Fox News Sucks

[Electrophile]

I suppose Fox News does suck for those on the left whose preference is that the major media be the exclusive domain of liberals.

I love when people make incorrect assumptions about others here. It just tickles me.

I think the media should be 100% unbiased. That'll never happen. So instead, I watch many different TV channels to get my news. However I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch it for a couple reasons. One, they had a commentator (Chris Wallace) say the following after Obama took the oath a second time, just to be 100% sure everything was legit:

"He didn't have his hand on a Bible. Is he really President?"

He said this. Jon Stewart showed the clip along with many other clips of Fox News commentators in the days following the Inauguration. I can't handle that kind of warrantless stupidity. I watch CNN, BBC America, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and PBS. I also listen to the news on the radio a lot as well.

The second reason I don't watch Fox News is that while I have no problem with right-leaning opinions (my parents are Republicans), their opinions are so far to the right it's just not listenable. I'm sure others have similar opinions about what I watch, and that's just fine.

[ninelives]

Then there's those of us that take in several forms of media from all sides and form our own opinions.

:yesnod:

[ninelives]

Hi all,

I see,and Bush was an alien?good insight.So our 44st president,being intelligent will not make any mistakes? I do want him to succeed.

KB

Of course he'll make mistakes. Everyone does.

[cryingbluerain]

Of course he'll make mistakes. Everyone does.

Looks like he's already taken his eye off the ball by attacking Rush..

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2745

[Reggie1971]

I love when people make incorrect assumptions about others here. It just tickles me.

I think the media should be 100% unbiased. That'll never happen. So instead, I watch many different TV channels to get my news. However I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch it for a couple reasons. One, they had a commentator (Chris Wallace) say the following after Obama took the oath a second time, just to be 100% sure everything was legit:

"He didn't have his hand on a Bible. Is he really President?"

He said this. Jon Stewart showed the clip along with many other clips of Fox News commentators in the days following the Inauguration. I can't handle that kind of warrantless stupidity. I watch CNN, BBC America, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and PBS. I also listen to the news on the radio a lot as well.

The second reason I don't watch Fox News is that while I have no problem with right-leaning opinions (my parents are Republicans), their opinions are so far to the right it's just not listenable. I'm sure others have similar opinions about what I watch, and that's just fine.

So you don't watch Fox News but yet you are certain that all their opinions are right wing. Like Bill O'Reilly right? Except that he opposes the death penalty and believes in global warming. Or Geraldo Rivera, who is an unabashed proponent of amnesty.

If you indeed watch MSNBC regularly, then the reason can't possibly be for unbiased opinion. It is the most stridently biased televised network (left or right) on television, with a whole gang of pompous and factually challenged liberals like Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, Chris "thrill up my leg for Obama" Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and David Shuster. Keith Olbermann in particular literally has a BAN on people appearing on his program who do not agree with him. Either this is because he is of the elitist ilk of liberals who think opinions differing from them invariably come from stupid people, or he is too much of a coward to debate anyone. Say what you will about O'Reilly, he at least has the guts (or respect for other's opinions) to allow people with opposing viewpoints on his program.

The rest of the networks you cite as regular viewing of course all tilt left, though not as much as MSNBC. Fine enough if you watch them because you dislike hearing conservative opinion, but c'mon, it's not done as part of a search for "unbiased news".

[Electrophile]

Rush Limbaugh said on air, that he wanted Obama to fail. He said this. You want to know what's wrong with a statement like that? Not even the most ardent Bush-hater on Earth wanted him to fail, because when a President fails, the country fails. We sink or swim based on the kind of Presidency he has. By saying you want Obama to fail, you're saying you want America to stay right where it is; stuck in two wars and nearing a Depression.

Who wants that for themselves, politics be damned. So Rush Limpballs deserves whatever scorn or derision he gets, AFAIC. America does not deserve to stay in the mess its in right now and to say that you want the country to fail because you don't agree with the President's politics is borderline treasonous to me.

[wanna be drummer]

So you don't watch Fox News but yet you are certain that all their opinions are right wing. Like Bill O'Reilly right? Except that he opposes the death penalty and believes in global warming. Or Geraldo Rivera, who is an unabashed proponent of amnesty.

Believing in Global Warming is not left or right. Most people believe that global warming is occurring, but the issue is how bar are the consequences really going to be, and are humans to be blamed for it?

If you don't think the world is warming up at all, than you are stupid, period. It doesn't take a genius to look at the world's climate numbers and say "Hey, the numbers are going up!"

As far as the death penalty, that's the best you can do for your argument that he's not fully right wing? That's it? So never mind the rest of his politics, he's not all the way right wing because of a non-issue like the death penalty? Nice.

[Electrophile]

So you don't watch Fox News but yet you are certain that all their opinions are right wing. Like Bill O'Reilly right? Except that he opposes the death penalty and believes in global warming. Or Geraldo Rivera, who is an unabashed proponent of amnesty.

If you indeed watch MSNBC regularly, then the reason can't possibly be for unbiased opinion. It is the most stridently biased televised network (left or right) on television, with a whole gang of pompous and factually challenged liberals like Keith Olbermann, David Shuster, Chris "thrill up my leg for Obama" Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and David Shuster. Keith Olbermann in particular literally has a BAN on people appearing on his program who do not agree with him. Either this is because he is of the elitist ilk of liberals who think opinions differing from them invariably come from stupid people, or he is too much of a coward to debate anyone. Say what you will about O'Reilly, he at least has the guts (or respect for other's opinions) to allow people with opposing viewpoints on his program.

The rest of the networks you cite as regular viewing of course all tilt left, though not as much as MSNBC. Fine enough if you watch them because you dislike hearing conservative opinion, but c'mon, it's not done as part of a search for "unbiased news".

I don't need to watch Fox News to know it's a right-wing station. That's basically common knowledge to everyone. Also, my parents watch it (as I've stated, they are Republicans) and they wouldn't watch it if it WASN'T right-leaning. It's called "looking at 2+2 and getting 4". Not that hard.

I don't watch MSNBC regularly. I said I watch it. Saying I watch it doesn't in any way bely how often I do. I'd say during a given week, I watch MSNBC a total of two hours. I watch CNN far more often than I do any other station in that list. All you had to do was ask. The only thing Bill O'Reilly ever did that I have watched and have enjoyed is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE Anything past that, I have zero interest in.

No, none of those other station I watch "of course" tilt left. You think that because you want to think that, not because it's true. You want to keep beating your "the MSM has a liberal bias" drum because it creates a sound you like. Of all the stations on TV, the only one I would say has a liberal slant is MSNBC. That's it. The rest are pretty centrist, to my ears.

But by all means, be contrarian and tell me I'm wrong. You know you want to.

[Reggie1971]

Rush Limbaugh said on air, that he wanted Obama to fail. He said this. You want to know what's wrong with a statement like that? Not even the most ardent Bush-hater on Earth wanted him to fail, because when a President fails, the country fails. We sink or swim based on the kind of Presidency he has. By saying you want Obama to fail, you're saying you want America to stay right where it is; stuck in two wars and nearing a Depression.

Who wants that for themselves, politics be damned. So Rush Limpballs deserves whatever scorn or derision he gets, AFAIC. America does not deserve to stay in the mess its in right now and to say that you want the country to fail because you don't agree with the President's politics is borderline treasonous to me.

I believe what Rush Limbaugh said when asked if he wanted Obama to succeed or fail is that it depended on what kind of policy he tried to realize. He didn't say he wanted the country to fail. If Obama proposed tax cuts on businesses to stimulate the economy, then he (and I) would want him to succeed. If he proposes draconian government bailouts and socialization of the economy (I know, a trend that Bush left us), then he wants him to fail in that task.

Re: No Bush hater wanted him to fail.

Really? Every last one of the Bushhitler people wanted him to succeed?

[wanna be drummer]

Rush Limbaugh said on air, that he wanted Obama to fail. He said this. You want to know what's wrong with a statement like that? Not even the most ardent Bush-hater on Earth wanted him to fail, because when a President fails, the country fails. We sink or swim based on the kind of Presidency he has. By saying you want Obama to fail, you're saying you want America to stay right where it is; stuck in two wars and nearing a Depression.

Who wants that for themselves, politics be damned. So Rush Limpballs deserves whatever scorn or derision he gets, AFAIC. America does not deserve to stay in the mess its in right now and to say that you want the country to fail because you don't agree with the President's politics is borderline treasonous to me.

I get where you're coming from, but I also understand Rush's thinking. He doesn't want us to fall back into the FDR socialistic economic policies. He doesn't want that to work because that's not his politics, and I have to agree. If Obama just takes FDR's domestic politics and copies and pastes it to today's world, I can't say I want him to succeed either, because I think we'll fucked in the long run. Do i want the country to suck and dry up? Hell no. I want Obama to be a great president. I really do. But not if he's going to take us down a road I don't agree with to get there.

Hypothetical: Let's say pseudo-Mussolini character came along and started a Fascist Party. Let's say under his policies, the country greatly prospers. Do I want them to continue to succeed? Hell no. Fuck the success, I don't like what we're going to sacrifice to get there. But at the same time, I don't want to revert back to the old way's of doing things and live like animals again.

Anyways, it's just a complicated feeling I have and I guess I share with Limbaugh

~Devil's Advocate

[Electrophile]

Yes, they did. Want to know why? Bush failing means WE FAIL. You really believe those who hate George W. Bush sat around saying "Oh well, if the country falls down in to a fucking sewer, who cares. Bush sucks!!111!!1"?

I hated Bush with a passion but for the sake the United States, I wanted him to not fail, to not suck. The fact he did didn't make me happy and it sure as hell didn't make anyone else happy either. I got over the fact he was President shortly after he won. At that point, all I wanted was for him not to fuck up. He couldn't do that, so we all had to suffer.

Can I make this any clearer for you?

And for the record, NO Limbaugh did not say he wanted Obama to fail based on policy. He said "I want him to fail" with no qualifications attached to that. I saw the footage of him saying this. They showed the whole context of the quote. There was no "I want him to fail. His policies suck and blah blah blah." There was none of that. He flat out wants the President of the United States to fail, because he's stupid piece of shit.

[Reggie1971]

I don't need to watch Fox News to know it's a right-wing station. That's basically common knowledge to everyone. Also, my parents watch it (as I've stated, they are Republicans) and they wouldn't watch it if it WASN'T right-leaning. It's called "looking at 2+2 and getting 4". Not that hard.

I don't watch MSNBC regularly. I said I watch it. Saying I watch it doesn't in any way bely how often I do. I'd say during a given week, I watch MSNBC a total of two hours. I watch CNN far more often than I do any other station in that list. All you had to do was ask. The only thing Bill O'Reilly ever did that I have watched and have enjoyed is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE Anything past that, I have zero interest in.

No, none of those other station I watch "of course" tilt left. You think that because you want to think that, not because it's true. You want to keep beating your "the MSM has a liberal bias" drum because it creates a sound you like. Of all the stations on TV, the only one I would say has a liberal slant is MSNBC. That's it. The rest are pretty centrist, to my ears.

But by all means, be contrarian and tell me I'm wrong. You know you want to.

With all due respect, you are wrong.

You don't need to watch Fox News to know it plays favorites? Common knowledge? From who? Simply because there is a popularly accepted narrative that Fox News is arm of the Republican party doesn't mean that should be taken at face value.

Yes, the majority of Fox News opinionists tilt toward a conversative point of view, and all I can say is so what? All the major networks have for many years tilted to the left and a counterbalance to that is necessary. Look up the ambush interview Dan Rather did with GHWB in 1988 on youtube for a prime example of that. Look at Dan's stridence in 2004 in pushing a story on Bush's tenure in the National Guard that was based on documents supposedly typed in 1973, but use Microsoft font. Prime examples of how the old guard major media does play favorites.

[Electrophile]

I get where you're coming from, but I also understand Rush's thinking. He doesn't want us to fall back into the FDR socialistic economic policies. He doesn't want that to work because that's not his politics, and I have to agree. If Obama just takes FDR's domestic politics and copies and pastes it to today's world, I can't say I want him to succeed either, because I think we'll fucked in the long run. Do i want the country to suck and dry up? Hell no. I want Obama to be a great president. I really do. But not if he's going to take us down a road I don't agree with to get there.

Hypothetical: Let's say pseudo-Mussolini character came along and started a Fascist Party. Let's say under his policies, the country greatly prospers. Do I want them to continue to succeed? Hell no. Fuck the success, I don't like what we're going to sacrifice to get there. But at the same time, I don't want to revert back to the old way's of doing things and live like animals again.

Anyways, it's just a complicated feeling I have and I guess I share with Limbaugh

~Devil's Advocate

I can understand this, but up to a point. Right now, this country is in bad shape. Not just economically either. I don't want to steal a line from Jimmy Carter, but I do think there's a "malaise" of some kind over this country. Obama's inauguration lifted peoples' spirits for a couple days, but that was it. Gas prices are rising, the economy is still in the shitter, we still have troops in the Middle East and we have idea when they'll be leaving.....things are just in general not good.

If Obama's policies lift that malaise and start to fix the economy and drawdown our troops in the Middle East and ease the feeling of "blah" that people feel, that's a good thing. That's not just a good thing physically, that's a good thing emotionally. You may not agree with how Obama is planning on getting it done, but shouldn't the overall health of the country and its people be your overall concern and want? If you say, "I don't like his policies, I don't want to see this succeed" you are in essence saying that you don't think anything is wrong right now and that you want America to stay right where it's at, in all aspects. I don't know if I can stand by that.

Now, about your example of a fascist party taking over, of course no one would want a party like that to succeed at all. But that's a poor example to use in my mind, because a fascist dictator (along the lines of Mussolini or Hitler) wouldn't be making the country prosper under positive means. There's a lot more behind a fascist stance besides merely political policies. No matter what party you ascribe to, you can at least agree that the GOP and the Dems want the country to succeed using positive means, not a Nazi-esque police state takeover.

[Electrophile]

But by all means, be contrarian and tell me I'm wrong. You know you want to.

With all due respect, you are wrong.

HA. I love it.

[wanna be drummer]

I can understand this, but up to a point. Right now, this country is in bad shape. Not just economically either. I don't want to steal a line from Jimmy Carter, but I do think there's a "malaise" of some kind over this country. Obama's inauguration lifted peoples' spirits for a couple days, but that was it. Gas prices are rising, the economy is still in the shitter, we still have troops in the Middle East and we have idea when they'll be leaving.....things are just in general not good.

If Obama's policies lift that malaise and start to fix the economy and drawdown our troops in the Middle East and ease the feeling of "blah" that people feel, that's a good thing. That's not just a good thing physically, that's a good thing emotionally. You may not agree with how Obama is planning on getting it done, but shouldn't the overall health of the country and its people be your overall concern and want? If you say, "I don't like his policies, I don't want to see this succeed" you are in essence saying that you don't think anything is wrong right now and that you want America to stay right where it's at, in all aspects. I don't know if I can stand by that.

Now, about your example of a fascist party taking over, of course no one would want a party like that to succeed at all. But that's a poor example to use in my mind, because a fascist dictator (along the lines of Mussolini or Hitler) wouldn't be making the country prosper under positive means. There's a lot more behind a fascist stance besides merely political policies. No matter what party you ascribe to, you can at least agree that the GOP and the Dems want the country to succeed using positive means, not a Nazi-esque police state takeover.

I'm not saying nothing is wrong right now, but I am saying that there's room to get worse. Let's just say Obama does copy/paste the New Deal to today. I'm sure it'll work to lift the economy and help us prosper...for a few years. I think Obama is going to temporarily solve some situations that need to be permanently altered/fixed. The economy, for me, the by far the biggest one. I want those middle class tax cuts he promised early on (and sort of said forget it later on in the campaign trail) and I'd like to see us out of Iraq and into Afghanistan. But, I think he's going to realize that he needs money to fund all his projects and he's going to end up taxing us more and more to keep up. To me, that may temporarily fix things, but he's putting a Band-Aid on something that needs surgery. Again, I hope he "fails" in these kidns of policies and I want people to understand that so that we don't make the same mistake in the future and pick the right guy for the job (or at least start moving to third parties). I don't want this country to roll over and die, but I don't want to see it moving to a Western European-style economy either. Again, this is what I'm torn over. I hope he makes the choices that I want, but I think we all know that thatprobably isn't going to happen, am I right? He's damn near my antithesis. In any case, I hope he makes the choices I want and for him to succeed. But if he decides to be more radical than I thought he was, and start moving far too left for a guy like me, then I'm sorry, but I sincerely hope he's a one term preisdent.

[Reggie1971]

And for the record, NO Limbaugh did not say he wanted Obama to fail based on policy. He said "I want him to fail" with no qualifications attached to that. I saw the footage of him saying this. They showed the whole context of the quote. There was no "I want him to fail. His policies suck and blah blah blah." There was none of that. He flat out wants the President of the United States to fail, because he's stupid piece of shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YcwI4NlKA

Start the vid at the 5:18 point and watch until about 7:30. You are mistaken. That is not what he said. He wants socialism to fail, as I do.

[Electrophile]

People who think Barack Obama is a socialist do not know the meaning of the word "socialist". I stand by that assessment. We don't live in Cuba or even Russia circa pre-1991. Over the course of the primaries/general election, the definition of "socialist"/"socialism" got so distorted beyond recognition by people going absolutely apoplectic over Barack Obama, that it no longer means what it used to. I heard more people using that word to describe not only Obama's policies but Clinton's as well, and it only seemed to grow in proliferation after the government takeovers of the banks, finance industry and then the auto industry.

If you want to believe Barack Obama wants to turn the United States into a socialist state, then by all means, go right on ahead. Not one iota of anything will convince you otherwise.

[wanna be drummer]

^I don't believe he's socialist, and I agree with you. That being said, I still don't like his leftist politics.

[Electrophile]

^I don't believe he's socialist, and I agree with you. That being said, I still don't like his leftist politics.

That's fair. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with his politics, I have a problem with people disagreeing with them and characterizing them as something they're not.

Off-topic, but are you watching the ASG tonight? With no Wings in the lineup at all (even after the league said every team had to have representation), I have no desire to watch it.

[wanna be drummer]

That's fair. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with his politics, I have a problem with people disagreeing with them and characterizing them as something they're not.

Off-topic, but are you watching the ASG tonight? With no Wings in the lineup at all (even after the league said every team had to have representation), I have no desire to watch it.

Luckily, I'll be working and then going out so I won't be watching it. Datsyul and Lidstrom got screwed, so I wouldn't watch it even if I could.

Honestly, what a joke.

[Strider]

Just as annoying as the people who mischaracterize President Obama as a "socialist" are

the attacks on FDR and the "New Deal".

When people criticize the New Deal, what they tend to forget is that while it may have

taken until WWII for America to dig itself out of the Great Depression, much of the groundwork

for America's unrivaled post-war prosperity was laid by those New Deal programs, especially

the ones that improved our infrastructure...our roads, bridges, etc.

By improving our system of roads and highways and rail lines, it made it easier for more

and more goods and products to be trucked and shipped faster and farther than ever before.

But all you ever hear from conservatives today is bitter sniping at FDR's New Deal and

how we can't go down that road again. I suppose if the conservatives had been running

the country back then, they would have been happy still using Pony Express.

The fact is, a country is only as good and sound as its infrastructure...when the roads and

shipping lines start to fail, when traffic begins to snarl, then the whole country begins to

get bogged down.

It's been more than 60 years since FDR's great public works programs...it's time for another

round. Time to get the roads, rails, bridges, schools, etc. in shape for the 21st century and

beyond.

I'd rather my taxes go to something concrete and useful like that, than have it wasted on

bogus crap like the "war on drugs" and the auto bailout.

[wanna be drummer]

Publicly "improving" infrastructure can only get you so far, and besides, the governments done a pretty shitty job at it lately anyways.

[wanna be drummer]

Might you be making a left turn? Hmmm. Doubt it.

Me? Left?

I'm a true capitalist and I don't see that changing in the enar future

[SteveAJones]

Obama's inauguration lifted peoples' spirits for a couple days, but that was it.

The honeymoon with Obama is going to be over quicker than anyone would ever believe.

His "tax stimulus plan" is little more than 80 billion dollars going into the pockets of his

campaign contributors via government-mandated public works projects.

It's 1931 all over again.

[TypeO]

Not even the most ardent Bush-hater on Earth wanted him to fail, because when a President fails, the country fails.

Yes, they did. Want to know why? Bush failing means WE FAIL. You really believe those who hate George W. Bush sat around saying "Oh well, if the country falls down in to a fucking sewer, who cares. Bush sucks!!111!!1"?

Maybe not you as an individual citizen.

But as for the Democratic party politicians, they most certainly wanted him to fail to allow them to regain power.

All of their positions were bankrolled on Bush failing in Iraq in order to prove they were right.

And not even just on issues as large as Iraq.

It was pretty much ANY issue.

Basically Bush faced 8 years of "getback" for the 2000 election.

Because Bush had a proven track record in Texas as a "uniter" and "working across the aisle," and made that central to his campaign, that became the Dems main target - to make sure he was NOT a uniter.

So it was more of "Oh well, if the country falls down into a fucking sewer, then we'll be in the optimal position to regain control of the country and implement the policies we favor."

And for the record, NO Limbaugh did not say he wanted Obama to fail based on policy. He said "I want him to fail" with no qualifications attached to that. I saw the footage of him saying this. They showed the whole context of the quote. There was no "I want him to fail. His policies suck and blah blah blah." There was none of that. He flat out wants the President of the United States to fail, because he's stupid piece of shit.

Absolutely not true.

See, I didn't see the "footage" - I watched the actual interview.

And he most certainly did qualify it.

The transcript:

HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his worldview. So then the question becomes: Do you want him to succeed?

RUSH: Now, this... (turns to camera) I am so glad that he asked me that question. (turns back to Hannity) I am so glad that you asked me this question.

HANNITY: I'm glad to. (chuckles)

RUSH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that very thing. "Well, we want him to succeed," and prominent Republicans! "Yes, we want him to succeed." They have laid down. They have totally. They're drinking the Kool-Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism. They're afraid of being called racists. They're afraid of not having gotten with the program. Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier, "I don't know about this guy." I really don't. I've got my suspicions and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln --

HANNITY: (laughing)

RUSH: -- and if he does cut some taxes --

HANNITY: Yeah.

RUSH: -- if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR -- if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal -- why would I want him to succeed? Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda... Look, I think it's already decided: a $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

That's pretty clear.

And I don't see that as any different than the "I support the troops but not the commander in chief" sentiment that we've heard for the last 6 or 7 years.

In fact, I'm very curious how that same exact phrase will be perceived in our "post-racial" society.