I'm sorry, God, you must have stopped reading when I asked if he was a convicted war criminal...

Quote :

"or just a liberal's punching bag "GEORGE BUSH IS A WAR CRIMES!!" type of war criminal?"

You seem to have pointed me to a liberal punching bag. Please point me to the real war criminal that has a show on Fox News. kkthx

10/21/2009 8:47:20 AM

He's a war criminal.

10/21/2009 8:47:46 AM

I know... and Barack Obama is a traitor, Sandy Berger is a spy, Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster.... bla bla bla




And here I thought you were going to give me some REAL information

10/21/2009 8:52:25 AM

you should know by now that real information that doesn't support their view is a anathema to them

10/21/2009 8:55:05 AM

IT IS NOT CREDIBLE BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT!

10/21/2009 8:55:28 AM

He's not a war criminal, the best you can say is that he was convicted of a felony.

Where was he convicted of war crimes?

10/21/2009 9:37:51 AM

I don't think anyone here has access to enough information to conclude that Bush is a war criminal. He may have actually thought that there were WMDs in Iraq. I don't know that he intentionally lied. What I do know is that he ended up being wrong, and we should have gotten out of Iraq 4 or 5 years ago.

10/21/2009 10:23:42 AM

We're talking about Oliver North not George Bush.

Oliver North is a war criminal. He doesn't have to be convicted of war crimes to be considered one.

10/21/2009 11:01:46 AM

YOU'VE JUST BEEN BECKED!

10/21/2009 11:12:23 AM

Quote :

"He doesn't have to be convicted of war crimes to be considered one."

kk

10/21/2009 11:41:46 AM

I mean...

Hitler wasn't convicted of war crimes, was he?

I guess he isn't a war criminal then.

10/21/2009 11:43:42 AM

What war was he a criminal from?

Iran-Contra? That was a hostage situation coupled with supporting rebels. Hardly a war.

Perhaps you mean from his time in Vietnam? Are you suggesting that every Vietnam veteran is a war criminal?

Look, I don't like Oliver North. Personally, I think he's a scumbag who was given a free pass out of his real crimes. There are plenty of reasons out there to NOT like Oliver North, making up a false war criminal moniker isn't necessary.

How about "Fox News gave a show to a man convicted of three felonies." Gets the point across without making things up.

Incidentally, Hitler WAS convicted of war crimes in absentia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convicted_war_criminals

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : /]

10/21/2009 11:55:40 AM

but its so much easier to emulate glen beck

10/21/2009 11:58:02 AM

Yes, it is much easier to emulate Glenn Beck, that's why you see all the other commentators on Fox News doing it now.

Lord knows Hannity is trying to become a new Beck, he's even picking out the tiniest details about Whitehouse staffers to try and get them fired. But he can't match the pure histrionics of Beck.

Interesting thing I heard the other day. I heard Rachel Maddow apologize for misreporting something Limbaugh was alleged to have stated. The quote never happened and she apologized for repeating it. When was the last time someone on Fox News apologized for getting something wrong?

10/21/2009 12:02:40 PM

well, they don't typically get things wrong...

And I'll also comment that its pretty easy for Maddow to acknowledge she was wrong AFTER rush has already been kicked off the bid and AFTER all the damage that could have been done, was done.

An empty acknowledgment in my opinion. If anything, its nothing but a cynical move on her part - an attempt to look "good" when she knew what she was doing from the start.

10/21/2009 12:07:29 PM

Funny, that's the same way I feel every time Glenn Beck sheds his little fake tears.

10/21/2009 12:19:03 PM

so we are agreed that they are equivalent?

10/21/2009 12:19:28 PM

Nope, not in the least. One is an apology, the other is a histrionic used to gain emotional approval when logical approval is lacking.

One admits that a person has made a mistake, the other deceives. They are two vastly different things with the former being much harder than the latter.

Now, I understand why you felt that Maddow's apology the other night was disingenuous, as she replayed many quotes from Rush which conceptually backed up the misquote, so her point wasn't lost. It wasn't a full reversal of position, it was an apology for one action.

10/21/2009 12:25:02 PM

Glenn Beck puts Vick's Vaporub under his eyes to fake his crying.

10/21/2009 12:37:26 PM

Quote :

"well, they don't typically get things wrong..."

ROFL

10/21/2009 12:56:11 PM

I just felt like throwin u guys a bone

10/21/2009 1:01:38 PM

I was actually going to leave that statement alone, mainly out of personal laziness and lack of desire to rummage around online finding things "Fox News" (not the commentators) have gotten wrong.

10/21/2009 1:03:26 PM

the tactics are the same on both sides, guys.

i know its a hard concept to comprehend....

10/21/2009 1:14:30 PM

The tactics are similar. The frequency and amplitude aren't anywhere near comparable.

Neither are their roles within their respective parties. Fox News truly is an integral component of the Republican Party.

10/21/2009 1:31:34 PM

Hi, I'm Chris Matthews of MSLSD and former/current Democrat operative. And I'm liable to say any goddamned thing!

Can any of you geniuses tell me what you would think if FOX News allowed O'Reilly and Hannity to anchor election coverage?



[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : Well?]

10/21/2009 1:40:21 PM

OMG THEY'RE THE SAME!!!

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/21/2009 2:02:24 PM

Quote :

"Can any of you geniuses tell me what you would think if FOX News allowed O'Reilly and Hannity to anchor election coverage?"

10/21/2009 2:03:28 PM

I think it would have meant fantastic television and been a ratings goldmine. Watching their gradual meltdown would be absolutely riveting.

Would I have complained? Probably not, it's Fox News and it would have been just another "Fox News thing."

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2009 2:07:23 PM

^ Blah, blah, bullshit.

Well, MSLSD actually made such a move--and this was the result:

MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors
Monday, September 8, 2008

Quote :

"MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign."

Quote :

"But NBC News journalists, who often appear on the cable channel, did see a problem, arguing behind the scenes that MSNBC's move to the left -- which includes a new show, debuting tonight, for Air America radio host Rachel Maddow -- was tarnishing their reputation for fairness. Tom Brokaw, the interim host of 'Meet the Press,' said that at times Olbermann and Matthews went too far."

Quote :

"These and other clashes fueled a sense that conservative voices are less than welcome at MSNBC as it has tried to position itself as a left-wing alternative to Fox News Channel. Olbermann disputes this view, calling the incidents 'overblown.' Still, the network canceled Tucker Carlson's show in March and has diminished his role. And Dan Abrams, the veteran NBC legal analyst and former MSNBC general manager, had his program dropped last month to make room for Maddow, an Olbermann protege. MSNBC's more liberal outlook has boosted its ratings, though it remains the third-place cable news channel. But both parties began castigating its coverage last spring. Steve Schmidt, McCain's top strategist, called the network 'an organ of the Democratic National Committee,' and Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Matthews was 'in the tank' for Obama."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008.html

10/21/2009 2:24:03 PM

^ you asked, I answered. I'm sorry if I'm not as much of an alarmist as the people who were calling for Olbermann or Mathews' jobs. Fox News is a private company and can put whoever the hell they want on the air. I have a right not to watch if I don't like it, and I don't. The President has an equal right to reject interview requests from the people Fox News chooses to put on the air.

Hell, his administration even has a right to chastise Fox for it. Fox even said that they do, a year ago when Fox was cheerleading the Bush Administration's efforts against NBC.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002274/
Please pardon the source, but it's a video so you don't have to read a single evil Dailykos word.

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2009 2:30:33 PM

^ hooksaw is a troll, you should have known you were wasting your time going in. It's fun to wash him thrash about though, I must say.

10/21/2009 2:38:17 PM

I guess I'm just confused when I see people so comfortably sure that their side of the aisle just happens to have the least biased news outlets. Conservatives think Fox is the least biased, while liberals think NYT/MSNBC are the least biased.

I just stand back and shake my head at both of them... Partisans man... I never could get into the cult mentality.

10/21/2009 2:58:15 PM

if you go by that then the fox news watchers are just a tad above the average american

while apparently the watchers of all the other news orgs are such a small portion of the population they don't seem to affect the % at all...

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ^ but it's soo much fun to poke at BOTH!]

10/21/2009 3:02:52 PM

You all can draw as many parallels to MSNBC as you want. It doesn't matter.

They may well be equivalent in tactics/bias. They're entirely different when it comes to popularity and influence.

I pick on Fox not so much to prove they're biased, but to mock the fact that they're the intellectual soul of a major political party.

10/21/2009 4:09:40 PM

oh come on... conservatives think that huffington post and media matters is the soul of the democrat party.

like i said... no difference.

10/21/2009 4:14:03 PM

I saw on Fox & Friends this morning (worthless show, btw) the story about Kinston and the DOJ. Wow, what a spin-job they did on that piece. They completely neglected to mention why the DOJ was even entering in to the situation in the first place. It was just "ooooooh, Obama is trying to influence local elections now!!! oh noooooooooo!" What a load of shit.

Yes, the Kinston thing is a load of shit to begin with, but let's at least be half-way honest and admit that the Voting Rights Act is why the DOJ got involved in the first place, and NOT that Obama just wanted to be meddlin.

10/21/2009 4:14:57 PM

i mean, if Obama wanted to meddle, he wouldn't have let the new black panthers off the hook, right?

10/21/2009 4:25:13 PM

Quote :

"oh come on... conservatives think that huffington post and media matters is the soul of the democrat party."

No one thinks this. They think Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and Van Jones are the soul of the Democratic Party.

They'd be wrong either way, though.

10/21/2009 4:26:08 PM

maybe... doesn't change the fact that the referenced news piece wasn't an example of meddling

10/21/2009 4:26:34 PM

Quote :

"i mean, if Obama wanted to meddle, he wouldn't have let the new black panthers off the hook, right?"

You're not referring to the ones that Glenn Beck discovered were "mobilizing against us," right?

10/21/2009 4:53:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ&feature=player_embedded

Just a video going through a series of clips detailing Fox News' war against the White House, which started January 20th, 2009.

10/22/2009 7:48:59 PM

kinda sux to have a news organization questioning your every move, including what you had for breakfast. Now Obama sees how Bush felt, only he gets to experience about 1/5th of what Bush got.

10/22/2009 8:19:50 PM

^ QFT

10/22/2009 10:42:35 PM

Quote :

"Fox News' war against the White House"

You say that as if there is something inherently wrong with a channel taking an opposition stance to the White House.

10/22/2009 10:57:06 PM

God forbid anyone have the gall to speak truth to power... I guess only liberals should be allowed to ask tough questions of conservatives. But liberals should apparently never be questioned themselves

10/22/2009 11:13:02 PM

Quote :

"kinda sux to have a news organization questioning your every move, including what you had for breakfast. Now Obama sees how Bush felt, only he gets to experience about 1/5th of what Bush got."

Really?

That's why they were able to drum up support for the Iraq war on a phony premise, right? Because the media was asking too many tough questions?

Quote :

"You say that as if there is something inherently wrong with a channel taking an opposition stance to the White House."

I thought they were nonpartisan?

Quote :

"God forbid anyone have the gall to speak truth to power... I guess only liberals should be allowed to ask tough questions of conservatives. But liberals should apparently never be questioned themselves"

What truth?

10/22/2009 11:42:14 PM

Quote :

"That's why they were able to drum up support for the Iraq war on a phony premise, right? Because the media was asking too many tough questions?"

because dubya never faced any criticism after Iraq from the media

10/22/2009 11:44:49 PM

^^^Yeah, the problem is Fox isn't "speaking truth" or "asking tough questions" like a legitmate news organization should.

Unless you consider "The president is a socialist." as speaking the truth, or "Is the president a socialist?" asking tough questions.

Quote :

"You say that as if there is something inherently wrong with a channel taking an opposition stance to the White House."

When it claims to be an unbiased (fair and balanced) journalistic organization, yes.

[Edited on October 22, 2009 at 11:54 PM. Reason : ]

10/22/2009 11:54:05 PM

Freedom of the press means the press can report shit however they want, even if it's misleading to one side or the other. Fox, MSNBC and CNN all have their biases, and I think it's fairly well-established where each resides.

Fox's ratings are through the roof not because their reporting is qualitatively any better or worse, it's primarily because conservatives have found that as a mechanism to communicate with each other. They're out of power in Washington, so the TV machine is a logical place to stay in touch with their constituents. It's the market simply giving people something that they want. It's not for everyone.

Honestly, as amusing as it is to watch Olbermann/Maddow and Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity have their blowhard catfights, skeptical public scrutiny of what other networks are saying is generally a good thing.

10/22/2009 11:56:42 PM

Quote :

"^^^Yeah, the problem is Fox isn't "speaking truth" or "asking tough questions" like a legitmate news organization should. Unless you consider "The president is a socialist." as speaking the truth, or "Is the president a socialist?" asking tough questions."

Would you also consider fabricating an entire story for a 1-hour expose on 60-minutes on the eve of a presidential election to be "asking tough questions?" Both sides are full of shit. Get over it. Liberals have shit like CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CBS. Conservatives have fox. deal with it

10/23/2009 12:06:16 AM