Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Media Bias thread
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
Nomarchy
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Nov 10 2006, 06:09 PM) [snapback]259348[/snapback]

Why the hell does he do that? Viewers already know what Chris thinks fer chrissake.


Exactly.

On a different note . . .

on the day/evening of the election I watched a bit of FoxNews.

By Wednesday morning, I was quickly brought back to reality, and haven't gone back to the fantasy land of FoxNews being worth watching since.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Nov 10 2006, 08:11 PM) [snapback]259349[/snapback]

Exactly.

On a different note . . .

on the day/evening of the election I watched a bit of FoxNews.

By Wednesday morning, I was quickly brought back to reality, and haven't gone back since.

It was pretty somber over at Fox, wasn't it?
davis¹³
You haveb't gone back to reality since? Say hi to Merlin for me. tongue.gif
Nomarchy
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Nov 10 2006, 06:15 PM) [snapback]259352[/snapback]

You haveb't gone back to reality since? Say hi to Merlin for me. tongue.gif


tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

Edited above.
davis¹³
now it just makes me look crazy











at least there is symmetry
Lord_Proprietor
QUOTE
Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
Read carefully - Old stuff and a long way from actually happening


Nation
TIME MAGAZINE

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo


By ADAM ZAGORIN

Posted Friday, Nov. 10, 2006

Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.[url=Posted Friday, Nov. 10, 2006] New legal[/url].................


Comments

QUOTE
SCREW TIME MAGAZINE for even publishing this assanine article under the guise that it is legit news. . .the German government is NOT going to allow this to move forward and the case is brought by a bunch of left-wing nut bags. I'm so sick of our media outlets in this country. They are truly exhausting rags that spew forth nothing but filth, death and destruction.


QUOTE
It has become apparent to me the Department of Defense must make a transition from all this savagery to becoming a "Meals on Wheels" force to be reckoned with. Our war-like ways has made us very unpopular, with few exceptions, world wide. In the spirit of bi-partisanship I think the anti DOD party should nominate Elizabeth Dole to head up the Department. She has had considerable experience with her Red Cross background. And not to slight them, the Marine Corps, by the way, Happy Birthday Marines, could continue to be the first ashore with the goodies. I can hear it now, the Marines have landed! With cookies in hand!


QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Nov 10 2006, 09:53 PM) [snapback]259332[/snapback]

So? What does this have to do with anything?



dry.gif ohmy.gif You get three guesses!
davis¹³
QUOTE
They are truly exhausting rags that spew forth nothing but filth, death and destruction.


Blood, death, destruction and lies. Foxnews and Rush Limbaugh should be dismantled.
beasty
They keep defaming those poor innocent insurgents.
Mizilus
yeah thats their main aim alright. It why they call themselves "fair and balanced". It why hey were created and why they changed laws in this country.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(beasty @ Nov 11 2006, 03:16 PM) [snapback]259552[/snapback]

They keep defaming those poor innocent insurgents.

I think even the French had insurgents when they were invaded. Aren't there any countries that will just lie back and take it any more?
davis¹³
maybe Haiti.
beasty
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Nov 11 2006, 02:32 PM) [snapback]259554[/snapback]

I think even the French had insurgents when they were invaded. Aren't there any countries that will just lie back and take it any more?


Yeah, I remember the French blowing each other up to get back at those poor defenseless Nazis. You must be a real student of history.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(beasty @ Nov 11 2006, 03:30 PM) [snapback]259558[/snapback]

Yeah, I remember the French blowing each other up to get back at those poor defenseless Nazis. You must be a real student of history.


While you, on the other hand . . .. Iraq must be the first case in history whereby there's armed fighting AMONG/BETWEEN ostensibly anti-occupation insurgents, and between insurgents and collaborators. Oh yes.
beasty
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Nov 11 2006, 06:39 PM) [snapback]259581[/snapback]

While you, on the other hand. Iraq must be the first case in history whereby there's armed fighting AMONG/BETWEEN ostensibly anti-occupation insurgents, and between insurgents and collaborators. Oh yes.


I forgot to buy a program before the big game, and you can't tell the players without a scorecard.
Lord_Proprietor
The Sunday Times

November 12, 2006


The hidden vwhite victims of racism

Last week’s horrifying trial of three Asians is part of a worrying trend, says Brendan Montague

No one who saw Angela Donald giving her dignified statement that “justice had been done” outside the High Court in Edinburgh as the racist murderers of her 15-year-old son were jailed last week could feel anything but sympathy. For Margaret Massey there was more, though — a sense of fellow-feeling and anger.

Kriss Donald was snatched off the street by an Asian gang and subjected to a terrible ordeal: beaten, stabbed, doused in petrol and set ablaze. Massey’s son Lee, a rugby player, was also the subject of a racially motivated attack when he was set upon by a gang of Iraqi asylum seekers “out looking for someone” to hurt.

He and two friends were stabbed in a car park in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, in October 2003. Lee was then thrown into the air and suffered devastating brain injuries when one of the gang used a car to run him down. Three years later he has not fully recovered.


Massey still feels aggrieved that — in her view — the police inquiry was hindered by political correctness because officers feared that reporting that a white man had been so brutally attacked by asylum seekers would further fuel racial tensions following several such brawls in the area.

“The police didn’t charge 13 members of the gang even though I believe there was some evidence,” she says.

“If our Lee had run over one of the Iraqis he would have been arrested right away and sent to prison for the rest of his life. The police are nervous when white people are attacked. In this area this is happening more and more often.”

The killing of Stephen Lawrence 13 years ago sparked off an orgy of soul-searching throughout liberal Britain.

But we have never quite acknowledged that violence comes from both sides. Gavin Hopley, 19, was kicked to death by up to eight Asian men in Oldham in February 2002. Six men were convicted of violent disorder and theft offences but no one has been convicted of his murder.

An Asian gang was also responsible for the violent killing of 17-year-old Ross Parker, who was savagely stabbed with hunting knives during an attack in Peterborough in 2001. David Lees, 23, was run over and killed during a fight between whites and a gang of Asians in Prestwich, Manchester, only last month.

There has been numerous inquiries and new legislation since the Lawrence case and almost everyone concerned with race relations will confirm that policing in cases involving race has improved immeasurably since that tragic event.

However, the debate about the white victims of racist attacks seems to have progressed no further in the past 10 years — because of fears of “political correctness” and the threat of the far right making political capital out of personal tragedy.

Sir Ian Blair, Britain’s most senior police officer, even attacked the press as “institutionally racist” in January this year because cases such as the killing of Tom ap Rhys Pryce, the solicitor, had gained more publicity than the equally terrible death on the same day of Balbir Matharu, who had tried to stop thieves ripping the radio from his car.

An extensive search of national and regional newspaper reports, however, shows that cases involving black and minority ethnic victims are widely reported, while there is an almost total boycott of stories involving the white victims of similar attacks. Is this because newspapers fear their reports appearing on BNP leaflets, or because the police are less likely to issue appeals for help?

Peter Fahy, chief constable of Cheshire police and spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: “A lot of police officers and other professionals feel almost the best thing to do is to try and avoid [discussing such attacks] for fear of being criticised. This is not healthy.”

The silence means it is impossible to know how many white people are victims of racist attacks in today’s multicultural Britain and whether they are right to feel aggrieved that the attacks they suffer do not appear to get the same recognition as those of black victims.

Take the case of Christopher Yates, who had been out celebrating a birthday with a group of friends in London and, concerned about their safety, insisted on taking some of the women he was with to a bus stop during a cool November evening two years ago.

Without warning, the 30-year-old office worker was viciously assaulted by a gang of drunken Asian men — Sajid Zulfiqar, Zahid Bashir and Imran Maqsood — who stamped on his head, smashing every bone in his face before killing him.

After the murder the attackers shouted in Urdu, “We have killed the white man — that will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business.” Despite this appalling racism, the three were never convicted for committing a race crime — which would have meant a heavier sentence.

This led to comparisons with the brutal and unprovoked murder of Anthony Walker, a young black man who was attacked when walking to a bus stop in Liverpool with a female friend. The 18-year-old was bludgeoned with an ice axe by Paul Taylor and Michael Barton, both white, and died later in hospital.

The attack was undoubtedly racially motivated, but the fact that Taylor and Barton received sentences nine and three years longer respectively than their equally racist counterparts in London has led to suspicions that racist attacks against whites and non-whites are treated differently in the courts.

At the same time there is growing concern that attacks by Asians and other ethnic minorities have been steadily increasing, leaving some white people feeling too scared to enter city areas dominated by Asians and other minority ethnic groups.

Figures recently published under the Freedom of Information Act seem to support such fears: of the 58 people killed because of the colour of their skin between 1995 and 2004, almost half were described as white.

The British Crime Survey reveals that in 2004, 87,000 people who described themselves as black or minority ethnic (BME) had been victims of what they believed was a racially motivated crime. They had suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded.

At the same time a staggering 92,000 white people also said that racism was the cause of an attack or crime they had suffered. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000.

The truth is hard to get at: Jenny Bourne, of the Institute of Race Relations, says its figures show only eight white victims of racially motivated killings between 1995 and 2004: “The Kriss Donald case involved an Asian gang which had been involved in violence already. These cases are incredibly rare compared with the number of racist attacks on minorities which take place every day.”

What is clear is that unless the attacks on whites are reported and discussed, the truth about what is happening out there will remain hazy.


Lord_Proprietor
Appears they plan to do in GWB, totally, if possible!


MSNBC.com

The Prodigal Returns MAG: BUSH MAKES ROOM FOR DADDY?... Drudge -


Newsweek

Can Bush Sr. and His Team Save Son’s Presidency?

By Jon Meacham


Nov. 20, 2006 issue - George Herbert Walker Bush is a proud father; tears easily come to his eyes when he thinks of his children, all of them, and there is gracious deference in his tone when he talks about the son he calls, with emphasis, "The President." He is not given to boasting about or bragging on his family; he still hears his mother's voice warning him to avoid "the Great I Am," but several times over the past few years the 41st president has mentioned to visitors that the 43rd president has read the Bible in its entirety—not once, the father says, but twice, sticking two fingers in the air. If so, then the incumbent may recall the Song of Moses: "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee."

Ask thy father, and he will show thee: advice that, at long last, George W. Bush seems to be taking. Last week the president lost both houses of Congress and 16 more Americans died in Iraq, bringing the U.S. death toll to 2,844, with little discernible progress in sight. The war there has now lasted 44 months, the amount of time that elapsed between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day.

In a conference room filled with commemorative shotguns in his Houston offices last Wednesday, the father settled in to watch his son's post-election press conference on TV. Lunching on pizza, Bush Senior listened as George W. Bush said the loss of Congress was a "thumping," promised to "work with" a commission on Iraq chaired by James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton, and announced that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was resigning. Within two hours the president was in the Oval Office with Rumsfeld and his replacement: Robert M. Gates, Bush Senior's CIA director and the president of Texas A&M University, the home of Bush 41's presidential library.

In Houston the phones started ringing, and Bush 41 staffers were pulled away from their pizza. Reporters were calling and e-mailing: would 41 talk about 43's shake-up? The answer was no, though two perfunctory statements were issued (one for the College Station Eagle and one, as the former president put it, "for everybody else"). Still, the reality spoke for itself. Dad's team was back—a remarkable course correction in the political life of the son and, quite possibly, in the life of the nation.

The American people, as politicians like to say, spoke last week—and spoke in no uncertain terms. The 2006 vote does not suggest an eagerness for a sharp left turn. It seems, rather, to be a plea for a shift from the hard right of the neoconservatives to the center represented by the old man in Houston. The re-emergence of Iraq Study Group voices such as Baker, Gates and Alan Simpson—all longtime friends of Bush Senior—is not unlike the entrance of Fortinbras at the conclusion of "Hamlet." These are 41's men, and the removal of Rumsfeld—an ancient rival of Bush Senior's from the Ford days—is a move toward the broad middle. The apparent triumph of pragmatism over ideology on Iraq was welcome news, at least to the public. In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, 67 percent favor Bush Senior's internationalist approach to foreign policy over his son's more unilateral course.



Did 41 help bring Gates to the Pentagon? The White House denies it, but, as a Bush friend told NEWSWEEK, "his fingerprints are all over this." (The friend refused to be identified for fear of alienating the family.) Given the mists of secrecy that envelop the 41-43 relationship, it is striking that the broad Bush circle believes he had a hand in the Rumsfeld succession: as an old CIA director, 41 rarely leaves any clues at all.

What the two Bushes discuss has long been a subject of endless guesswork. "In my experience, the two men spent most of their time talking about family matters, about sports, about fishing," former White House chief of staff Andy Card told NEWSWEEK. "They spoke to each other much more as father and son rather than as president and former president." Still, politics and policy do come up. "It would be wrong to assume that they never discuss Iraq, the state of play in the world and some personalities," Card said. "But it would also be wrong to assume that they discuss these things all the time. They are mutually deferential to one another."

The Bush family psychodrama is the stuff of perennial speculation but little information, since the two people who know the most about it—the father and the son—speak of it so infrequently. Yet its complexity, its blend of love and rivalry, is rich analytical territory. (Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, an unlikely e-mail pal of 41's, has spent so much time contemplating the generational drama that she ultimately published an excellent book on the topic, "Bushworld"; it ran to 544 pages.) In perhaps the most revealing on-the-record remark about their relationship made by either man, the son once told Bob Woodward that his father is "the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to."

As the war has gone badly and the years have ticked by—2003, 2004, 2005 and now much of 2006—the senior President Bush, the man who managed to capture just 37 percent of the vote in 1992, has grown in stature. Raising taxes and capping domestic spending in 1990, refusing to exceed the United Nations mandate after expelling Saddam from Kuwait, and deftly managing the end of the cold war and the reunification of Germany loom ever larger. Given the midterm reaction to the son's inattention to alliances and to the details of postwar Iraq, it is clear that many Americans are nostalgic for the skills and sensibility the first President Bush brought to the Oval Office—a reversal of historical fortune that has come, sadly for the father, at the expense of his son.



In terms of foreign policy, it is true that 41 was more a realist than an ideologue—the prose to Reagan's cold-war poetry. And it is also true that the son would prefer to be remembered not as a second George Bush but as a second Gipper—a big, transformative president who confronted a mortal threat to the nation with steely soul and soaring words. Hence, it seems, the innate appeal of the neoconservative argument, advanced in part by Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney (a 41 figure who got neocon religion after 9/11), to strike Iraq in a noble bid to transform the Middle East.

In classical terms, the tragic figure is someone whose inherent flaws are evident from the beginning. In the wake of September 11, we knew our president's virtues. He was resolute, disdainful of dissent; like his hero Winston Churchill, Bush dismissed critics he believes spin around with "the alacrity of squirrels." But we also knew Bush's vices. Resolution can harden into stubbornness; a refusal to listen to criticism can breed isolation.

Hindsight, of course, is a luxury, and life often appears clearer in retrospect than it does at the time, in the arena. The bet Bush has made in the Middle East is a grand one, and history is made, and people are freed, by grand gambles. The American Founders gambled with Britain in 1776; Churchill gambled with Germany in 1940; Reagan gambled with the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The line between triumph and tragedy is a thin one, and things may yet work out.


Or so we must believe. Faith is important to the Bushes, always has been, and to return to the Bible the president knows so well, there is a New Testament verse familiar to patrician politicians from Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin Franklin to Prescott and George H.W. Bush: "To whom much is given," the Scriptures say, "much is expected." Much has been given to George W. Bush, and now, in the twilight of his term, as his father's men step in, he has been given another great gift: one more chance to set things right.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15674912/site/newsweek/
Mizilus
They can just give al queda missiles. Maybe some nooks.
davis¹³
This guy totally ignores what the media did to Democrats after 9/11. They joined Republicans in the bullsheit traitor/terrorists sympathiser campaign of 2002. Republican propaganda isn't the news, Doug. I wonder if these people even realize that.



The media's dark role

By Douglas MacKinnon
November 13, 2006



Nov. 7, 2006, will be remembered as the day the Democratic Party took back control of Congress for three distinct and critically important reasons.
First and foremost was the series of Republican missteps -- such as corruption, the leadership turning a blind eye to the corruption, budget-busting earmarks and a lack of real action on illegal immigration. These actions not only suppressed the vote for the Republican Party, but actually energized a number of Democratic voters.

felonies. You understand that yet? No respect for the rule of law about anything.


Second was the number of incredibly well-run Democratic campaigns and their own very impressive get-out-the-vote machine. This was great stuff by any honest assessment.

Third, Nov. 7 needs to be remembered for something even Republicans don't have the stomach to address at the moment: that the remnants of objectivity in the mainstream media were all but exterminated by some on the left. A chilling and ominous development that played some role in the Democratic wave that is still splashing around the red states.

Make no mistake. Along with the multitude of Republican gaffes, and the hard work of the Democrats, there can be no doubt that the left-of-center mainstream media helped to manufacture this election victory for the Democratic Party. For parts of the last two years, many in the media have worked in concert with the Democratic spin doctors to indoctrinate the American voter into believing this election had to be a referendum on President Bush and the "failed" war in Iraq.

Horrified by Mr. Bush's re-election in 2004, as well as the historic Republican gains in the House and the Senate that year, some liberals in the media were determined to do everything in their power to ensure that there was no GOP celebration in 2006, even if that meant confirming to the world that they proudly abandon professionalism and ethics in the name of partisanship and ideology.

To make the election of 2006 a referendum on Mr. Bush and "his" war, the media knew full well they had to present that conflict in the worst possible light for as long as possible on their nightly newscasts, cable programs and front pages. Then, after force-feeding the American people a steady diet of this carnage for weeks at a time, the same media outlets would then "poll" the voters to get their impressions of Iraq and Mr. Bush.

Amazingly, against the protests of soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, the mainstream media stuck with this partisan plan to only showcase the negative, the misery and the gore. They ignored the pleas of these soldiers to show that not only did they liberate a nation from a genocidal tyrant, but with compassion and great decency (often at the cost of their own lives), they helped to rebuild the country and connect with its people on a much-needed human level. The good far out-numbers the bad in Iraq, but the good was the enemy of a Democratic victory on Nov. 7.

Worse than becoming a public-relations arm for the Democrats, did some in the media actually aid and abet al Qaeda with their biased coverage? It has been fully documented that al Qaeda and the insurgents believe that if you kill enough American soldiers and have those deaths played on a loop by the American media, then the American people and their politicians will grow weak in the knee and call for a withdrawal.

Surrrrrre, and if their proclamations happen to help Republicans? Well that's just a bonus to you douchebags, isn't it? A win/win scenario no matter what.

Knowing that to be a stated goal of al Qaeda, and just before the election, CNN still decided to take a horrific video given to them by the insurgents, and put it on the air for the world to see. And just what was on this video? Only heroic American soldiers being murdered in cold blood by al Qaeda snipers. Other than to damage the administration or advance a partisan agenda, why would CNN air such disgusting footage?


Next, to all but ensure the desired outcome, a number of left-of-center "journalists" decided it was necessary to prematurely crown the Democrats the victors. Their thinking was that if you tell a lie or predetermine the results often enough, it becomes fact.

Holy sheepsheit, this ass hole is criticizing the Republican's main false info tool?


So, months before the election, on the front page of the top one hundred left-of-center newspapers in the United States -- with a readership well north of 70 million people -- banner headlines proclaimed that the Democrats were all but certain to take both houses of Congress. Day after day, week after week, these liberal papers foretold a future beneficial to the Democrats.

This is a future that has now come true. To be sure, the majority of the blame rests with the Republican Party and its lemming-like march to become what it defeated in 1994. That said, it is not partisan, nor out of line, to ask if some in the media carried water for the Democrats in this election.

Tell it to Rupert Murdoch.

While it is certainly true that left-of-center media outlets continue to hemorrhage readers and viewers in search of fairness and balance, for the moment they don't seem to care. Because of the unethical actions of some within their industry, they helped determine an election.


The Democrats won, but democracy has paid a price. Who in the media is willing to address that?

Douglas MacKinnon was press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole. He is also a former White House and Pentagon official.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061...01100-3977r.htm


Good god almighty. How can this guy even say something like that? Foxnews and talk radio helped usher us into a Republican coup and a one party dominated, rubber stamp governemnt with -0- respect for ANY law. They shred the Constitution, rape the country, fiscally ruin us and this guy says this crap?


The Republicans won, then fundamentally changed our government in backroom sweetheart deals with their corporate constituents, but democracy has paid a price. Who in the rightwing media is willing to address that?



Dougie is a god damned idiot.
Lord_Proprietor
Drudge -

CBS EVENING NEWS DOWN OVER YEAR AGO...
For the first time since Katie Couric became
anchor, CBS EVENING NEWS is down
compared to a year ago, falling 4% from
8.069 to 7.758 million last week among total
viewers, and the program also declined 9%
among adults 25-54 from last year's 2.2 to
a 2.0 rating last week... Developing...
ohmy.gif
Lord_Proprietor
Editor Announces Major shake-up at WASHINGTON POST... - Drudge

dry.gif I read the whole thing and didn't see one word about changing their philosophy on how they see and appreciate this great nation and how they plan more support rather than the usual tear down "Fifth Column", HAU/BAF journalism. unsure.gif
davis¹³
You mean they won't be the next lying Republican propaganda outlet?

Good. Foxnews is a piece of crap.
Lord_Proprietor
Rush Interviewing Glenn Beck about his special, "Exposed", tonight on CNNHN beginning 7:00 PM, then 9:00 and 12:00, I believe, about the US MSM not being honest with the American people! Strange, CNN talking to Rush, but this will get Beck a huge audience tonight!

Beck went to the ME and filmed all the Iranian local TV broadcast to their citizens which our MSM did not choose to show us.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Lord_Proprietor @ Nov 15 2006, 12:24 PM) [snapback]260722[/snapback]

Rush Interviewing Glenn Beck about his special, "Exposed", tonight on CNNHN beginning 7:00 PM, then 9:00 and 11:00, I believe, about the US MSM not being honest with the American people! Strange, CNN talking to Rush, but this will get Beck a huge audience tonight!

Beck went to the ME and filmed all the Iranian local TV broadcast to their citizens which our MSM did not choose to show us.



I heard that.
Human Ills
The font is so big, I heard it too.
Mizilus
QUOTE(Human Ills @ Nov 15 2006, 12:21 PM) [snapback]260777[/snapback]

The font is so big, I heard it too.



YEah. My eyes hurt it too.
davis¹³
My neighbor even asked what's up ?
Human Ills
Cops called?
davis¹³
SWAT
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE
FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...

| Posted November 14, 2006 06:50 PM



Huffington Post has obtained an internal Fox News memo written by the network's Vice President of news. The memo details Fox's game plan the day Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/f...o-_n_34128.html

IPB Image

davis¹³
Isn't that a fine bit o' propaganda?
Arturo_Vandelay
Looks dead on, including the fraternal blood shedding.
Bart Katz
Sort of an Amber Alert for dems.
inyerface
IPB Image

blue meanies
SherryB
QUOTE(inyerface @ Nov 16 2006, 01:17 AM) [snapback]260967[/snapback]

IPB Image

blue meanies


Why is MI red? We are a really blue, blue, blue, state. ??
Arturo_Vandelay
When do they switch colors again?
inyerface
when we pay off the debt
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(inyerface @ Nov 16 2006, 12:28 AM) [snapback]260999[/snapback]
when we pay off the debt


When was the last time there wasn't a debt?
inyerface
IPB Image

IPB Image
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(SherryB @ Nov 16 2006, 01:09 AM) [snapback]260992[/snapback]

Why is MI red? We are a really blue, blue, blue, state. ??

Texas is red, not blue. That's not much of a map.
Lord_Proprietor
Hotel yanks CNN; says network is pro-terrorist

Wausau Daily Herald

ROTHSCHILD — Guests at one local hotel who switch on the TV in search of the latest news no longer have CNN as an option.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(inyerface @ Nov 16 2006, 12:57 AM) [snapback]261002[/snapback]
IPB Image



Better keep going back, of course raw dollars alone don't tell the whole story.
davis¹³
Tell us about morals and values.





O'Reilly Tries to Loofah Away Fox Stench
billoreilly_111606_FRESH.jpg
FOX AFFILIATE O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly got his falafels in a bunch last night over news that O.J. Simpson will explain precisely how he didn't-but-might butcher his ex-wife and her friend—on a Fox prime-time special. Said the frequently flabbergasted superpundit:

"Here's a man many believe did kill those two Americans, Nicole Brown Simpson being mother of his two children. Yet Simpson is participating in a project that is exploiting the murders. Shamefully, the Fox Broadcasting Unit is set to carry the program, which is simply indefensible, and a low point in American culture. For the record, Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel." blink.gif

O' really? That last part must have come as shocking news to O'Reilly's boss, Fox News Channel chief Roger Ailes, who also chairs Fox Television Stations, the group behind the forthcoming "low point in American culture." The shared "Fox" moniker is no coincidence, either. Fox Broadcasting and the Fox News Channel are both owned by Australian overlord and News Corp. founder and chief Rupert Murdoch. And the Fox Broadcasting Corporation—the people who program prime time for the Fox network—regularly air Fox News-produced programming, from coverage of presidential speeches to O'Reilly's special "documentaries" about people who hate children and Jesus.

In other words, Fox News Channel was conceived, launched, and continues to be run by the man who is responsible for running the selfsame stations that will, shamefully, broadcast Simpson's fantasy about killing "those two Americans" to millions of other Americans.


Radar contacted spokespeople for both Fox News Channel and Fox Television Stations via e-mail for comment. Conveniently they were the same person: Brian Lewis, who said, "Roger has absolutely nothing to do with the programs Fox Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts"—on the television stations for which Ailes is ultimately responsible.

HarperCollins, the publishing house that is paying Simpson a reported $3.5 million for the book in which he fully fleshes out his all-too-real murder scenario, is also owned by Murdoch's News Corp. While O'Reilly excoriated Simpson's publisher and brainstormed legal options against it with guest litigator Sunny Hostin—she said she would seek to freeze HarperCollins's assets if she were representing Goldman's family—he never mentioned it by name, or pointed out that it's also owned by the people who cut his paychecks.

Surely, Judith Regan, who will be conducting the interview with O.J. and whose imprint at HarperCollins is publishing the Simpson book, has nothing to do with Fox News Channel, though. Just ask Fox News bloviator Sean Hannity, whose books Regan publishes. Or Roger Ailes himself, who once gave Regan a show—Judith Regan Tonight—on the Fox News Channel.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006...turally-got.php








CNN's Beck to first-ever Muslim congressman: "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies' "

On the November 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' " Beck added: "I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Beck previously warned that if "Muslims and Arabs" don't "act now" by "step[ping] to the plate" to condemn terrorism, they "will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West" and declared that "Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time" rather than "lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head" will face dire consequences.

From the November 14 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: History was made last Tuesday when Democrat Keith Ellison got elected to Congress, representing the great state of Minnesota. Well, not really unusual that Minnesota would elect a Democrat. What is noteworthy is that Keith is the first Muslim in history to be elected to the House of Representatives. He joins us now.

Congratulations, sir.

ELLISON: How you doing, Glenn? Glad to be here.

BECK: Thank you. I will tell you, may I -- may we have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards face up on the table?

ELLISON: Go there.

BECK: OK. No offense, and I know Muslims. I like Muslims. I've been to mosques. I really don't believe that Islam is a religion of evil. I -- you know, I think it's being hijacked, quite frankly.

With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let's cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

ELLISON: Well, let me tell you, the people of the Fifth Congressional District know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There's no one who is more patriotic than I am. And so, you know, I don't need to -- need to prove my patriotic stripes.

BECK: I understand that. And I'm not asking you to. I'm wondering if you see that. You come from a district that is heavily immigrant with Somalians. And I think it's wonderful, honestly, I think it is really a good sign that you are a -- you could be an icon to show Europe, this is the way you integrate into a country. I think the Somalians coming out and voting is a very good thing. With that --

ELLISON: I'd agree with you.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611150004


Bee
Glen Beck is a nimcompoop.

He ran an audio clip of Diane Feinstein saying we needed to be more fiscally responsible and said that it horrified him and scared him.

He's the epitome of a lowlife that appeals to peoples most base and shameful instincts and then uses them for his own monetary gain.ego.

What a nut job. It figures Fox would put someone like that on their station.

Arturo_Vandelay
Beck is the token on CNN.
Bee
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 16 2006, 10:10 PM) [snapback]261255[/snapback]

Beck is the token on CNN.


They've taken to hiring token nutjobs? blink.gif I kind of figured they had enough of them, from all political stripes. This Beck person is seriously whacked out. CNN? The "liberal" channel? Hard to believe. I just can't watch tv news anymore. I can't stand the spin they all pour on.

PBS is even doing it, but at least they have a liberal spin story followed by a conservative spin story.

That's kinda sorta balanced.
Bart Katz
No islamist or islamist lover would like Beck at this point.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Bee @ Nov 16 2006, 08:13 PM) [snapback]261257[/snapback]


They've taken to hiring token nutjobs?


I usually don't watch CNN headline, but the show was almost all quotes from Muslims, NOT commentary.


Bee
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 16 2006, 10:27 PM) [snapback]261270[/snapback]

No islamist or islamist lover would like Beck at this point.


Or anyone that believes in fiscal responsibility. It figures you'd like a whacko like that. How's pastor Phelps doing?
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Bee @ Nov 16 2006, 09:41 PM) [snapback]261280[/snapback]

Or anyone that believes in fiscal responsibility. It figures you'd like a whacko like that. How's pastor Phelps doing?


You took that personal, huh?

Figgers. rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Bee
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 16 2006, 10:43 PM) [snapback]261281[/snapback]

You took that personal, huh?

Figgers. rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif



It was personal.

Backdoor insults are pretty low. The person that engages in them is typically too cowardly to be honest about it. And yes, that was directed at you.

BOO!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.