Thread: Pitiful FOX Campaigns Against Obama

Originally Posted by USCitizen

Is the point of this thread FN constantly dissing Obama?

I've repeatedly asked what about the video link in the OP was factually incorrect. No takers. Therefore, it has been conclusively established that facts of Obama's record is now construed as dissing him. So, we moved to Liberal bias.

I've watched the video, now you know what my life has been like since 2006.
GW did it to STEM professionals and under Obama it's spread to others.
Hope everyone's having a good time.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

I've watched the video, now you know what my life has been like since 2006.
GW did it to STEM professionals and under Obama it's spread to others.
Hope everyone's having a good time.

LOL At what point do you take responsibility for your own action or those you support?

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Sure you do. I clearly stated the fact that you attributed to me something I had not said.

As to my argument, I explained my reasoning earlier. It was based on Chris Wallace's explanation of Fox's mission: "I think we’re the counterweight. I think that they have a liberal agenda and I think that we tell the other side of the story." That Chris Wallace said that is, of course, a fact. And he has admitted that Fox's mission is to push a conservative agenda. But pushing an agenda (which is different than having a bias) is not the job of a news organization, it is the job of a political organization.



Unless you count grammar.

How is Wallaces opinion a fact which backs up your opinion that "I said it is a political organization, not a news organization."

Whats a news organization if not an organization that reports news. Fox reports news, thus theyre a news organization.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

LOL At what point do you take responsibility for your own action or those you support?

Am I being addressed by a lifetime union member who is now receiving a paycheck based upon regulatory legislation?
Find a career completely separate and apart from tax money and influence and then you can comment.
I have 23 years in the private world, what the heck do you have?
And don't answer me with your usual deflections.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by jviehe

How is Wallaces opinion a fact which backs up your opinion that "I said it is a political organization, not a news organization."

Whats a news organization if not an organization that reports news. Fox reports news, thus theyre a news organization.

Qute honestly, jv, if you think FN is a news organization you're not looking for news anywhere else to compare.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I've repeatedly asked what about the video link in the OP was factually incorrect. No takers. Therefore, it has been conclusively established that facts of Obama's record is now construed as dissing him. So, we moved to Liberal bias.

Ok, there's the misleading graphic of the bag of money representing the debt. It says 10 Trillion - then. And 15.7 Trillion - now. And yet the 15.7 Trillion bag is twice as tall, presumably twice the width and twice the depth which would mean the bag actually holds 8x the volume. So the graphic was showing a bag which could hold $80 Trillion? It stated 15.7 Trillion on it, but if you actually showed a bag that holds 60% more money, it wouldn't be very much bigger by appearance. Not mentioned is how Reagan tripled the debt he started with and Bush doubled the debt he started with. The gas prices graphic gave no reference to prices being higher under bush just a few months before the election (and having dropped due to the low demand of winter), and yet if this was produced in april/may prices tend to drift upwards then. Throughout the piece they play emotionally dramatic music, and its 'fearful' music, the kind where something terrible and dramatic happens in movies. The foodstamps part was completely left in a vacuum. Why are there twice as many people on foodstamps. Is it because so many people are out of work? Is it because congress reduced qualifications for food stamps? Is helping to feed people when the jobless rate is 9% a good thing?

Lastly, where were Fox's pieces like this on Bush? And have they done one comparing Romney's beginning term as governor of MA compared with his end as governor? Have they covered the state's debt woes due to the unfunded mandates of Romneycare?

The bias of Fox is pervasive, literally every few minutes of every show every day Fox somehow is bashing Obama in one way or another.

Why is Fox's viewership high? First of all, remember the Daily Show beats fox in the same time slot....so Fox 'winning' is actually pretty pathetic by the numbers ... typically 1 in 100 or 1 in 300 Americans is watching depending on the time slot (while 40% of America is supposedly 'conservative').. Secondly they hire the hottest chicks. Thirdly, apparently conservative viewers like to commiserate together. They like to be told comforting things by other conservatives and hear fearful things about libruls.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

If you're looking for examples of op-eds in major newspapers criticizing a Democratic nominee with equally, or more, insulting language, I can certainly provide that. If you're looking for Maureen Dowd, specifically, doing that, I can provide that, too.

I'm still waiting but while we are on the subject.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The examples of Liberal bias just continue as they are never ending. From the New York Times June 2, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/op...1&ref=opinion:



See? Obama is dazzling and legendary and “the best communicator in campaign history”. Romney is lame.

Let's get a two-tail comparison here. Besides showing your intellectual honesty in showing when the MSM ever called a Democrat nominee lame, when did the MSM ever call a Republican nominee a legendary speaker?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Ok, there's the misleading graphic of the bag of money representing the debt. It says 10 Trillion - then. And 15.7 Trillion - now. And yet the 15.7 Trillion bag is twice as tall, presumably twice the width and twice the depth which would mean the bag actually holds 8x the volume. So the graphic was showing a bag which could hold $80 Trillion? It stated 15.7 Trillion on it, but ... Not mentioned is how Reagan tripled the debt

That's pretty weak. The bag showing the increase in debt was too big? I thought they were showing time in the distance and the bag was merely closer to the view of the camera.

In other words, there is nothing presented in the video that is factually incorrect about Obama. Reagan is not running and neither is Bush. LOL

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Ok, there's the misleading graphic of the bag of money representing the debt. It says 10 Trillion - then. And 15.7 Trillion - now. And yet the 15.7 Trillion bag is twice as tall, presumably twice the width and twice the depth which would mean the bag actually holds 8x the volume. So the graphic was showing a bag which could hold $80 Trillion? It stated 15.7 Trillion on it, but if you actually showed a bag that holds 60% more money, it wouldn't be very much bigger by appearance. Not mentioned is how Reagan tripled the debt he started with and Bush doubled the debt he started with. The gas prices graphic gave no reference to prices being higher under bush just a few months before the election (and having dropped due to the low demand of winter), and yet if this was produced in april/may prices tend to drift upwards then. Throughout the piece they play emotionally dramatic music, and its 'fearful' music, the kind where something terrible and dramatic happens in movies. The foodstamps part was completely left in a vacuum. Why are there twice as many people on foodstamps. Is it because so many people are out of work? Is it because congress reduced qualifications for food stamps? Is helping to feed people when the jobless rate is 9% a good thing?

Lastly, where were Fox's pieces like this on Bush? And have they done one comparing Romney's beginning term as governor of MA compared with his end as governor? Have they covered the state's debt woes due to the unfunded mandates of Romneycare?

The bias of Fox is pervasive, literally every few minutes of every show every day Fox somehow is bashing Obama in one way or another.

Why is Fox's viewership high? First of all, remember the Daily Show beats fox in the same time slot....so Fox 'winning' is actually pretty pathetic by the numbers ... typically 1 in 100 or 1 in 300 Americans is watching depending on the time slot (while 40% of America is supposedly 'conservative').. Secondly they hire the hottest chicks. Thirdly, apparently conservative viewers like to commiserate together. They like to be told comforting things by other conservatives and hear fearful things about libruls.

mwow talk about grasping the bag is bigger than it should be i know this because i got a micrometer out and then took the measurments took it to nasa and theyy said the bag sould have been 2 mm smaller than the one fox posted so that means fox is biased all based on the bag that i had to spend 100 hours figuring out that it was to big.
how pathatic. and if you ever actaully watched fox you would see yes they have critized romney for everything you mention and the have done the same to bush and gingrich ect.
the only difrence is that tehy also do the same to obma and theother libs and that is what libs cant stand. they belive that only conservitves get critisim and libs get none.
look at teh budget they blame the repubs and the news goes right along with it all ignore the fact that it is the dems inthe senate that have not putout one budget or let one be voted on.

Originally Posted by sailorman126

mwow talk about grasping the bag is bigger than it should be i know this because i got a micrometer out and then took the measurments took it to nasa and theyy said the bag sould have been 2 mm smaller than the one fox posted so that means fox is biased all based on the bag that i had to spend 100 hours figuring out that it was to big.

If you need a micrometer to see a factor of two difference in height, you have a perception problem. To be valid, the 'now' bag should be 17% taller than the 'then' bag. Hopefully you don't contact NASA for routine volume calculations, since they teach volume calculation in 4th grade nowadays.

how pathatic. and if you ever actaully watched fox you would see yes they have critized romney for everything you mention and the have done the same to bush and gingrich ect.

Links? I do actually watch Fox occasionally you know. Saying one or two phrases critical of a republican while devoting 98% of the day being critical of Obama and the dems is biased reporting. Saying Fox isn't biased towards republicans is like saying MSNBC isn't biased towards dems. You can say it, but it makes you look ridiculous. And yes, MSNBC is critical of Obama too. But one criticism of Obama by them doesn't mean I think they're not biased in Obama's favor.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Can you provide link that said that or are you talking from your own ass?

If you'll recall, I said: "In 2008, when Obama was running for office, which is why the conventional wisdom was that Obama needed to pick a vice president who would confer gravitas on his campaign."

From NPR, discussing Jim Webb as a possible VP pick:

And he fills in Obama's perceived lack of foreign policy expertise and gravitas.

From The Wall Street Journal two days after Obama picked Biden:

When the Washington Post two days later asked a group of "political experts" for their thoughts on Mr. Biden, the superlatives were flowing. These descriptions included "unassailable foreign policy credentials," "good-natured, serious, and truly qualified," "the political maturity and foreign policy gravitas [Obama] lacks," and so on.

Exactly! They pulled out the word gravitas specially for W. And what was your reply to the frequency the MSM uses the term "right wing" in comparison to "left wing?

My reply was that the link you posted did not say anything of the frequency of the MSM's uses of the term "right wing" in comparison to "left wing," leading me to believe that you made the 150:1 ratio up.

What was your reply to the MSM treating the facts justifying Clinton's impeachment EQUAL to opinion in defense? Oh yea, just ignore evidence that violates your confirmation bias.

What evidence? The "precedent" to Clinton's impeachment from the year 2009? That evidence?

In any case, I reject your characterization that that is what happened. Or, more to the point, much of what was being debated were differing legal opinions, which was perfectly appropriate. And obviously, since you cannot separate an impeachment of a president from politics, that was a perfectly fair topic to explore.

Now who is being silly?

I guess that would still be you, since Maureen Dowd is unquestionably an opinion columnist.

Click on this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

And you'll find the words "The Opinion Pages" over Maureen Dowd's column.

What's more interesting than your inability to distinguish a news article from an opinion piece, though, is your inability to realize that while, yes, Dowd did use the word "lame" in reference to Romney… she did so in the context of a piece that was extremely critical of Obama. Two pages of criticizing Obama and all you notice is one negative word about Romney (in a sentence where she actually agrees with him). Clearly, your confirmation bias has entered Stage 4.

Great! I look forward to examples of the MSM referring to a Democratic nominee as lame and worse.

Maureen Dowd has referred to Obama as "effete," "the diffident debutante" and "America's pretty boy" and in 2008 repeatedly derided him as "Obambi."

Of Al Gore she once said: "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct that he's practically lactating."

And on August 27, 2004, Maureen Dowd was interviewed on Letterman and the following exchange took place:

LETTERMAN: Just tell me your thoughts generally about the Democratic candidate. What about John Kerry? What comes to your mind there?

DOWD: Lame. I think, uh, [laughs] very, very lame [winces].

Althouse: "Lame."

So I have now shown that Maureen Dowd herself has not only called Democratic candidates things as bad, or worse, than "lame," she also used the word "lame" to refer to a Democratic candidate. I have successfully answered your challenge. And your response to this will say a lot about your integrity.

From NPR, discussing Jim Webb as a possible VP pick:

And he fills in Obama's perceived lack of foreign policy expertise and gravitas.

From The Wall Street Journal

Intellectual honesty: I asked for links and you failed to provide links.

LETTERMAN:

Yea, I notice you have to go to the comedy section in a desperate attempt to prove your point. How about apples to apples? You keep making a distinction without a difference that Dowd is an opinion piece writer. Did she call a Democrat nominee lame in that genre or just when making jokes and not part of her actual job of writing/being a journalist.

What was your reply to the MSM treating the facts justifying Clinton's impeachment EQUAL to opinion in defense? Oh yea, just ignore evidence that violates your confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

What evidence? The "precedent" to Clinton's impeachment from the year 2009? That evidence?

In any case, I reject your characterization that that is what happened. Or, more to the point, much of what was being debated were differing legal opinions, which was perfectly appropriate.

Again, you are comparing two things as EQUAL that are not equal, facts to opinions. The fact is there is a precedent people in the federal government were impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of justice involving sexual harassment. That is an important fact the media glossed over to a supportive, legal (very important word coming up here) OPINION that it was a witch hunt, which is what you originally said was the opinion before adding the authoritative word legal to mere opinion.

Then to remove all doubt about the seriousness of the facts of the matter, the media changed the subject altogether. They mainly did not discuss the facts of the matter or the facts of precedent but talked about a Monica BJ as if that were the reason for impeachment! And you still deny this is even evidence of bias. In a way you are right, this is evidence of advancing an agenda!