poverty levels in Texas:

"Almost six out of 10 Texas public schoolchildren hail from low-income families, marking a troubling spike in poverty over the last decade, a new state report finds."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6795211.html

Yeah -- I am sorry, but I don't think the WSJ article vindicates him.

You are wrong, Texas pays out more than it recieves.

You are also wrong about the programs ending.

You are correct about the poverty level,which is a result of increasing the level and the massive influx into the state.

Check out who creates the most jobs over the last decade my friend and who enjoys a low cost of living and taxation...If this is hell I kinda like it.:cool2:

added
It is kinda ironic you continually throw out that accusation what with Maryland being heavily subsidized with Texas dollars
http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Subsidized-Red-Donor-Blue.html

No need to thank us for the extra 20 cents ya'll suck up for every dollar paid:finger:
Perhaps if ya gave it to us we could create even more jobs than we already do:D

[Baculus]

You are wrong, Texas pays out more than it recieves.

As of last year, Texas received 6.8 of total federal domestic spending, which is second only to California. (Granted, these are both large states, which means they will probably receive a lot of funding.) This includes national disaster spending (highest in the nation), veteran's benefits, funding for state-level programs, etc.


You are correct about the poverty level,which is a result of increasing the level and the massive influx into the state.

Sorry, I didn't quite follow you with this statement. Can you rephrase it?


Check out who creates the most jobs over the last decade my friend and who enjoys a low cost of living and taxation...If this is hell I kinda like it.:cool2:

I never said Texas was hell -- well, it might be hell for some of the poorest members of the state. But I was indicating a flaw in the WSJ article.

The next time Texas is hit by the hurricane, are Texans going to agitate against federal aid?

[twa]

The next time Texas is hit by the hurricane, are Texans going to agitate against federal aid?

How about we just keep ya'lls subsidies in a rainy day fund?

Does that mean ya'll are a continuing disaster in need of aid?? ;)

Back on topic

The expanded benefits do not expire and the states are left with the tab.
If you have any proof otherwise I would be glad to see it.

[Baculus]

How about we just keep ya'lls subsidies in a rainy day fund?

Does that mean ya'll are a continuing disaster in need of aid?? ;)

Regarding your previous post, Marylanders don't make the argument that the state should secede. Perry did. Other Texans do. This flies in defiance of reality that the state receives millions of federal dollars.

Will Perry reject federal funding for disaster aid or border security? Will you?


Back on topic

Can YOU stay on topic? Or, rather, is the use of the "finger" emoticon a demonstration of your inability to understand this issue of debate?

That's weak sauce.

Did you even understand my original post on this subject?


The expanded benefits do not expire and the states are left with the tab.
If you have any proof otherwise I would be glad to see it.

Maryland is an example of this -- its unemployment benefits extensions ends after twenty seven weeks or so from the point of extension.

This WSJ article, unto itself, didn't offer any "proof" -- it talked about state shortfalls in funding, then pointed to the stimulus as being partially responsible, and then it indicates that Perry was justified in refusing federal dollars.

[twa]

Regarding your previous post, Marylanders don't make the argument that the state should secede. Perry did. Other Texans do. This flies in defiance of reality that the state receives millions of federal dollars.

Will Perry reject federal funding for disaster aid or border security? Will you?



Can YOU stay on topic? Or, rather, is the use of the "finger" emoticon a demonstration of your inability to understand this issue of debate?

That's weak sauce.

Did you even understand my original post on this subject?



Maryland is an example of this -- it's unemployment benefits extensions ends after twenty seven weeks or so from the point of extension.

This WSJ article, unto itself, didn't offer any "proof" -- it talked about state shortfalls in funding, then pointed to the stimulus as being partially responsible, and then it indicates that Perry was justified in refusing federal dollars.

Obviously MD knows it needs to stay a state to suck money from other states.
Why would they give up a cash cow?

Why should he reject the funding WE fund,the more I think about Texas only getting 6.8% after all we pay in,the more of a injustice it appears.

No wonder Perry talked of getting out:hysterical:

[Baculus]

Obviously MD knows it needs to stay a state to suck money from other states.
Why would they give up a cash cow?

Why should he reject the funding WE fund,the more I think about Texas only getting 6.8% after all we pay in,the more of a injustice it appears.

No wonder Perry talked of getting out:hysterical:

ONLY 6.8%? That's more funding then 48 other states in the nation receive, including many blue states who pay more then than fair share of the federal bill. Except they don't scream and threaten "secession" whenever they have a temper tantrum.

That's pathetic. "We want more federal money, even though we don't want any more federal money, you communists!" That makes no sense what-so-ever. But hey, what do I expect from right-wingers? Logic?

Also, as usual, you were incapable of answering my questions. More weak sauce.

And you think it's "hysterical" that Perry mentioned even mentioned the "secession" word? :doh:

It is obvious that you don't understand this entire thread. The subject went from Fox News promoting some questionable tea party group, to this. It is also obvious that you, and other conservatives on this board, don't genuinely care either way.

[Smoot Point Really]

I'm curious what people who are on board with this thought when MSNBC was pimping Health care...

[twa]

ONLY 6.8%? That's more funding then 48 other states in the nation receive, including many blue states who pay more then than fair share of the federal bill. Except they don't scream and threaten "secession" whenever they have a temper tantrum.

That's pathetic. "We want more federal money, even though we don't want any more federal money, you communists!" That makes no sense what-so-ever. But hey, what do I expect from right-wingers? Logic?

Also, as usual, you were incapable of answering my questions. More weak sauce.

And you think it's "hysterical" that Perry mentioned even mentioned the "secession" word? :doh:

It is obvious that you don't understand this entire thread. The subject went from Fox News promoting some questionable tea party group, to this. It is also obvious that you, and other conservatives on this board, don't genuinely care either way.

Yes only 6.8% is a bit light in my estimation when we pay in a great deal,and do not get more than we pay like MARYLAND does.

Perhaps if you wished me to stay on topic you wouldn't make FALSE accusations in the first place?

Are your eyes brown?

[Hubbs]

ONLY 6.8%? That's more funding then 48 other states in the nation receive, including many blue states who pay more then than fair share of the federal bill. Except they don't scream and threaten "secession" whenever they have a temper tantrum.

Bac, you've said this several times, but I believe Texas pays more to the federal government than it gets from the federal government, which seems to be what twa is trying to point out. The fact that Texas receives the second-largest percentage of funding is pretty natural, given that it's the second-largest state. You're not using relative numbers.

[Bang]

I'm curious what people who are on board with this thought when MSNBC was pimping Health care...

I think most folks here recognize MSNBC as a Democrat shill.
Some die hards won't, but they are. However, I do not see them using some of the flat out deceptions that Fox does, like fluffing crowds, purposely misinforming, etc.
They're no saints, that's for sure. Sometimes it seems as if their existence is to sit and point at Fox, I know that is a lot of Olbermann's shtick.

~Bang

[Baculus]

Yes only 6.8% is a bit light in my estimation when we pay in a great deal,and do not get more than we pay like MARYLAND does.

Perhaps if you wished me to stay on topic you wouldn't make FALSE accusations in the first place?

Are your eyes brown?

The original topic was "Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam." THAT was the topic at hand. Your response? To post a WSJ article related to the stimulus. Your response? To deflect the argument into a different argument all together.

And you have been the king of "false accusations," with your continual pushing of "death panel" arguments, even when you have been proven to be entirely incorrect. Even when your position has no basis in fact or reality. You take a cue from your right-wing heroes when you to this, and it is not surprising.

Just like Fox News when it was pushing the bogus Tea Party groups, as the article from my original post implied. Apparently you are fine with this, so you have nothing negative to say about it.

This was my original statement: "As it is, Texas is one of the most heavily federally subsidized states in the Union. And yet, Perry suddenly decides he doesn't want this money? Well, maybe he should reject the billions each year that the state receives from us -- taxpayers in other states. Does he have the courage to do that? Why doesn't this article mention this detail?"

What I said was true -- it DOES receive a lot of federal dollars. Billions, in fact. The state also wins billions of dollars in federal defense contracts, which is OUR dollars, meaning the tax payers. Heck, in spite of the WSJ article's implications, Perry, in fact, seeked stimulus money after the fact:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/perry-follows-protocol/

Again, you also totally ignore my original point, which would have undermined your response in the first place, which is why you refused to give an answer. That entire point went straight over your head.

I will add, though, that Texas is not Alaska -- it does not receive a much larger share then it pays in taxes. It would have been dishonest on my part if I made that implication. I have nothing against Texas -- I just think gov. Perry is a hypocrite.

[Baculus]

Bac, you've said this several times, but I believe Texas pays more to the federal government than it gets from the federal government, which seems to be what twa is trying to point out. The fact that Texas receives the second-largest percentage of funding is pretty natural, given that it's the second-largest state. You're not using relative numbers.

My original point was this: Like many states, Texas does receive federal money. Yes, it is a large state, so it will receive a large chunk of it. But a fair chunk of Texas's industry is based in federal spending, which was the intent with the "federal subsidized" wording. In fact, Texas is only behind California in Federal and DOD contracts, which supports Texan free enterprise.

So yeah, TWA can say "give us that money so we can do something with it," but it's still American taxpayer money from Maryland (a state he has mocked) which is supporting -- subsidizing -- industry in his state.

[Baculus]

I'm curious what people who are on board with this thought when MSNBC was pimping Health care...

MSNBC didn't "pimp it" with totally false and hyperbolic accusations. They also didn't help "pimp" their position with some supposed "grass roots" group, which was actually an astroturf money front.

Also, MSNBC will actually bring conservatives on their network to debate this issue. What does Fox do? They bring on only conservatives to argue the matter while "pimping" their bogus "fair and balanced" act.

They don't even try, because their viewers will swallow whatever is fed to them.

BTW, I don't think anyone -- including you -- didn't even try to explain why Fox would do this.

[Midnight Judges]

LOL @ the "nonpartisan" teaparties inviting Sarah Palin (R) and Michelle Bachman (R) as keynote speakers.

[Thiebear]

Of the 120 tea party movements at least 8 are paid for my agenda driven pacs.

MediaMatters = Newsmax

[Chicken Fried]

But the notion that Fox is just a detached bystander who covered it is and always has been a sham. Fox is more a political organization than a news network. The fact they try to deny this and their legions of followers argue tooth and nail against the very idea is and always has been a complete joke that everyone seems to get but them.

~Bang

And now for your regularly scheduled misdirection arguments
I love Fox News, and I won't deny they get involved politically. Frankly, I don't care. They report news that the other liberal networks refuse to include in their broadcasts because...gasp...they might hurt Barry's reputation.

[aREDSKIN]

If you believe the Tea Party movement is simply astroturf you will find out different before long.:evilg:

It is the result of pissed off people.

And for the record,I have nothing to do with them or Fox.



The hatred for fox by some here is palpable and borders on derangement.

[Bang]

I love Fox News, and I won't deny they get involved politically. Frankly, I don't care. They report news that the other liberal networks refuse to include in their broadcasts because...gasp...they might hurt Barry's reputation.

They straight up make things up.
If you're alright with that, there's nothing that can be done to convince you to think for yourself.


The hatred for fox by some here is palpable and borders on derangement.
The fact that you willfully ignore WHY people hate Fox is what I'd call derangement. Every time they are proven to have lied, there's a constant and continual stream of excuses, beginning with the attempt to focus the problem on their demons. Fox viewers not only accept the distortions presented to them, they encourage it under the absurd notion that news delivered from their stance is somehow better than the actual truth without ANY coloring of the facts.
Rather than fight the evil liberal media, they've become all that and worse,, and their viewers revel in it. I truly don't understand how adults can accept it.
I do hate it. I am not a liberal, not a democrat, and I hate it. It is a propaganda machine, and nothing else. This country is worse off as a result of allowing such propaganda to pass itself off as news.

~Bang

[aREDSKIN]

I'm curious what people who are on board with this thought when MSNBC was pimping Health care...



http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdxhPhdCKKoZG9A2_M1D7vH4exJVHnK JYX9egaC1c0j1ec6e0&t=1&usg=__5snwtSfs4VsoqdRdGUzeeOBf7Zw=

See title track "No OBJECTIVITY"

[Baculus]

Of the 120 tea party movements at least 8 are paid for my agenda driven pacs.

MediaMatters = Newsmax

I wholly disagree, because MediaMatters sources their news stories: They simply don't take quotes out of context to use in some attack papers. That, and Newsmax constantly shills all sorts of books by people such as Dick Morris and Ann Coulter.

I receive regular Newsmax mailings, and they are always pushing whatever outrageous story of the minute is taking place in the right-wing blogosphere.

[Baculus]

The hatred for fox by some here is palpable and borders on derangement.

Do you know WHY some of us actually dislike Fox? Have you ever actually read or watched any of the links that we post up when criticizing Fox? Or, since Fox is on your "side," you just cheerleader them . . . just because? Or do you own stock on the company or something?

What's funny is that this "derangement" can very easily be applied to the conservatives who hate Obama, liberals, and anyone who disagrees with them.

Now, here is a very clear reason to why many of us believe that Fox is not a news station, and that it is very clearly a propaganda arm of the Right:

"Yesterday morning on Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dan Senor observed that The Kingdom Foundation, whose chairman Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (Fox News-parent company News Corp’s second-largest shareholder), is a funder for the Cordoba House Initiative. “The Kingdom Foundation, so you know, is this Saudi organization, headed up by the guy that tried to give Rudy Giuliani $10 million after 9/11 that was sent back, funds radical madrassas all over the world,” Senor said. “And he funds this imam,” Fox host Brian Kilmeade chimed in."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/24/fox-stewart-alwaleed/

This is one of the best examples of straight up deception recently pulled by Fox. They attacked, not by name, it must be noted, Saudi Prince Alwaleed as funding the "Ground Zero mosque," as if he was some Wahhabist radical. The kicker is that Alwaleed, as the above article mentions, is second largest shareholder of News Corp, which owns Fox.

[Baculus]

They straight up make things up.
If you're alright with that, there's nothing that can be done to convince you to think for yourself.


The fact that you willfully ignore WHY people hate Fox is what I'd call derangement. Every time they are proven to have lied, there's a constant and continual stream of excuses, beginning with the attempt to focus the problem on their demons. Fox viewers not only accept the distortions presented to them, they encourage it under the absurd notion that news delivered from their stance is somehow better than the actual truth without ANY coloring of the facts.
Rather than fight the evil liberal media, they've become all that and worse,, and their viewers revel in it. I truly don't understand how adults can accept it.
I do hate it. I am not a liberal, not a democrat, and I hate it. It is a propaganda machine, and nothing else. This country is worse off as a result of allowing such propaganda to pass itself off as news.

~Bang

Exactly. You hit the hail on the head. The Fox New defenders never have any valid, logical reasoning for the channels distortions and obfuscations. Fox is on their "team," so they will do anything to defend it, as if they are tied to the hips. It's really bizarre.

[Bang]

Do you know WHY some of us actually dislike Fox? Have you ever actually read or watched any of the links that we post up when criticizing Fox? Or, since Fox is on your "side," you just cheerleader them . . . just because? Or do you own stock on the company or something?

What's funny is that this "derangement" can very easily be applied to the conservatives who hate Obama, liberals, and anyone who disagrees with them.

Now, here is a very clear reason to why many of us believe that Fox is not a news station, and that it is very clearly a propaganda arm of the Right:

"Yesterday morning on Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dan Senor observed that The Kingdom Foundation, whose chairman Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (Fox News-parent company News Corp’s second-largest shareholder), is a funder for the Cordoba House Initiative. “The Kingdom Foundation, so you know, is this Saudi organization, headed up by the guy that tried to give Rudy Giuliani $10 million after 9/11 that was sent back, funds radical madrassas all over the world,” Senor said. “And he funds this imam,” Fox host Brian Kilmeade chimed in."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/24/fox-stewart-alwaleed/

This is one of the best examples of straight up deception recently pulled by Fox. They attacked, not by name, it must be noted, Saudi Prince Alwaleed as funding the "Ground Zero mosque," as if he was some Wahhabist radical. The kicker is that Alwaleed, as the above article mentions, is second largest shareholder of News Corp, which owns Fox.

This one should be the straw that breaks most camel's backs,, but it's easier to ignore it.

My question is this.. this bin Talal is a member of the Saudi royal family, who have MORE than their fair share of Machiavellian loonies within... what is HIS angle on allowing this? He is cashing n, obviously, but as a Saudi prince i doubt money is his motivation.
How does the war and the stirring of Muslim hatred benefit him? What's his angle?
At best it stinks to high heaven that he's allowed himself to be used in a scheme that could result in furthering the fear and hatred towards American muslims... and in the process stirring up religion vs religion confrontations...
and at worst he's complicit in fanning war flames for his own motives using our soldiers, money and blood.

That's something NO one should ignore.

But they will. Bet your last dollar on it.

~Bang

[Bang]

That's something NO one should ignore.

But they will. Bet your last dollar on it.

~Bang

See?

~Bang

[Veretax]

Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/27/10 3:45 PM EDT

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-Democrats-got-88-percent-of-TV-network-employee-campaign-contributions-101668063.html#ixzz0y2Mwk54n


Call me when ABC/CBS/NBC/ etc decide they will stop trying to pick the news, and instead just report it, otherwise this is like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Thiebear]

I think most folks here recognize MSNBC as a Democrat shill.
Some die hards won't, but they are. However, I do not see them using some of the flat out deceptions that Fox does, like fluffing crowds, purposely misinforming, etc.
They're no saints, that's for sure. Sometimes it seems as if their existence is to sit and point at Fox, I know that is a lot of Olbermann's shtick.

~Bang

Actually the both have been caught doing exactly the same thing.
They are like Newsmax and Mediamatters and unreadable/unwatchable.

[Bang]

Actually the both have been caught doing exactly the same thing.
They are like Newsmax and Mediamatters and unreadable/unwatchable.

Really. MSNBC (or any other network) hid the identity of their second largest stockholder in order to prop his organization up as a possible terrorist front funding the Ground Zero mosque?

I must have missed that one.

~Bang

[Baculus]

This one should be the straw that breaks most camel's backs,, but it's easier to ignore it.

My question is this.. this bin Talal is a member of the Saudi royal family, who have MORE than their fair share of Machiavellian loonies within... what is HIS angle on allowing this? He is cashing n, obviously, but as a Saudi prince i doubt money is his motivation.
How does the war and the stirring of Muslim hatred benefit him? What's his angle?
At best it stinks to high heaven that he's allowed himself to be used in a scheme that could result in furthering the fear and hatred towards American muslims... and in the process stirring up religion vs religion confrontations...
and at worst he's complicit in fanning war flames for his own motives using our soldiers, money and blood.

That's something NO one should ignore.

But they will. Bet your last dollar on it.

~Bang

All good questions, and I don't know any of the answers. Until recently, it would seem, Prince Alwaleed was favored by conservatives as a moderate "liberal" Muslim, favorable to the West. (It's funny how right-wingers like liberals, as long as they are Muslim.) Even now, I believe he is representing the U.S. State department in an ambassador sort of role to the Middle East, so I really don't know the endgame and if he is complicit in any of this.

It's definitely very puzzling.

[Thiebear]

Whatever. I have been talking about "astroturfing" when it became obvious that SOME GROUPS ARE ASTROTURF.

Good to see this Bac... i worry about you sometimes on the partiality. That statement is 100% true.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Really. MSNBC (or any other network) hid the identity of their second largest stockholder in order to prop his organization up as a possible terrorist front funding the Ground Zero mosque?

I must have missed that one.

~Bang
Another nail on the head post ignored wholly by those who are too embarrassed to actually admit that Faux News is trash.

[twa]

Another nail on the head post ignored wholly by those who are too embarrassed to actually admit that Faux News is trash.

I t might help if ya'll grasped the different sects as well as the interaction and political aspects even within each...Muslims are not generic,no more than Christians.
It is immaterial to the thread though,and obviously not worth your time to look into.

FOX is the Devil:beavisnbutthead:...PARTY:point2sky

[AsburySkinsFan]

I t might help if ya'll grasped the different sects as well as the interaction and political aspects even within each...Muslims are not generic,no more than Christians.
It is immaterial to the thread though,and obviously not worth your time to look into.

FOX is the Devil:beavisnbutthead:...PARTY:point2sky
twa, you're seriously going to just have to admit Faux's failure on this one. The largest shareholder outside the Murdoch family is the same guy who Faux wants to claim is suspiciously funding this Cordoba Mosque, and apparently has ties to Muslim terrorists and Iran...and yet the whole time they NEVER mention his name why is that? Why won't they mention the name of the man who is funding this nefarious Islamic terrorist training camp mosque at ground zero? Oh that's right, because he is their largest shareholder!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap

It's a pretty sad day when satire proves to be more honest journalism than a supposed journalists.

[twa]

I'll leave ya to The Dailey Show...it seems a good fit:cool:

Fox is evil and owned by Satan's spawn...ya can cast dice on whether that refers to Murdoch or bin Talal :ols:

[Bang]

I t might help if ya'll grasped the different sects as well as the interaction and political aspects even within each...Muslims are not generic,no more than Christians.
It is immaterial to the thread though,and obviously not worth your time to look into.

FOX is the Devil:beavisnbutthead:...PARTY:point2sky

:ols:
I must have missed the part where they explained that their unnamed Saudi prince partner was part of a non terrifying sect of muslims while they were following the money trail of the Terror Mosque back to his evil unnamed shadowy lair... even though they never said who he was.

Either that or I'm totally stumped as to what your post has to do with any of this. It seemd rather random and pointless.

~Bang

[twa]

Ya got a problem with random and pointless?

Obviously not.

[Bang]

Ya got a problem with random and pointless?

Obviously not.

More cryptic bull****.
Do you have a point?

~Bang

[aREDSKIN]

Really. MSNBC (or any other network) hid the identity of their second largest stockholder in order to prop his organization up as a possible terrorist front funding the Ground Zero mosque?

I must have missed that one.

~Bang



Help me out here. News Corp is a publically traded company how can one really "hide" as an investor?? Did Kingdom hide it's investment (ownership) in Time Warner, Disney, Apple, HP, Kodak, Motorola, PepsiCo, P&G, Citibank- all well known "right wing" Corporations. ;)

[CrabR]

I stopped watching fox after the 2nd gulf war when they reported Saddam gave the orders to use WMD on our troops

I gradually stopped watching MSNBC after 2004 elections. If it is breaking news i go to headline news or network news

What i see with the advent of cable tv is all these political shows right vs left that has divided the country. Both sides spout the talking points of these shows without ever checking out the facts. They seem not to care about the truth rather they seem to care how much dirt they can get on the other side

My favorite thing is debunking these stupid political emails people post. Both sides send them and make up fairy tales about their opponents.

This is why we need a viable 3rd party. If Hitler ran as a republican and Stalin ran as a Democrat sad thing is one would win, And Fox and Msnbc who be promoting their respective canidate

Washington was right about Political parties

[AsburySkinsFan]

I stopped watching fox after the 2nd gulf war when they reported Saddam gave the orders to use WMD on our troops

I gradually stopped watching MSNBC after 2004 elections. If it is breaking news i go to headline news or network news

What i see with the advent of cable tv is all these political shows right vs left that has divided the country. Both sides spout the talking points of these shows without ever checking out the facts. They seem not to care about the truth rather they seem to care how much dirt they can get on the other side
One thing that I've noticed is that actual journalism and the discovery of the truth has been replaced by presenting the talking points from each camp using a professional pundit, that's not the same thing as finding the truth, it's lazy and stupid, but apparently it sells well.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Help me out here. News Corp is a publically traded company how can one really "hide" as an investor?? Did Kingdom hide it's investment (ownership) in Time Warner, Disney, Apple, HP, Kodak, Motorola, PepsiCo, P&G, Citibank- all well known "right wing" Corporations. ;)
Get your head out of the sand, I cannot believe you're going to justify this. A simple look shows that Faux has been presenting this as a guilt by association with some supposedly nefarious financier with supposed ties to Hamas, and Iran...but they NEVER mention his name....why not? Why don't they mention the man's name? They know his name, they know all about him, as "journalists" why aren't they simply mentioning his name? If it were any other person with actual ties to terrorism you can bet your last dollar that they would have plastered his name and picture all over the place, and yet not one picture, and not one mention of his name as they present this guilt by association game...why is that? You and I both know that the vast majority of people who believe Faux will simply accept what they say and NEVER fact check them...why? Because they still believe that they don't need to fact check a journalistic institution, so this nefarious financier must really have ties to terrorism, and yet it it NEVER revealed that this nefarious financier is also the 2nd largest shareholder of Newscorp stock which owns Faux News.

Interestingly enough if their guilt by association game is true and he really is a terrorist funder, then this same terrorist financier has also funded the GOP with the Newscorp $1 million dollar donation to the GOP governor's.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll leave ya to The Dailey Show...it seems a good fit:cool:

So you're not going to comment on this at all? You're seriously going to turn a blind eye to Faux and give them a pass on their outright dishonesty?

Figures. But, seriously don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you are willing to dismiss this garbage from Faux.

[Thiebear]

At this point CNN is the only reputable 24hour agency.
They have seriously softball questions and are slanted reporting depending on the time.
But they haven't been caught stooping to the levels of the other two.

[AsburySkinsFan]

At this point CNN is the only reputable 24hour agency.
They have seriously softball questions and are slanted reporting depending on the time.
But they haven't been caught stooping to the levels of the other two.
Sad ain't it.

I think the reason their ratings are so low comparatively is due to the fact that they don't stoop to the other two, but what they lack is actual journalism. Research is replaced with airing two people with different sets of talking points.

In the end I've stopped watching any of them.

[aREDSKIN]

Get your head out of the sand, I cannot believe you're going to justify this. A simple look shows that Faux has been presenting this as a guilt by association with some supposedly nefarious financier with supposed ties to Hamas, and Iran...but they NEVER mention his name....why not? Why don't they mention the man's name? They know his name, they know all about him, as "journalists" why aren't they simply mentioning his name? If it were any other person with actual ties to terrorism you can bet your last dollar that they would have plastered his name and picture all over the place, and yet not one picture, and not one mention of his name as they present this guilt by association game...why is that? You and I both know that the vast majority of people who believe Faux will simply accept what they say and NEVER fact check them...why? Because they still believe that they don't need to fact check a journalistic institution, so this nefarious financier must really have ties to terrorism, and yet it it NEVER revealed that this nefarious financier is also the 2nd largest shareholder of Newscorp stock which owns Faux News.

Interestingly enough if their guilt by association game is true and he really is a terrorist funder, then this same terrorist financier has also funded the GOP with the Newscorp $1 million dollar donation to the GOP governor's.


Well everyone should know that anybody with a "Saudi" or "Iranian" connection is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities. Recent history should be the proverbial elephant in the room. To pretend is just ignorant.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well everyone should know that anybody with a "Saudi" or "Iranian" connection is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities. Recent history should be the proverbial elephant in the room. To pretend is just ignorant.
So Rupert Murdoch is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities? As is Newscorp?

Here is your nefarious terrorist financier...maybe Murdoch needs to have his Faux News investigate his potential shareholders.
http://www.prwatch.org/files/images/alwaleed.jpg
http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2010//20100707_97580070_w.jpg
http://www.mideast-times.com/photos/big/leftpanel_alwaleed.JPG

[CrabR]

One thing that I've noticed is that actual journalism and the discovery of the truth has been replaced by presenting the talking points from each camp using a professional pundit, that's not the same thing as finding the truth, it's lazy and stupid, but apparently it sells well.

I concur 100%

people tune in to what they want to believe not what is true. Both sides also to like to change or distort history

I am guilty of that at times. But i will always look at another person views and links..............even on religion. I try to be open minded but sometimes it just hard as our belief system is so en-grained in us from a early age

[Burgold]

Got to wonder why he chose to link the thoughts "Saudi," "Iranian," "terrorist," with "elephant"... Freudian GOP slip maybe????

Edit: Asbury's got a good point, coverage through balanced punditry is not good journalism. Sadly though, it's cheap and most people seem to eat it up. That means more profits, smaller newsrooms (which also means more profits) and less discovery

[aREDSKIN]

So Rupert Murdoch is INVOLVED with TERRORIST activities? As is Newscorp?



As is Time Warner & Disney and any other type of media organization to the extent they can prevent these types of organizations from investing in their "public" companies.

[AsburySkinsFan]

As is Time Warner & Disney and any other type of media organization to the extent they can prevent these types of organizations from investing in their "public" companies.
Well Rupert seems pretty cozy with this terrorist.

BTW aREDSKIN, do you really think we're stupid?

[aREDSKIN]

Well Rupert seems pretty cozy with this terrorist.

BTW aREDSKIN, do you really think we're stupid?

Stupid??, no, myopic, partisan, sycophantic and less than objective most certainly yes and I know the feeling is in all probability mutual..

[AsburySkinsFan]

Stupid??, no, myopic, partisan, sycophantic and less than objective most certainly yes and I know you'll think the same of me.
Think what you will, but I'm not the one defending Faux's misinformation campaign.

[twa]

At this point CNN is the only reputable 24hour agency.
They have seriously softball questions and are slanted reporting depending on the time.
But they haven't been caught stooping to the levels of the other two.

Talal owns shares there as well,maybe he exerts better message control?:silly:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Talal owns shares there as well,maybe he exerts better message control?:silly:
Or maybe he's not a terrorist financier as Faux and aREDSKIN would have us believe.;)

[Bang]

Help me out here. News Corp is a publically traded company how can one really "hide" as an investor?? Did Kingdom hide it's investment (ownership) in Time Warner, Disney, Apple, HP, Kodak, Motorola, PepsiCo, P&G, Citibank- all well known "right wing" Corporations. ;)

Fox has tied their fear-based Terror Mosque to this Kingdom corporation with a bunch of "coulda.. mighta" style insinuation reporting.
They repeatedly mention this "guy" who they intimate is a terrorist sympathizer who tried to bribe Giuliani into staying in NYC after 9-11.. they tie his organization to other terrorist funding.
They never once mention his name. They never once let on that they know who he is, and that he's their second largest shareholder.

Let's pretend for a minute that they did not know their second largest shareholder was a terrorist funding operation as they have intimated without using his actual name...
First off, :ols::rotflmao:
No ****ing way they didn't know.

And secondly if they DIDN'T know,, damn are they getting played like suckers... except that SINCE this revelation is now getting on ten days old and they've yet to name this guy.. well that just shows they knew it all along.

Or, and this one is most likely.. they know it's a total lie,, a complete fabrication, and willful obfustication of facts to drive fear and anger. (at least it is to people with their eyes open.)

This has been all over the news for a week.
The fact that Fox viewers either pretend to not know it or truly DON'T know it shows either their tacit complicity in the mangling of facts and manipulation of emotions, or they show how ignorant they've become while sucking at Fox's teat.

Obviously one or the other is occuring. As i said to someone else in one of these threads, if you've simply decided that this sort of thing doesn't matter, then there's no way in hell anyone is ever going to convince you to think for yourself.
Bury your head in the pillow and pretend it's not reality, but that doesn't actually change the facts.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Faux News is either Evil or Stupid the choice is yours.

[Bang]

Let's pretend for a second that they didn't know this guy they're intimating is a terror funder is their second largest stockholder.
Let's also pretend for a moment that they're telling the truth in everything they've said, including being ignorant as to his identity.

Why have they not investigated further? After all, discovering who he is should have been so easy that a comedy show could find out about it overnight... oh, they did... yet Fox didn't..
so let's pretend even further that Fox needed Jon Stewart to point out to them who the guy they're intimating is a terror funder is.... so why no investigation?
They love America. They have filled themselves with all the self righteousness the flag can offer.
Here is an enemy within their midst (or so they'd have you believe)
and yet they do nothing about it?

Are they complicit in terrorism?
Or are they liars mainpulating their viewers emotions?
Or are they such a slipshod organization that they really DIDN'T know and have somehow missed it all last week while everyone ELSE laughed at them over it?

If there's another possibility, I'm all ears.

~Bang

[Burgold]

Well, there's always the greedy bastard option. The "I don't care where it comes from as long I make as much money as humanly possible" option.

[Thiebear]

Talal owns shares there as well,maybe he exerts better message control?:silly:

I know its "tongue-in-cheek' but i've never subscribed to terrorists owning fox news or cnn or msnbc. That seems a bit 'birther' to me.
I prefer to just compare them by made up stories and gaffs...

I was going to quote Burgold, but i've agreed with him so much I might as well take the day off.... let him do the work.

[Bang]

I know its "tongue-in-cheek' but i've never subscribed to terrorists owning fox news or cnn or msnbc. That seems a bit 'birther' to me.
I prefer to just compare them by made up stories and gaffs...

I was going to quote Burgold, but i've agreed with him so much I might as well take the day off.... let him do the work.

Oh, it's plenty birther.. truther,, whatever kind of nutjob-er you want it to be., and personally I don't believe he is a terror funder... because if he IS,,, that is a level of insanity I do NOT want to try to wrap my head around.

I believe the simplest explanation is probably correct.. that Fox is using this shadowy unnamed (and uncorroborated) insinuation to drive fear and anger to help their agenda. They are correct in assuming that their legions will not care to find out they've lied, and will do and say just about anything to make sure they either don't have to face the fact they've been so thoroughly played, or that their team has manipulated their trust, and the evidence of that is pretty much all over this and many other sites that offer people a voice.
This shows a complete disregard for anything remotely honest, and also shows an absolute lack of respect for the intelligence of their viewers. ("They'll swallow anything we feed them, no matter HOW ridiculous" is how it reads to me)
I believe they use these lies to rile people up so they can then report on it, and thus sell advertising... creating the news.. manipulating the truth for their own gain.

The only thing I have with the greed angle is that he's a Saudi prince... he can't be hurting for cash.. however, that certainly does NOT rule it out. In fact, I'd bank that is probably the main reason why he's allowed this.. which makes the other question (why do their viewers accept this) much more valid.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

They are correct in assuming that their legions will not care to find out they've lied, and will do and say just about anything to make sure they either don't have to face the fact they've been so thoroughly played, or that their team has manipulated their trust, and the evidence of that is pretty much all over this and many other sites that offer people a voice.
This shows a complete disregard for anything remotely honest, and also shows an absolute lack of respect for the intelligence of their viewers. ("They'll swallow anything we feed them, no matter HOW ridiculous" is how it reads to me)
I believe they use these lies to rile people up so they can then report on it, and thus sell advertising... creating the news.. manipulating the truth for their own gain.
Which is exactly why I deplore Faux News, I was once one of those who believed their manipulations and lies, they abused my trust and I was stupid enough to buy it hook line and sinker...once I had my eyes opened to their trash I have decided to show them for what they are whenever possible.


which makes the other question (why do their viewers accept this) much more valid.
Because it's easier to ignore the problem than it is to realize that what they have spent their time believing is an illusion, and that their beloved "news" source cannot be trusted.

[Veretax]

well I guess this means turn off your sets to news channels if they are all biased right? I mean, you can't trust any of the alphabet soup networks.

[twa]

well I guess this means turn off your sets to news channels if they are all biased right? I mean, you can't trust any of the alphabet soup networks.

Works for me,the written word is better

[AsburySkinsFan]

Works for me,the written word is better
Just so long as it doesn't come from Faux News.com Not all text is created equal.

[twa]

Not all text is created equal.
.
Obviously not, nor opinions

[aREDSKIN]

Faux News is either Evil or Stupid the choice is yours.



Here's CNN host Rick " The Murderer" Sanchez calling Obama a "cotton pickin" president. Maybe CNN is in the same boat fox is in????


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gKO0yQGe_0

[Bang]

well I guess this means turn off your sets to news channels if they are all biased right? I mean, you can't trust any of the alphabet soup networks.

the stuff i am talking about in this thread isn't bias. It's flat out lying. It's straight up obfuscation of fact to push agenda.

Minimizing it won't change what it is. It will only encourage it.

~Bang

[aREDSKIN]

the stuff i am talking about in this thread isn't bias. It's flat out lying. It's straight up obfuscation of fact to push agenda.

~Bang



It's all over the place-

It took a while, but MSNBC President Phil Griffin has finally admitted and embraced his cable network's hard-left slant. He told the Chicago Tribune that he will try to carve out a niche on the left, hoping some day to rival the Fox News Channel's record-setting ratings.

Not so long ago, Griffin insisted that MSNBC was not "tied to ideology" -- unlike Fox, which simply could not be trusted, he claimed. Griffin even knocked FNC President Roger Ailes's business model, criticizing him for "creat[ing] an ideological channel… I give them total credit. I tip my hat to them. They scored. But it was ideological and opportunistic. It was a business plan."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/television/phil-griffin#ixzz0y87fCc2O

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's CNN host Rick " The Murderer" Sanchez calling Obama a "cotton pickin" president. Maybe CNN is in the same boat fox is in????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gKO0yQGe_0
Nah, Sanchez is just an idiot. He's nothing but a talking head who is given too much ad lib time. And he said something completely stupid, not quite the same as the intentional fear mongering and misinformation perpetrated by Faux.

*edit
Oh BTW, I just wanted to let you know that you won.
See when I read what Sanchez said earlier tonight, I knew that one of you Faux defenders would use Sanchez's comments in just the way you have. Honestly, I'm glad it was you as you're one of the Faux News heroes I would have been disappointed if it were anyone else. ;)

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's all over the place-

It took a while, but MSNBC President Phil Griffin has finally admitted and embraced his cable network's hard-left slant. He told the Chicago Tribune that he will try to carve out a niche on the left, hoping some day to rival the Fox News Channel's record-setting ratings.

Not so long ago, Griffin insisted that MSNBC was not "tied to ideology" -- unlike Fox, which simply could not be trusted, he claimed. Griffin even knocked FNC President Roger Ailes's business model, criticizing him for "creat[ing] an ideological channel… I give them total credit. I tip my hat to them. They scored. But it was ideological and opportunistic. It was a business plan."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/television/phil-griffin#ixzz0y87fCc2O

And if MSNBC has gone the way of Faux News then they too should be rightly condemned and ignored just the same as Faux, and I will be among the first to say so. Now, where is your condemnation of Faux?

[Bang]

It's all over the place-

It took a while, but MSNBC President Phil Griffin has finally admitted and embraced his cable network's hard-left slant. He told the Chicago Tribune that he will try to carve out a niche on the left, hoping some day to rival the Fox News Channel's record-setting ratings.

Not so long ago, Griffin insisted that MSNBC was not "tied to ideology" -- unlike Fox, which simply could not be trusted, he claimed. Griffin even knocked FNC President Roger Ailes's business model, criticizing him for "creat[ing] an ideological channel… I give them total credit. I tip my hat to them. They scored. But it was ideological and opportunistic. It was a business plan."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/television/phil-griffin#ixzz0y87fCc2O

Can you please focus on what we're talking about here?

You seem to be totally ignoring this business with Fox and their second largest shareholder.

Yay, MSNBC has a left slant. Who the **** doesn't know that?
Once AGAIN we're not talking about slants.. we're talking about straight up lies and manipulations.
Now stick with the straight up lie and manipulations of Fox that was proven last week about their association with Saudi Prince Walaleed bin Talal. According to Fox, he's a terrorist sympathizer who's Kingdom Foundation funds terrorist groups around the world, yet he's Fox's second largest shareholder.. Please address that.
As it is you're coming off like a kid who flat out refuses to acknowledge his hand in the cookie jar.

Some pages back I asked some direct questions about this issue that I believe should NOT be ignored.
I then predicted it would be totally ignored by the Fox drones.
Now either I'm psychic, or you're bleating the oh-so predictable Fox marching song.

Which is it?

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Can you please focus on what we're talking about here?
You seem to be totally ignoring this business with Fox and their second largest shareholder.

Yay, MSNBC has a left slant. Who the **** doesn't know that?
I then predicted it would be totally ignored by the Fox drones.
Now either I'm psychic, or you're bleating the oh-so predictable Fox marching song.

Which is it?
~Bang
Bang you know exactly what this is, we all know what this is. It's the classic defensive move when someone is faced with the prospect of having to actually admit that the news source they love and adore has acted so reprehensibly that it should cause them to denounce the source and question them as a legitimate source of valid information, and at the same time they don't want to do that. So you make a head nod to the massive 60 car pile up over your left shoulder and then go off screaming about the minor fender bender on the next block hoping that people will think that the two things are actually the same.

Fauxians, I know it's a hard thing to acknowledge that your beloved news source that sings the song the way you want it sung has betrayed you and proven that they are completely untrustworthy. I know it's difficult and challenging to finally admit that everything that comes out of their mouths has to be questioned as if it is the same sort of misinformation campaign. I know it's not easy, but that's what happens when the news source you love completely trashes their own credibility by selling out their integrity. It's hard, but you can do it.

[Burgold]

Asbury,

I don't think they can.

They still believe that Republicans are fiscally conservative... despite 50 years of evidence to the contrary. They've built their walls of delusion so high that even attempting to scale them would cause suffocation.

[Buford]

Imagine if the stupid D's had the balls to refer to Foxnews publically as the terrorist owned network. If MSNBC spend hours and hours everyday profiling Alwaleed bin Talal and his ties to terrorism mixed in with pictures of 9/11 and references to his stock in Foxnews.

[Bang]

That would be interesting, except I'd bet the only terrorist ties of his they can find are the ones Fox 'created'.

And if they found ACTUAL ties,, well, that would be a kettle of fish, eh?

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Asbury,

I don't think they can.

They still believe that Republicans are fiscally conservative... despite 50 years of evidence to the contrary. They've built their walls of delusion so high that even attempting to scale them would cause suffocation.
They can, I did, that's what I went through a few years ago. Someone before mentioned that I sounded like a person who was jilted by a lover, and in some ways that's right, one day I woke up and realized that the thing I thought had been trustworthy, and faithful had been lying to me the whole time that my whole history with them was a lie and that nothing they said held any credibility. Yeah, they'll be pissed and in some ways I think they are, but at this point I think they are still the one's in the relationship with the abusive lover, but they can't bring themselves to leave because to admit the reality would cause too much pain. Am I speaking from my own experience? Yes. But, I know in my gut that I'm not the only one.


Imagine if the stupid D's had the balls to refer to Foxnews publically as the terrorist owned network. If MSNBC spend hours and hours everyday profiling Alwaleed bin Talal and his ties to terrorism mixed in with pictures of 9/11 and references to his stock in Foxnews.
Nah with most that would just be more "evidence" of the Left biased MSM.

[Buford]

That would be interesting, except I'd bet the only terrorist ties of his they can find are the ones Fox 'created'.

And if they found ACTUAL ties,, well, that would be a kettle of fish, eh?

~Bang


If they have clips from Fox talking about this guy. Then they need to play those over and over and mention how even Foxnews doesn't realize their 2nd largest stockholder is a terrorist.

I know its nonsense. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.








Nah with most that would just be more "evidence" of the Left biased MSM.


Of course that's what some would say. But I'm sure there are plenty of photos of this guy with political and media leaders from both sides. Just show the Conservative ones over and over and over. Have people talking about it who seem scared he's going to fund another 9/11. blah blah blah

[Peeping Wizard]

Media Matters has roughly the same level of credibilty as Newsmax.

[alexey]

Imagine if the stupid D's had the balls to refer to Foxnews publically as the terrorist owned network. If MSNBC spend hours and hours everyday profiling Alwaleed bin Talal and his ties to terrorism mixed in with pictures of 9/11 and references to his stock in Foxnews.
That would really be something, wouldn't it? :fingersx:

[aREDSKIN]

That would really be something, wouldn't it? :fingersx:



It really would, but you know what? Nobody would believe them. :D ;)






Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

[Burgold]

That may be one of the most depressing stats I've read this year... considering how often they've been caught not stretching, twisting, or even biasing a story, but presenting outright fiction.... even on non political stories like the EATR.

The amazing thing I've recently discovered in doing a few science pieces is that scientists seem to distrust FOX even more than liberals and Democratic pundits. They talk with dread and absolute terror about what FOX has done to their stories to sensationalize and distort what they said.

[Predicto]

It really would, but you know what? Nobody would believe them. :D ;)

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html


This is absolutely accurate.

If you tell people what they want to hear, they will believe you, and trust you.

[Veretax]

Actually this mosque story hasn't really lit my needle much at all. What concerns me? Glenn Beck talking about how the country needs to get back to God, yet he's mormon so I'm forced to wonder what God he is referring too, as from what I understand their beliefs are different than most traditional bible believing Christians. (That's not intended as a slap at mormons by the way) I'm actually more concerned about the lack of questions from Fox about things like that, then this mosque thing. To me, the average conservative may not care as much about the Mosque because if you are a small government conservative, you think NY City should decide where they can build the mosque, and if its okay with them, then that's their choice.

Am I wrong on that?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually this mosque story hasn't really lit my needle much at all. What concerns me? Glenn Beck talking about how the country needs to get back to God, yet he's mormon so I'm forced to wonder what God he is referring too, as from what I understand their beliefs are different than most traditional bible believing Christians. (That's not intended as a slap at mormons by the way)
Exactly, what does he mean when he says "get back to God"? Does he mean our economics, politics, what? Is he talking about the conservative Mormon ethic, too much ambiguity there for my tastes. However, given his history I think we know what he means.


I'm actually more concerned about the lack of questions from Fox about things like that, then this mosque thing. To me, the average conservative may not care as much about the Mosque because if you are a small government conservative, you think NY City should decide where they can build the mosque, and if its okay with them, then that's their choice.

Am I wrong on that?
How dare you suggest that small government conservatives might be hypocritical in saying that local government knows best and at the same time scream bloody murder about the Cordoba House!! I am appalled sir!

To quote Rand Paul (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-paul-opens-mouth-puts-coal-covered-foo), "If you don't live here, it's none of your business"

[Baculus]

It really would, but you know what? Nobody would believe them. :D ;)

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html

Wow, you really are the loyal Fox News minion, aren't you?

OK, so let me ask you this: If Fox is so worthy of trusting, why would they outright lie about the Prince Al-Waleed? When would they use him as the unnamed "terror funder"of the "Ground Zero mosque" without mentioning the fact that he is the second biggest stockholder in News Corp? And you appear to have already forgotten (or outright ignored) the original topic of this thread: That Fox News promoted a Tea Party organization that swindled the people who donated to it.

That's the name that you, and its supporters, is the most trusted name in news?!

How ridiculous is that?

[Baculus]

That may be one of the most depressing stats I've read this year... considering how often they've been caught not stretching, twisting, or even biasing a story, but presenting outright fiction.... even on non political stories like the EATR.

The amazing thing I've recently discovered in doing a few science pieces is that scientists seem to distrust FOX even more than liberals and Democratic pundits. They talk with dread and absolute terror about what FOX has done to their stories to sensationalize and distort what they said.

Yeah, that's probably the worst part: They have lied on countless occasions, and yet, they still have loyal fans who'll believe them no matter what. But there's a reason for this, as the following article indicates:

"How facts backfire."

"In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

This, I believe, is particularly true of Fox News viewers, many of whom are Tea Partiers and Republicans. Even when they are faced with a truthful piece of data, they dig their heels deeper, and with more determination.

They seem to be saying, "You are not going to tell me what to believe! Obama is a radical Muslim; the radical health care reform is a power grab to impose death panels; and Dr. Martin Luther King was a conservative, just like Glenn Beck!"

And not only that, but it's well know psychological fact that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it. This, I believe, is one of the more insidious elements of Fox's propaganda -- the repeating, over and over again, of outright falsehoods, to influence the thinking patterns of their viewers, for political and financial gain of News Corp.

[Baculus]

Media Matters has roughly the same level of credibilty as Newsmax.

There is no comparison between Newsmax and Media Matters, and to make this statement shows that you don't know very much about either of these websites.

Newsmax posts conservative articles, many of which are opinion pieces and right-wing news stories. They are basically the conservative version of Huffington Post -- that would be a more accurate comparison.

On the other hand, Media Matters analyzes and evaluates right-wing media. They do this by providing transcripts and direct clips to what these media figures and networks are saying -- they are actual journalists doing what journalists do, which is investigative reporting.

Right-wingers always try to dismiss Media Matters because they can't respond in any other way. They never, ever try to directly respond to Media Matters' articles, because they can't mount an adequate defense when quotes are actually sourced . . . which Media Matters provides for the viewer.

And what's why your assertion is really curious -- it's as if you've never read the Media Matters website in your life.

Here is a suggestion -- why don't you actually check it out for yourself?

http://mediamatters.org/

[Peeping Wizard]

Edited my post

[Predicto]

Edited my post

You didn't respond to his post at all.

Media Matters may have an obvious axe to grind. It may only go after conservatives. It may give liberals a free pass. Fine.

That does NOT demonstrate that what Media Matters says in a particular matter is not 100 percent accurate. As far as I know, Media Matters has never been shown to lie.