The people that elected this president did indeed vote for change. They, as most all of us, were sick of the aristocratic presidency and arrogant politics. What was NEVER examined by the Obama-lust media was the education level and downright intelligence of that constituency. Clearly, the voter that appealed to (and was sought by) this current wave of politicians is undereducated and reliant upon hearsay for their facts. Look at the demographics. Realistically, not politically correct. The majority of republicans are aging and have seen the futility of our government system as it has evolved. The democrats are younger, up and coming and see the chance for power. But, just what are they getting at the top? Any different? I say no, it never has been. If so, why was Jimmy Carter replaced. Why was Bill Clinton replaced? Same thing goes for George W., Ronald Reagan. This revolving door will go on as long as the wobble doesn't knock it off it's axis...
------------------------------------
"Some are weather-wise, some are otherwise."
- Benjamin Franklin
What was NEVER examined by the Obama-lust media was the education level and downright intelligence of that constituency. Clearly, the voter that appealed to (and was sought by) this current wave of politicians is undereducated and reliant upon hearsay for their facts.
Gee, maybe they could list another ten libs who are having trouble on Fox in order to prove that there are only conservatives on Fox.
I like most of the libs on Fox. Beckel is a little mealy for me. But Colmes, Kirsten Powers, Susan Estrich (she is a nut, love her, I think she gargles with Ajax), Juan Williams, Lanny, etc are all smart and nice people and I think that's great. It is true that Colter and Hannity can be rude sh*theads and I feel their pain but I am not running a counseling program for people who say they dont know much but get booked on national TV anyway. Wouldnt that be considered an opportunity to smarten up and take advantage of it? Or maybe they need to form a union.
------------------------------------ Spending Our Way to Prosperity
I'm an Independent, and Fox is simply unwatchable for me at times. However, when I want to get both sides of any given story, I will go to Fox. Juan Williams, Beckel, Lanny, Estrich and the other lefties present great arguments for their side. Williams is probably my favorite "pundit".
MSNBC? What a joke. One side only, most of the time. CNN? Are they still on the air?
...
------------------------------------
"Hey waitress! Bring us a bottle of tequila and call the cops!"
I'm an Independent, and Fox is simply unwatchable for me at times. However, when I want to get both sides of any given story, I will go to Fox. Juan Williams, Beckel, Lanny, Estrich and the other lefties present great arguments for their side. Williams is probably my favorite "pundit".
MSNBC? What a joke. One side only, most of the time. CNN? Are they still on the air?
...
I wish MSNBC was only a joke. While their viewership is extremely low, most of those think MSNBC goes to soft on conservatives.
I am curious, you say "Fox" is unwatchable. Do you dislike some shows more than others. For example, I would guess you hate Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly and Greta less. Are there any shows you find tolerable? What about the newscasts versus the opinion shows?
I am curious, you say "Fox" is unwatchable. Do you dislike some shows more than others. For example, I would guess you hate Beck and Hannity and O'Reilly and Greta less. Are there any shows you find tolerable? What about the newscasts versus the opinion shows?
First of all, the only time I can imagine "hating" someone is if they were trying to hurt my wife or my children. I may disagree with someone, but I'm not really into hatred.
To answer your question, I don't have much use for partisan ideologues. They employ hyperbole, spin, diversion, denial and outright lies as a matter of second nature, and have zero credibility. Off the top of my pointy little head, this would include O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz. But these are opinion shows, of course.
The "anchors" on Fox and MSNBC essentially mirror each other, leaning in their specific ideological directions. But Fox just seems a bit more cartoonish (though no less credible than MSNBC). Who could forget "anchor" E.D. Hill's stunning discussion on a gesture Sen. Barack Obama shared with his wife, Michelle, saying, "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."
I was in the media for about 20 years in a former life, and my opinion is that American journalism is dead. Fox and MSNBC would be Exhibits 1 and 2. When I'm interested in a news story, I have to consult at least four or five different sources before I'm comfortable that I have the big picture.
Again, though, if I want to try for both sides of any given story, I will go with Fox. Grudgingly.
First of all, the only time I can imagine "hating" someone is if they were trying to hurt my wife or my children. I may disagree with someone, but I'm not really into hatred.
To answer your question, I don't have much use for partisan ideologues. They employ hyperbole, spin, diversion, denial and outright lies as a matter of second nature, and have zero credibility. Off the top of my pointy little head, this would include O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz. But these are opinion shows, of course.
The "anchors" on Fox and MSNBC essentially mirror each other, leaning in their specific ideological directions. But Fox just seems a bit more cartoonish (though no less credible than MSNBC). Who could forget "anchor" E.D. Hill's stunning discussion on a gesture Sen. Barack Obama shared with his wife, Michelle, saying, "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."
I was in the media for about 20 years in a former life, and my opinion is that American journalism is dead. Fox and MSNBC would be Exhibits 1 and 2. When I'm interested in a news story, I have to consult at least four or five different sources before I'm comfortable that I have the big picture.
Again, though, if I want to try for both sides of any given story, I will go with Fox. Grudgingly.
...
You would actually see O'Reilly as partisan as Beck or Hannity? I suspect most would disagree.
I find it interesting that Beck started at CNN, as did Greta.
You would actually see O'Reilly as partisan as Beck or Hannity? I suspect most would disagree.
I find it interesting that Beck started at CNN, as did Greta.
As partisan? Naw. O'Reilly's schtick is more populist, the "we're lookin' out for you" routine. What annoys me most about him is his mixture of arrogance and naivete, something I saw in Bush.
I'd put Beck to the right of that, and Hannity to the right of that. Hannity's as far off to the right as Olbermann & Maddow are to the left. Generally I look at Hannity and Schultz as the opposite sides of the same coin, both tend to try a bit too hard.
Greta's more interesting. I generally don't sense much (if any) BS spin or hyperbole from her.
Hannity harped on Ayers "the bomb thrower" and Wright "the America hater" so much during the campaign that people began to tune him out. It seemed so very far-fetched. So very far-fetched that people were willing to accept the very lame excuses Obama was giving -like not noticing Wright's rants over a 20 year span.
Turns out, as far as I can tell, that Hannity was calling this spot on. Obama was out of the gate sounding more like Rev. Wright in his string of foreign speeches than he sounded like an American president.
While Hannity harped on Ayers and Wright, Greta was harping on what's-her-face who disappeared in Aruba. After watching the "draining of the pond" drama to see if her body was a few feet from the hotel, I just concluded that Greta was Fox's Parade Magazine segment. She has been doing better lately. Maybe because fewer females are disappearing, or are disappearing without any sexual undertones. Whenever it does happen, Greta is all over the story -and over -and over. When she does a serious interview with a serious person, she can be pretty good.
Beck was pretty annoying, but he grows on you -he really does. Sort of like a drinking buddy that you are embarrassed to be seen with unless you have had a few yourself. Seriously, I think he has done the country more good in the last several months than all other journalists combined (I know, he is not a "journalist"). It really sickens me that the so-called media is totally flat footed on the most important stories out there. After the Van Jones thing hit the fan, and was spun as a 9-11 denier thing instead of the Communist thing it should have been, I looked day after day in our local newspaper for any coverage. Nothing, nada. About a week later, a 2-inch story in section D about one Van Jones resigning because of pressure. Nothing anywhere about the "C" word. The spin was that he resigned because bigoted people had come up with minor problems and he was out rather than cause the Prez any headaches. This should have been a HUGE story and never was.
Let me just sum up how sharp Fox is with one name: Brit Hume. They want to be taken more seriously and they continue to steal the best talent out there to make it so.
Let me just sum up how sharp Fox is with one name: Brit Hume. They want to be taken more seriously and they continue to steal the best talent out there to make it so.
But, you know, and I say this somewhat fece-ishly, but it is unfortunately true, if people dont like Fox or MSNBC or the twenty other stations out there let them go watch the public option. Why on God's green earth we need publicly funded television is beyond me but the libs can just go watch that. Seventy-five channels are apparently not enough so we need to support that public station in order to have access to "the truth" or "quality programming."
Also where the frig else can you get a tote bag for hundred dollars?
To my knowledge Rush isn't a part of Fox News, but tomorrow's Most Hated by the White House and Completely Unapproved by the White House shows should be fun to watch - Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
Greta was harping on what's-her-face who disappeared in Aruba. After watching the "draining of the pond" drama to see if her body was a few feet from the hotel, I just concluded that Greta was Fox's Parade Magazine segment.
Her and Nancy "I know what you did last summer" Grace. OMG talk about sensationalism.
Really, who (other than family) gives a f*ck about some girl disappearing or getting abducted.
Actually, Greta is lucky because her time slot comes on so late that it is dark in California at the time. So Fox does not interupt her program every hour to cover a car chase in Simi Valley.
Re: White House Declares War on Fox News
Linear Mode
