Interesting Little Tidbit About Faux News

1. Quite honestly, I wouldn't have cared if George W Bush lied under oath if he was a half way decent president/man/homosapien. People LIE every day. If you haven't come to terms with that, you're more naïve than I am.
Doing it under oath is a CRIME. I guess since you think he was a decent guy we can overlook the fact that he BROKE THE LAW and got CAUGHT.
2. Because he has the ability to predict the future. The market was good, there was no reason for them to NOT make those loans. While this is a rather severe case, this is still just the ebb and flow of an economic market.
He made Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do it because no regular bank would touch these folks. Maybe there is a reason for that. You obviously have no concept of economics because you called this current economic crisis as "normal ebb and flow". Wow. I can't even begin to answer that.
3. I'd rather take NO action than take the WRONG action. Seeing as how the WRONG action (invading the wrong FRIGGIN' COUNTRY) has led to the unnecessary deaths of COUNTLESS men and women both in the United States military and the militaries of those FEW countries who decided the US was worth at least ATTEMPTING to help.
So his omission cost the lives of 3000 Americans. Which precipitated the events leading to the invasion. But I guess you probably think we deserved it too.
I wish the other side of the aisle would give me something to praise. I wait with bated breath for the day when I can say, "He/She's got that right." about a conservative. I fear I will die before that day comes.
Open your eyes. There are good things happening on both sides of the aisle. You just hate conservatives so much you can't see it.
 
Doing it under oath is a CRIME. I guess since you think he was a decent guy we can overlook the fact that he BROKE THE LAW and got CAUGHT.
Hokie, before pointing out the speck in your neighbors eye, be sure to remove the plank from your own. Or perhaps you like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" metaphor. Have you ever lied before? Lying is a SIN. Would you rather be a criminal or a SINNER?!?!? WHOOOOOOHHHHH. Laws are broken every day. Are these people prosecuted for it? NO. Lying about a ******* is NOT a big deal comparatively. How about fabricating a story about Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify invading a country?!!?!?! WHERE'S THE CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR GEORGE ****ING BUSH!?

GAHH!! You conservatives are so OBLIVIOUS to the crimes of your own people that you completely ignore historical facts just because they point to your side looking like a bunch of closed minded, ignorant, power-hungry *******S who have no concern for anyone but themselves!
He made Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do it because no regular bank would touch these folks. Maybe there is a reason for that. You obviously have no concept of economics because you called this current economic crisis as "normal ebb and flow". Wow. I can't even begin to answer that.
Which amounts to the exact amount of a hill of beans. GREAT REBUTTLE.
So his omission cost the lives of 3000 Americans. Which precipitated the events leading to the invasion. But I guess you probably think we deserved it too.
Perhaps you failed basic mathematics, but if you take the number of people who died on September 11th and compare it to the number of (just American, mind you) soldiers we have lost in the Global War on Terror b******t that King George has put us through, the GWOT wins out... SUBSTANTIALLY. And what's the worst part of all of it? WE STILL HAVEN'T CAUGHT THE BASTARD.
Open your eyes. There are good things happening on both sides of the aisle. You just hate conservatives so much you can't see it.
Yet you fail to list ONE EXAMPLE. That's VERY comforting.
 
Hokie, before pointing out the speck in your neighbors eye, be sure to remove the plank from your own. Or perhaps you like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" metaphor. Have you ever lied before? Lying is a SIN. Would you rather be a criminal or a SINNER?!?!? WHOOOOOOHHHHH. Laws are broken every day. Are these people prosecuted for it? NO. Lying about a ******* is NOT a big deal comparatively. How about fabricating a story about Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify invading a country?!!?!?! WHERE'S THE CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR GEORGE ****ING BUSH!?

GAHH!! You conservatives are so OBLIVIOUS to the crimes of your own people that you completely ignore historical facts just because they point to your side looking like a bunch of closed minded, ignorant, power-hungry *******S who have no concern for anyone but themselves!
Which amounts to the exact amount of a hill of beans. GREAT REBUTTLE.
Perhaps you failed basic mathematics, but if you take the number of people who died on September 11th and compare it to the number of (just American, mind you) soldiers we have lost in the Global War on Terror b******t that King George has put us through, the GWOT wins out... SUBSTANTIALLY. And what's the worst part of all of it? WE STILL HAVEN'T CAUGHT THE BASTARD.
Yet you fail to list ONE EXAMPLE. That's VERY comforting.
Has Hokie lied under Oath? big difference. As far as the hill of beans, yes it's big. Clinton Admin, under pressure from ACORN, forced banks to reduce Standards for loans. Huge numbers got loans that couldn't afford them & that's why we had the housing meltdown. McCain & others tried to fix the problem only to be denounced as Racists by Barney Frank & the Dems blocked any fix. Interesting how Frank blamed the Reps in the last election for a problem he was elemental in. Iraq used WMDs against the Kurds & Iranians. What happened to them is a mystery. Osama got away when cornered because the Army didn't send in even the troops available, muchless bringing in the 10th or 82nd when he was cornered.
 
Hokie, before pointing out the speck in your neighbors eye, be sure to remove the plank from your own. Or perhaps you like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" metaphor. Have you ever lied before? Lying is a SIN. Would you rather be a criminal or a SINNER?!?!? WHOOOOOOHHHHH. Laws are broken every day. Are these people prosecuted for it? NO. Lying about a ******* is NOT a big deal comparatively. How about fabricating a story about Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify invading a country?!!?!?! WHERE'S THE CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR GEORGE ****ING BUSH!?

Has Hokie lied under Oath? big difference. As far as the hill of beans, yes it's big. Clinton Admin, under pressure from ACORN, forced banks to reduce Standards for loans.

George it is obvious that Rob believes lying is a completely normal everyday occurrence. It may well be where our society is headed. He is naive in believing everyone lies. He will not accept that their are honest people.

He tries to justify lying by pointing at others. He does not understand that most people would want any politician caught lying, to be removed from office regardless of party. It is not a Republican vs Democrat issue.
 
As for the news part, I'm more in agreement with mmarsh. As with the Clinton stuff, I believe HokieMSG is correct. He did lie under oath. His actions damaged the reputation and security of the United States.
 
Has Hokie lied under Oath? big difference. As far as the hill of beans, yes it's big. Clinton Admin, under pressure from ACORN, forced banks to reduce Standards for loans. Huge numbers got loans that couldn't afford them & that's why we had the housing meltdown. McCain & others tried to fix the problem only to be denounced as Racists by Barney Frank & the Dems blocked any fix. Interesting how Frank blamed the Reps in the last election for a problem he was elemental in. Iraq used WMDs against the Kurds & Iranians. What happened to them is a mystery. Osama got away when cornered because the Army didn't send in even the troops available, muchless bringing in the 10th or 82nd when he was cornered.
Ah, so it's okay to lie as long as we promise not to? LOL. George, how many times have promises been broken in the world? What if Clinton was an Atheist? Does the phrase "So help me God" really mean anything to him?

WMDs were still not the reason we invaded the Middle East. We invaded the Middle East to search and destroy Osama Bin Laden. George Bush II took the opportunity to settle a grudge that his father had with Sadam Hussein. Anything else you say about our intentions to invade Iraq is a LIE.

George it is obvious that Rob believes lying is a completely normal everyday occurrence. It may well be where our society is headed. He is naive in believing everyone lies. He will not accept that their are honest people.
Chukpike, you CANNOT tell me 100% truthfully that you have never lied in your life. That itself is a lie. There are people who are more honest than not, but no one has told the entire truth and nothing but the truth for their entire lives. They do not exist. I guarantee it.

He tries to justify lying by pointing at others. He does not understand that most people would want any politician caught lying, to be removed from office regardless of party. It is not a Republican vs Democrat issue.
Again, do you believe that politicians tell the whole truth 100% of the time (Republican or Democrat, you made it a party issue, not me)?

Because if that's the case, you need to be put into a home. You're going senile on us.
 
Comments by all are straying far from the Topic of the thread which is " Is Fox NEWS biased". Please stick to the topic @ hand.
 
Comments by all are straying far from the Topic of the thread which is " Is Fox NEWS biased". Please stick to the topic @ hand.

Actually, that is not the topic.

The article is about possible Presidential candidates not being available on an equal access basis to networks other than Fox. Because they have contracts with FOX and must get permission to talk to other media.

It is not the big deal this article tries to paint. When they announce their candidacy the will have to end their connection to Fox, as the article says:

"Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network."

It should also be noted that the article is an opinion piece and not straight news. While the article was linked to Yahoo News it came from POLITICO.

http://www.politico.com/
 
Actually we say the same about NBC, CBS, ABC , CNN, MSNBC. They are all Lib biased. They might not be blantant, sometimes they are. Somertimes they slip little negative words into a comment that would ghave positive little words if it had been about a Lib. a positive spin on the 5% unemployment when clinton seeked reelection & negative spin on Bush's 5% when he ran for reelection. Amazing how Libs whine about the only channel they don't controll vs all the ones they do. Just drives em nuts not having every one. What network did Steponopolis to to directly from the White House?

No they really aren't. The problem with the conservatives is that they have very thin skin, anytime the media is slightly critical of a conservative its obviously the result of media bias. Not that perhaps conservatives might have done something bad. If the media points out Clinton created 40 Million jobs and Bush only created 2 Million thats called a FACT and not bias. Dont like the anology? run better candidates.

Let me show you what is BIAS.

1. Manipulating facts. For example labeling unpopular Republican politicans in the hot seat as Democrats to try and shift blame. As you see here: For get the text look at the photo. None of the other channals do this

http://mediamatters.org/research/200610130010

2. Using GOP talking points as actual News

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/fox-passed-of-gop-talking_n_165720.html

4. Only Allowing one sided representation of a story. Do not allow the other side a fair chance to respond by interrupting, baiting, quickly changing the topic, feign technical difficulties, or if you are really desperate to silence the opposition cut off the mic.

I know you probably don't watch much Olberman or Maddow but if you did you'd see how they regularly they BLAST the democrats and the White House. Which brings up another bias, the extreme rarity of FOX to actual criticize the GOP.
 
Actually, that is not the topic.

The article is about possible Presidential candidates not being available on an equal access basis to networks other than Fox. Because they have contracts with FOX and must get permission to talk to other media.

It is not the big deal this article tries to paint. When they announce their candidacy the will have to end their connection to Fox, as the article says:

"Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network."

It should also be noted that the article is an opinion piece and not straight news. While the article was linked to Yahoo News it came from POLITICO.

http://www.politico.com/
Actually, the moderator has it right. The topic is the bias of Fox News, a statement supported by the facts presented in the article. While the candidate who announces his or her intentions to run for the office, they will have to sever the deal, the fact that in the time leading up to that decision they are forbidden from appearing on any other news program shows that Fox News has EXTREME bias towards the GOP. Reiterated again by the million dollar donation Fox gave to the GOP not too long ago.
 
Actually, the moderator has it right. The topic is the bias of Fox News, a statement supported by the facts presented in the article. While the candidate who announces his or her intentions to run for the office, they will have to sever the deal, the fact that in the time leading up to that decision they are forbidden from appearing on any other news program shows that Fox News has EXTREME bias towards the GOP. Reiterated again by the million dollar donation Fox gave to the GOP not too long ago.

Rob, I have no problem with what Foxnews is doing. Just like I would have no problem if CNN or MSNBC or ANY OTHER network did the smae thing.
When you are hired by a company you are expected to work for them only and if you want to work for another company (especially a competitor) you have to get permission.
I find it surprising that you have a problem with this.

Can you provide a source for this million dollar donation to the GOP?

FYI Rob, in
Time Warner owns CNN, News Corp owns Fox News
2008 Time Warner contributed a total of $2,493,229 (82% to Dems, 18% to Reps)
2008 News Corp contributed a total of $1,070,786 (88% Dem, 12% Rep)
2010 Time Warner has contributed $631,480 (86% Dem, 14% Rep)
2010 News Corp has contributed $223,258 (71% Dem, 26% Rep)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=B02&cycle=2010


Find that interesting that this supposed "Conservative" company contributed more to the Dems than the Republicans.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. I've always been under the impression that the politicians worked for the people. NOT JUST their party.

Again I go back to my issue with elected officials running for another office while still holding the office they were elected to. They cannot serve their constituents while campaigning.

Since the individuals working for Foxnews have not declared and are not currently holding office, they are not yet working for the people. Once they declare their intention to run, their contracts are terminated.
I cannot see a conflict of interest here.

BTW politicians should work for their people irrespective of the parties wishes.

Still waiting on the source you referred to earlier.
 
Apologies. I'm in class on my phone. Will reply more thoroughly later.
Rob, I have no problem with what Foxnews is doing. Just like I would have no problem if CNN or MSNBC or ANY OTHER network did the smae thing.
When you are hired by a company you are expected to work for them only and if you want to work for another company (especially a competitor) you have to get permission.
I find it surprising that you have a problem with this.
I have a problem with Fox News having written contracts with every major Republican hopeful candidate for president (note the distinct absence of anything close to a Democratic hopeful, another instance of bias, but who's counting?). I have a problem with current political players only playing on one side. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sheeple who actually adhere to Fox News as "news," I'd say they were stupid for not putting themselves out on as many networks as possible. If they are unable to appear on other news shows without expressed permission from Fox, how will they get the word out to those ever important swing voters? I guarantee you they're not going to take anything said on Fox seriously. Better to find a more widespread broadcast.
Can you provide a source for this million dollar donation to the GOP?
Why certainly. :)
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-in-governors-races-as-funding-hits-peak.html

Interesting... He also mentions a donation by the largest health insurance company to the Republican party... I wonder why Republicans are digging in their heels for universal coverage... Oh, maybe it's because they would lose their biggest piggy bank! Yet another example of how selfish they are.
FYI Rob, in
Time Warner owns CNN, News Corp owns Fox News
2008 Time Warner contributed a total of $2,493,229 (82% to Dems, 18% to Reps)
2008 News Corp contributed a total of $1,070,786 (88% Dem, 12% Rep)
2010 Time Warner has contributed $631,480 (86% Dem, 14% Rep)
2010 News Corp has contributed $223,258 (71% Dem, 26% Rep)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=B02&cycle=2010


Find that interesting that this supposed "Conservative" company contributed more to the Dems than the Republicans.
That is interesting. Funny how Republicans seem to not need as much money as Democrats. But, aren't Democrats the ones who have been feed with the silver spoon for their entire lives? Aren't DEMOCRATS supposed to be the spoiled, undeserving brats who have never had to really work a day in their lives? Aren't REPUBLICANS supposed to be the blue collar, hard working, hands on types of people? This breakdown would seem to prove otherwise. Thanks for posting, Hokie. ;)
 
Last edited:
Apologies. I'm in class on my phone. Will reply more thoroughly later.
I have a problem with Fox News having written contracts with every major Republican hopeful candidate for president (note the distinct absence of anything close to a Democratic hopeful, another instance of bias, but who's counting?). I have a problem with current political players only playing on one side. Quite frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that most of the sheeple who actually adhere to Fox News as "news," I'd say they were stupid for not putting themselves out on as many networks as possible. If they are unable to appear on other news shows without expressed permission from Fox, how will they get the word out to those ever important swing voters? I guarantee you they're not going to take anything said on Fox seriously. Better to find a more widespread broadcast.
It's business Rob. Just business. Are you saying that the fairness doctrine should be applied? Rob, maybe we should revisit this discussion after you have graduated and worked for a little while. Your perspective might change.
You seem to have missed that labor contributed $4.4 million to the Dems. About 3 times what was contributed to the Republicans.
You are also misleading folks. These contributions are for the governors races NOT the presidential campaigns as you implied.

Interesting... He also mentions a donation by the largest health insurance company to the Republican party... I wonder why Republicans are digging in their heels for universal coverage... Oh, maybe it's because they would lose their biggest piggy bank! Yet another example of how selfish they are.
That is interesting. Funny how Republicans seem to not need as much money as Democrats. But, aren't Democrats the ones who have been feed with the silver spoon for their entire lives? Aren't DEMOCRATS supposed to be the spoiled, undeserving brats who have never had to really work a day in their lives? Aren't REPUBLICANS supposed to be the blue collar, hard working, hands on types of people? This breakdown would seem to prove otherwise. Thanks for posting, Hokie. ;)

I think since according to the source you provided, Republicans have more money in the bank, that Republicans are more frugal with their money than the Dems. Yet another example that the Dems generally have NO fiscal discipline. So it would seem that your point has been disproven by the source you yourself provided. Interesting. If you are following the Dem's playbook (as I suspect you are), now is the time to call me a Racist or a Nazi.
 
It's business Rob. Just business. Are you saying that the fairness doctrine should be applied? Rob, maybe we should revisit this discussion after you have graduated and worked for a little while. Your perspective might change.
Ah, so now the people IN the government participate in a business, but the government itself is NOT business? I'm confuzzled. But I'm not entering the traditional workforce. I'm going into music. It's a whole nother ball game there.
You seem to have missed that labor contributed $4.4 million to the Dems. About 3 times what was contributed to the Republicans.
You are also misleading folks. These contributions are for the governors races NOT the presidential campaigns as you implied.
Excuse me? Exactly where did I differentiate between Republicans running for governor and Republicans running for president? The GOP is the GOP, whether it is at the city, state, or national level.

The fact still remains that News Corporation donated $1,000,000 to the Republican Governors Association. Now, when a news corporation wishes to be "fair and balanced," wouldn't one hope that that would mean NOT donating significant amounts to ONE party over the other? Or am I too young and naïve to understand that, as well?

I think since according to the source you provided, Republicans have more money in the bank, that Republicans are more frugal with their money than the Dems. Yet another example that the Dems generally have NO fiscal discipline. So it would seem that your point has been disproven by the source you yourself provided. Interesting. If you are following the Dem's playbook (as I suspect you are), now is the time to call me a Racist or a Nazi.
Or I could say that Republicans are the more wealthy, upper crust of society that doesn't want to lose it's hard earned (read: inherited) money to the folks on "the other side of the tracks."


Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, what exactly was "my point" that was disproven by my source? That News Corporation somehow DIDN'T donate 1 million dollars to the GOP? I'm fairly certain that is no longer up for contention, and you are simply attempting to twist the topic away from your precious "news channel" looking like less and less of a source for unbiased information and more like a source for radical right wing diatribe spewing 24/7.
 
Ah, so now the people IN the government participate in a business, but the government itself is NOT business? I'm confuzzled. But I'm not entering the traditional workforce. I'm going into music. It's a whole nother ball game there.

You're confuzzled? You are entering one of the most corrupt industries there is. Music industry where record producers shoot each other. Cheating on royalties is common place, and entertainment politics gets you work, or gets you black balled.

The music industry makes politicians look like (pardon the pun) choir boys.:lol:

The entertainment industry does look like a good fit for you, although it looks like comedy would be a better choice.

I almost always find your posts entertaining.:smile:


Or I could say that Republicans are the more wealthy, upper crust of society that doesn't want to lose it's hard earned (read: inherited) money to the folks on "the other side of the tracks."

Ever here of Franklin D Roosevelt? Theodore Roosevelt?

Nixon, born into wealth. no.
Reagan, born into wealth. no.

You need to learn to rely less on propaganda and more on verifiable information.
 
Ah, so now the people IN the government participate in a business, but the government itself is NOT business? I'm confuzzled. But I'm not entering the traditional workforce. I'm going into music. It's a whole nother ball game there.
Excuse me? Exactly where did I differentiate between Republicans running for governor and Republicans running for president? The GOP is the GOP, whether it is at the city, state, or national level.
Rob, That is the point I'm trying to make here. Elected officials ARE working for the government and should not run for another office while holding an elected office. The contributors for Fox are not yet part of the government. They are private citizens. Once they declare their contracts are terminated. This has all been gone over before. You have a complete lack of understanding of this distinction and I will not revisit this as I am having better luck talking to a brick wall.
The fact still remains that News Corporation donated $1,000,000 to the Republican Governors Association. Now, when a news corporation wishes to be "fair and balanced," wouldn't one hope that that would mean NOT donating significant amounts to ONE party over the other? Or am I too young and naïve to understand that, as well?
What about organized labor? What about Time Warner? They own CNN and Time magazine. You have no problem with them contributing to the Dems in greater amounts than News Corp did? So yes I do consider you naive because Time Warner gave greater than 80% of its contributions to Dems in both 2008 and 2010.
Or I could say that Republicans are the more wealthy, upper crust of society that doesn't want to lose it's hard earned (read: inherited) money to the folks on "the other side of the tracks."
Ahhh. Here we go. Pretty soon you will be advocating wealth redistibution.
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, what exactly was "my point" that was disproven by my source? That News Corporation somehow DIDN'T donate 1 million dollars to the GOP? I'm fairly certain that is no longer up for contention, and you are simply attempting to twist the topic away from your precious "news channel" looking like less and less of a source for unbiased information and more like a source for radical right wing diatribe spewing 24/7.

Rob, In the article you quoted, as I pointed out, the Dems got almost 3x as much money in the same period.

Big Democratic givers for the governors’ races include two Washington-based labor groups, the Service Employees International Union, which donated $1.1 million, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which contributed $3.3 million.

Rob you are obviously taking this a lot more personally than I am. I'm just trying to point out that your arguments don't hold water. I'll bet you watch foxnews more than I do.
 
Back
Top