Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 96

Thread: Finally, Fox News becomes fair and balanced

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by marano View Post
    Why don't you see if you can get him banned for putting down fox news?
    I would NEVER want IJF banned. He, and his viewpoint, is a valued and vital component to our community, and I (for one) am quite glad he's here to offer it.

    Your post above seems to condem such things but I seem to remember being banned about a week ago for posting things you guys don't like.
    You are (IMO) a worthless troll, whose offered less then nothing since he came here, refused to follow proper board rules about thread spam and topic repetition, ignored a mod, then cried about it. You deserved your ban, and I hope you either choose to depart this community back to the strip where you belong, or shape up and actually be productive, like IJF and many other liberals, are.

    Also, I cannot "get you banned". I am not a Mod, havn't been in a long time, and the mods now value my view about as much as any other random poster. You were banned not because of me, but because of you. Take some personal responsabillity, see the mistake you made, and shape up (or leave, either way).
    Last edited by Warfish; 11-28-2012 at 10:15 AM.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by acepepe View Post
    An ambassador was murdered, the administration flat out lied about the events and it's " nothing to see here?"
    IGF, You're a man of history, (albeit shaded) Answer this, what was Watergate about and what was Nixon's role in the break-in?
    There are 3 major issues here; Stupidity, lying, or incompetence.
    Which is it or what combination???
    Fair question;

    I believe the administration tamped down the terror angle for political purposes with the election occurring shortly. That is the "conspiracy" that took place and it is shady. But it is not watergate, not even close. Nothing illegal took place and that sentiment was echoed by non-Obama people like Paul Wolfowitz;


    In a blog post, George W. Bush administration deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who helped lead the 2003 U.S. charge into Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, declared that “the U.S. did almost everything possible to protect our people” from the attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    In his post on the Web site of the American Enterprise Institute, the neo-conservative equivalent of the Vatican, Wolfowitz said that after “talking with someone who has spoken directly with key general officers and others involved in the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks,” he concluded that:
    – “The Consulate was overrun in a matter of minutes, before any help was possible.”
    – “Decision makers in Washington appear to have been leaning forward, as they should have been. The military’s most capable rescue force, based on the East Coast, was deployed immediately (something that is very rarely done), but –- given the distances involved –- arrived” at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Sigonella in Sicily “only after the crisis was over.”
    – Contrary to claims on numerous conservative Web sites: “There was no AC-130 gunship in the region.”
    (Defense Department spokesman George Little told Bloomberg the same thing yesterday in an e-mail.)
    – Shooting down another conservative attack line: “The only drone available in Libya was an unarmed surveillance drone which was quickly moved from Darna to Benghazi, but the field of view of these drones is limited and, in any case, this one was not armed.”

    – In yet another counterattack on Benghazi conspiracy theorists: “The only other assets immediately available were F-16 fighter jets based at Aviano, Italy. These aircraft might have reached Benghazi while the fight at the Annex was still going on, but they would have had difficulty pinpointing hostile mortar positions or distinguishing between friendly and hostile militias in the midst of a confused firefight in a densely populated residential area where there would have been a high likelihood of civilian casualties. While two more Americans were tragically killed by a mortar strike on the Annex, it’s not clear that deploying F-16’s would have prevented that.”

    “If all of this is true,” Wolfowitz concludes, “then it would appear that the U.S. national security team was doing everything they thought possible to protect the Americans in Benghazi.”

    “I did defend Obama officials against the charge that they knowingly abandoned Americans who were in danger, but I also said in the same article that they deserved to be criticized for `persistent misleading comments about the motives of the attackers.”’ Wolfowitz wrote in an email to us after this posting appeared. “That was a reference not only to the comments of our U.N. Ambassador but also to the Secretary of State and the President himself.”

    In the article Wolfowitz still blames the Obama administration for its credibility problem, calling it “the result of a general lack of transparency and particularly of the fact that senior officials, including the president and the secretary of state, persisted for so long in offering the American people misleading suggestions that the attacks in Benghazi were a response to an obscure anti-Islamic video.”

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    is and always has been libertarian. Maybe he now sees the dangers that Dems/libs pose to his way of life....
    I'd agree. On immigration I remain ultra-right wing tbh. On social issues, ultra-left wing. On finance.....I'm waffling some. Still generally hard right, but I'm beginning to think the answer to some problems is not "stop the Government" but "guide it better", since realisticly Govt. is already so ultra-powerful here that it cannot and will not ever be stopped or reduced in power over us.

    I'm even thinking of supporting Universal Healthcare. I honestly can see the good side of it, as well as the bad, in real world terms.

  4. #44
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,581
    Quote Originally Posted by marano View Post
    Why don't you see if you can get him banned for putting down fox news? Your post above seems to condem such things but I seem to remember being banned about a week ago for posting things you guys don't like.
    Are you really that dense?

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,960
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotReign View Post
    Surely you're not implying that lower ratings absolves MSNBC of hypocrisy. The audience size observation is irrelevant. Fox and MSNBC are one in the same, no "yeah but..." arguments mitigate their respective biases.
    I disagree on the bolded point. I think it's a false equivalency, much like saying an ant is stronger than a human because it can lift more times its body weight.

    They are both biased, for-profit news corporations, but that's where the similarities end. Audience size is certainly relevant. One clearly influences on a much bigger scale than the other due to their respective audience sizes. They are not even close to being one in the same in terms of societal impact.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    I disagree on the bolded point. I think it's a false equivalency, much like saying an ant is stronger than a human because it can lift more times its body weight.

    They are both biased, for-profit news corporations, but that's where the similarities end. Audience size is certainly relevant.
    It's absolutely relevant. But not in the argument abour bias in media.

    What people choose to partake of is just that, their choice. It means absolutely nothing in terms of the bias in coverage of a news organization, bias that exists regardless of viewership or not.

    If the debate is over "influence", thats one thing. If the debate is about "bias", it's another. Fox and MSNBC are both equally (or close) biased.

    If the debate is influence, then we must broaden the scope to include not just FOX and MSNBC (an artificially small set), but all media as a whole, and how baised each media agent is.

    In such a case, while FOX is a strong bias, right-wing agent, and MSNBC is a far smaller left-wing agent, MSNBC is not alone. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, etc, etc, etc, are all left-biased, from weakly to in some cases very strongly. FOX has some allies on the right (Radio, Washington Times, for example), but their market share is far smaller outside of FOX.

    As such, the influence of left-wing media remains stronger, in the aggregate, than that of right-wing media. The difference is, one must choose FOX (or Rush/Hannity/Levin on radio) to get right-wing.

    They only have to turn on a TV or read a newspaper to get left-wing, as it's almost universal everywhere else. Given the mainstream demonization of FOX, the societal impact of left wing as a whole is still stronger than right-wing.

  7. #47
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475

    Thumbs up

    Could not have said it better Warfish.

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    If the debate is over "influence", thats one thing. If the debate is about "bias", it's another. Fox and MSNBC are both equally (or close) biased.
    Agreed, I was just trying to clarify my original point about audience size. In my mind, the topic goes much deeper than simply comparing bias levels on the surface.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotReign View Post
    Could not have said it better Warfish.
    Well, I could have added that a closely-related, but non-media source of bias is Hollywood/Television/Music/FM Radio. These industries are also dominated, almost in the whole, by left-leaning personalities.

    And while media certainly has an influence, Hollywood/Television Shows and Music all have at the very least as much influence over the wider, broader culture in the United States. When a Brad Pitt does a movie about issue X, and pushes issue X in interviews, and the film itself subtlely pushes issues X, Y and Z, and then banks 200,000,000 in sales, thats a pretty big influence.

    When a good portion of 18-24 year olds get their news, and their politics, from watching unquestionably biased sources like Colbert or Stewart, thats a pretty huge influence.

    When on a regular basis you have Comedians who mock everything right-wing, while supporting almost everything left-wing, and you watch it, and you laugh, thats a pretty huge influence.

    When your favorite beloved musician(s) are hard-core liberals who promote their various liberla issue (as my own favorites do in Roger Waters and David Gilmour), it's very hard nopt to be influenced to some degree by that. In some communities, for example African americans and Hip Hop/R&B, it's even harder. Thats a huge influence.

    On the right, there is FOX. And Rush and AM Radio. And a few newspapers.

    On the left there is no shortage of influence makers. For the left to decry any form of unfairness or inequallity because of FOX is, frankly, one of teh most laughable arguments in modern American politics.

    But.....we live in a world where the most common opinion of say, John McCain looking into the Libya Event, is "he's just a grumpy old white **** who can;t get over losing", what would you expect?

    If Watergate or Iran Contra occured today, by a (D), there wouldn't even be an investigation into it.

  10. #50
    "The most common opinion" What do you mean by that? Very few Republicans are backing McCain on this. Anyways.. John McCain is a grumpy old white****, who can't get over losing. Look at his history. This is a guy who became a media darling after he lost to Bush, he became the biggest thorn in the Bush administrations' ass by becoming a maverick/a moderate Republican. Once he loses to Obama, he throws that out the window.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Amendment View Post
    This is a guy who became a media darling after he lost to Bush, he became the biggest thorn in the Bush administrations' ass by becoming a maverick/a moderate Republican. Once he loses to Obama, he throws that out the window.
    This is literally, word for word, the talking point Progressive Radio is working hardcore right now. Word for word.

    Forgive me, but

    When you cannot defend something, the best tactic is to dismiss and attack the messanger.

    Instead of defending/explaining/being transparant about how the Admin. played Libya for Politics, not truth, they (and their supporters) have created a "Oh look, Bitter racist McCain of the bitter racist (R)" meme, complete with cries of "We won, get over it and do whats right for America" rhetoric they themselves would have and have not ever followed.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    Fair question;

    I believe the administration tamped down the terror angle for political purposes with the election occurring shortly. That is the "conspiracy" that took place and it is shady. But it is not watergate, not even close. Nothing illegal took place and that sentiment was echoed by non-Obama people like Paul Wolfowitz;


    In a blog post, George W. Bush administration deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who helped lead the 2003 U.S. charge into Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, declared that “the U.S. did almost everything possible to protect our people” from the attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

    In his post on the Web site of the American Enterprise Institute, the neo-conservative equivalent of the Vatican, Wolfowitz said that after “talking with someone who has spoken directly with key general officers and others involved in the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks,” he concluded that:
    – “The Consulate was overrun in a matter of minutes, before any help was possible.”
    – “Decision makers in Washington appear to have been leaning forward, as they should have been. The military’s most capable rescue force, based on the East Coast, was deployed immediately (something that is very rarely done), but –- given the distances involved –- arrived” at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Sigonella in Sicily “only after the crisis was over.”
    – Contrary to claims on numerous conservative Web sites: “There was no AC-130 gunship in the region.”
    (Defense Department spokesman George Little told Bloomberg the same thing yesterday in an e-mail.)
    – Shooting down another conservative attack line: “The only drone available in Libya was an unarmed surveillance drone which was quickly moved from Darna to Benghazi, but the field of view of these drones is limited and, in any case, this one was not armed.”

    – In yet another counterattack on Benghazi conspiracy theorists: “The only other assets immediately available were F-16 fighter jets based at Aviano, Italy. These aircraft might have reached Benghazi while the fight at the Annex was still going on, but they would have had difficulty pinpointing hostile mortar positions or distinguishing between friendly and hostile militias in the midst of a confused firefight in a densely populated residential area where there would have been a high likelihood of civilian casualties. While two more Americans were tragically killed by a mortar strike on the Annex, it’s not clear that deploying F-16’s would have prevented that.”

    “If all of this is true,” Wolfowitz concludes, “then it would appear that the U.S. national security team was doing everything they thought possible to protect the Americans in Benghazi.”

    “I did defend Obama officials against the charge that they knowingly abandoned Americans who were in danger, but I also said in the same article that they deserved to be criticized for `persistent misleading comments about the motives of the attackers.”’ Wolfowitz wrote in an email to us after this posting appeared. “That was a reference not only to the comments of our U.N. Ambassador but also to the Secretary of State and the President himself.”

    In the article Wolfowitz still blames the Obama administration for its credibility problem, calling it “the result of a general lack of transparency and particularly of the fact that senior officials, including the president and the secretary of state, persisted for so long in offering the American people misleading suggestions that the attacks in Benghazi were a response to an obscure anti-Islamic video.”
    The attack lasted 7 hrs. Nixon didn't break any laws, HE LIED! sound familiar??

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    This is literally, word for word, the talking point Progressive Radio is working hardcore right now. Word for word.

    Forgive me, but

    When you cannot defend something, the best tactic is to dismiss and attack the messanger.

    Instead of defending/explaining/being transparant about how the Admin. played Libya for Politics, not truth, they (and their supporters) have created a "Oh look, Bitter racist McCain of the bitter racist (R)" meme, complete with cries of "We won, get over it and do whats right for America" rhetoric they themselves would have and have not ever followed.
    You really are the king of the straw man. Why are you responding to my post with all this crap? Did I call McCain racist? Did I say "We won, blah blah blah get over it blah blah blah" You're losing it man. Stop listening to talk radio.

    on Libya, it's fair game to ask the SoS and the POTUS (not United Nations Ambassador who's not responsible for foreign service members) why there wasn't more support at the consulate in Libya or why it wasn't closed after there was a previous attack. That's fair, and there is currently an independent investigation going on. There isn't any evidence of a cover up. The initial intelligence was wrong, both the White House and congress received that same intelligence. You would have to believe the defense department and the CIA (headed by General Petraeus) was involved to believe there was a cover up.
    Last edited by 21st Amendment; 11-28-2012 at 04:53 PM.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Amendment View Post
    Only person I watch on MSNBC is Maddow. I sometimes watch O'Reilly on FNC. I do like watching the election coverage of all 3 cable networks. FNC on election night was hilarious after they called Ohio and thus the presidency for President Obama.
    Fox News was insanely entertaining after Obama was reelected. Most of the big boys (Hannity, O'Reilly etc.) just shrugged it off and resurfaced the next day saying the Hurricane gave Obama the election.

    Who's on Fox when Obama is declared the winner? Megyn Kelly. Nice to look at but not one of the big boys and definitely not the face of the station. Hannity and O'Reilly would have been all over the TV that night if Romney won. Typical conservative weasels.
    Last edited by detjetsfan; 11-28-2012 at 06:44 PM.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by acepepe View Post
    The attack lasted 7 hrs. Nixon didn't break any laws, HE LIED! sound familiar??
    Comparing Benghazi to Watergate is the most asinine thing ever. I get it, you hate Obama. Please stop embarassing yourself and rewriting American history or displaying your lack of knowledge of it. Criticize his actual policy, don't repeat garbage talking points you heard Fox News or right-wing radio.

    Next thing you people will be saying Saddam Husein had nuclear weapons , Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya and Obamacare = Holocaust. Oh wait that's already happened.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    Fox News was insanely entertaining after Obama was reelected. Most of the big boys (Hannity, O'Reilly etc.) just shrugged it off and resurfaced the next day saying the Hurricane gave Obama the election.

    Who's on Fox when Obama is declared the winner? Megyn Kelly. Nice to look at but not one of the big boys and definitely not the face of the station.
    Highlight of the night
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lJ3tfQFpc

  17. #57
    "Do you know how many government contractors died in Iraq" - Ricks

    "No" - Faux News Stooge

    "That's because you don't care. There was never even an official count (by the Bush administration)." - Ricks


    That was awesome.

  18. #58
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    I wish you guys could grasp how hilarious these last five posts have been

    Maybe when you're older

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Amendment View Post
    Does conservative Math come as a surprise to you? These are the same people who think cutting taxes = deficit reduction. Or that Mitt Romney paying 13% in taxes is fair b/c he's a millionaire meanwhile I make $80K per year and pay 33% in fed income tax.

    I'm getting the feeling Rove started to distance himself from the Romney campaign when he saw some of the early voting numbers - which is why he was the only prominent republican figure to be prominent on Fox News that night after it became obvious Obama won reelection. Rove had the air about him of "See I tolja so". Romney was never a good candidate he had a record of job destruction not job creation as the real-life Gordon Gecko, he had flip flopped on every major issue and he even had 4 draft deferments to boot.

    Rick Perry was a better candidate with an actual record of creating jobs and he never flip flopped from moderate to far-right on social issues he was always far-right. Perry had a shot to win the election Romney never stood a chance.
    Last edited by detjetsfan; 11-28-2012 at 10:46 PM.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    .....meanwhile I make $80K per year and pay 33% in fed income tax.
    Can you explain how you make 80K and pay 33% Federal Income Tax?

    The Marginal Rate in the United States for a salary of 80K is 25%.

    25%. Not 33%.

    After deductions and tax credits common in that bracket, it's doubt someone making 80K pays 20% net federal income tax, much less 25%.

    Last edited by Warfish; 11-29-2012 at 12:08 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us