Fox News > Fair & Balanced

[LoneLaugher]

Even orangatangs can "wonder". As for whether you are dishonest or ignorant, ....who cares ?

Fox has many liberals. Many mire than other stations. Fox has a lot of balance (relatively so) Read the thread (which refuted you 10 times before you ever posted here)

Bob Beckel, James Carville, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Tamara Holder, Dennis Kucinich, Leslie Marshall, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Julie Roginsky, Joe Trippi, Lis Wiehl, Juan Williams, Lanny Davis, Doug Schoen, Geraldine Ferraro, Sally Kohn, Shepard Smith.

Has anyone ever accused you of being a simpleton? You are naming people who you claim are liberal and are paid to appear on the network. That is not in any way proof that the network is either fair or balanced. You present a list of names as proof. A simpleton.

I'll tell you what. Let's watch dome FOX News together sometime. In real time, we will view it critically looking for instances of unfairness and or bullshit.

You up for that?

Sure. why would I have anything to shirk away from ? And you seem to have gone off on a strange tangent in your post. You said >> "You are naming people who you claim are liberal and are paid to appear on the network. That is not in any way proof that the network is either fair or balanced."

Well, of course they are paid. They have jobs there, and they get paid. They're not philantropists. The point is that they are LIBERAL, and they speak the liberal talking points (until blue in the face) Get it ?

An NO. NO ONE has ever accused me of being a simpleton. And you ?

You don't get it. They are there as props. They are there simply so you can point at them and think you know what liberals think....and so you can watch liberals get schooled by conservative hosts. It isn't real.

I am going to turn on FOX News now. Let's see what's doing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

A commercial.

 

[protectionist]

I "shifted" nothing; I quoted you verbatim. And I didn't ask you a question. Dream on.

You shifted words around to how you want them to be read and understood. That's called subjective fraud. Verdict: GUILTY. Now go sit in the corner.

As for the question you asked, it had to be a question, because it was false, indicating you didn't know what you were talking about, and you therefore must have been trying to extract information from me, being more knowledable than you. Got it ?

PS - next time, use a question mark.

I shifted NOTHING, liar. You catch me editing your quote, you report me. Hell, I'll report myself. Take your false accusations and cram them up your ass.

And if I asked a question, there would have been a question mark. GOT IT?

1. I did NOT accuse you of editing your quote. Your words, not mine. I accused you of shifting my words around to how you want them to be read and perceived. And I stand by that 100%. If you don't like it. Tough!!

2. You DID falsely accuse me of making "false accusations" (your words, not mine)

3. What I got was that you asked a question, masquerading as a statement, and whether it was a question or not, doesn't really matter. GOT IT ?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Pablum.

 

[protectionist]

Has anyone ever accused you of being a simpleton? You are naming people who you claim are liberal and are paid to appear on the network. That is not in any way proof that the network is either fair or balanced. You present a list of names as proof. A simpleton.

I'll tell you what. Let's watch dome FOX News together sometime. In real time, we will view it critically looking for instances of unfairness and or bullshit.

You up for that?

Sure. why would I have anything to shirk away from ? And you seem to have gone off on a strange tangent in your post. You said >> "You are naming people who you claim are liberal and are paid to appear on the network. That is not in any way proof that the network is either fair or balanced."

Well, of course they are paid. They have jobs there, and they get paid. They're not philantropists. The point is that they are LIBERAL, and they speak the liberal talking points (until blue in the face) Get it ?

An NO. NO ONE has ever accused me of being a simpleton. And you ?

You don't get it. They are there as props. They are there simply so you can point at them and think you know what liberals think....and so you can watch liberals get schooled by conservative hosts. It isn't real.

I am going to turn on FOX News now. Let's see what's doing.

I not only get it, but I've gotten it for a long, long time. And what I've gotten is that one of the standard (ho hum) liberal talking points about Fox News, is that their liberals are props. You think this is new to my ears ?

Yeah. You go turn Fox News on right now. Or anytime at all. And you'll quite possibly see conservatives AND liberals presenting their pointS (plural) of view. And then, go to MSNBC, where you see them present their point (singular) of view.

 

[Pogo]

You shifted words around to how you want them to be read and understood. That's called subjective fraud. Verdict: GUILTY. Now go sit in the corner.

As for the question you asked, it had to be a question, because it was false, indicating you didn't know what you were talking about, and you therefore must have been trying to extract information from me, being more knowledable than you. Got it ?

PS - next time, use a question mark.

I shifted NOTHING, liar. You catch me editing your quote, you report me. Hell, I'll report myself. Take your false accusations and cram them up your ass.

And if I asked a question, there would have been a question mark. GOT IT?

1. I did NOT accuse you of editing your quote. Your words, not mine. I accused you of shifting my words around to how you want them to be read and perceived. And I stand by that 100%. If you don't like it. Tough!!

2. You DID falsely accuse me of making "false accusations" (your words, not mine)

3. What I got was that you asked a question, masquerading as a statement, and whether it was a question or not, doesn't really matter. GOT IT ?

Your piffling babble is irrelevant; I neither asked a question nor shifted your words. Period. Now if you can't read the English language go forth and learn what "go fuck yourself" means.

And no, that's not a "question" either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're making these easy for me. The link says >> "The film says this pervasive bias contradicts the channel's claim of being "Fair and Balanced".

Problem is NO IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT that. ALL these cable "news" shows have bias (as I've already said 10 times in this thread). That isn't the point. The point is that Fox, loaded with liberals, has the BALANCE that the others don't have, and this makes it much more fair then them. Simple as that.

And apparently, the viewing public appreciates this balance that Fox presents >> FOX News Hits Milestone 50th Quarter at #1 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.Zap2it.com

Hmmm....^^^ which leads me to wonder, are you dishonest or ignorant, and if the latter, willfully so or otherwise?

Even orangatangs can "wonder". As for whether you are dishonest or ignorant, ....who cares ?

Fox has many liberals. Many more than other stations. Fox has a lot of balance (relatively so) Read the thread (which refuted you 10 times before you ever posted here)

Bob Beckel, James Carville, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Tamara Holder, Dennis Kucinich, Leslie Marshall, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Julie Roginsky, Joe Trippi, Lis Wiehl, Juan Williams, Lanny Davis, Doug Schoen, Geraldine Ferraro, Sally Kohn, Shepard Smith.

Now that I've finished my banana; I've finished wondering; thus I'm able to conclude you're both dishonest and not very bright. A combination of characteristics consistent with posts almost always insipid.

 

[Pogo]

Hmmm....^^^ which leads me to wonder, are you dishonest or ignorant, and if the latter, willfully so or otherwise?

Even orangatangs can "wonder". As for whether you are dishonest or ignorant, ....who cares ?

Fox has many liberals. Many more than other stations. Fox has a lot of balance (relatively so) Read the thread (which refuted you 10 times before you ever posted here)

Bob Beckel, James Carville, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Tamara Holder, Dennis Kucinich, Leslie Marshall, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Julie Roginsky, Joe Trippi, Lis Wiehl, Juan Williams, Lanny Davis, Doug Schoen, Geraldine Ferraro, Sally Kohn, Shepard Smith.

Now that I've finished my banana; I've finished wondering; thus I'm able to conclude you're both dishonest and not very bright. A combination of characteristics consistent with posts almost always insipid.

He pretty much shouted that from the mountaintops back in post 11:

4. Being queer most certainly DOES make one a liberal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You watching FOX, Protectionist? They just had a segment on Hobby Lobby. Did you find it fair and balanced? Did you know that birth control only costs $9.95 per month?

That is what they said. You buy that?

 

[protectionist]

OK. I turned on Fox News. It's the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot. First speaker was Hillary Clinton, who spoke for about 150 words. No interruptions. They're talking about the Hobby Lobby case. Not too interesting to me. I will admit that there are no liberals on this particular show (other than the videos) right now, so far, but in this thread, I'm talking about the many shows that DO have liberals on them. I'll keep watching this though and see if they bring any liberals on for the subsequent segments. But even if they don't, like I said, many, if not most Fox News shows DO have liberals on them, providing the balance you don't see on the liberal mouthpiece, MSNBC.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK. I turned on Fox News. It's the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot. First speaker was Hillary Clinton, who spoke for about 150 words. No interruptions. They're talking about the Hobby Lobby case. Not too interesting to me. I will admit that there are no liberals on this particular show (other than the videos) right now, so far, but in this thread, I'm talking about the many shows that DO have liberals on them. I'll keep watching this though and see if they bring any liberals on for the subsequent segments. But even if they don't, like I said, many, if not most Fox News shows DO have liberals on them, providing the balance you don't see on the liberal mouthpiece, MSNBC.

Whether or not a liberal shows up is NOT proof of fairness. It depends on what is being said.

Now they are talking unions. The tone is decidedly anti- union. Would you agree?

 

[protectionist]

Hmmm....^^^ which leads me to wonder, are you dishonest or ignorant, and if the latter, willfully so or otherwise?

Even orangatangs can "wonder". As for whether you are dishonest or ignorant, ....who cares ?

Fox has many liberals. Many more than other stations. Fox has a lot of balance (relatively so) Read the thread (which refuted you 10 times before you ever posted here)

Bob Beckel, James Carville, Alan Colmes, Susan Estrich, Tamara Holder, Dennis Kucinich, Leslie Marshall, Kirsten Powers, Geraldo Rivera, Julie Roginsky, Joe Trippi, Lis Wiehl, Juan Williams, Lanny Davis, Doug Schoen, Geraldine Ferraro, Sally Kohn, Shepard Smith.

Now that I've finished my banana; I've finished wondering; thus I'm able to conclude you're both dishonest and not very bright. A combination of characteristics consistent with posts almost always insipid.

A post that falls short of matching up with the content of the OP and my posts. A resort to name calling is an admission of defeat and lack of substance. You could have pointed out some conservatives on MSNBC, however there are so few (if any) that that may not be the road to go. Maybe your better choice would have been to not enter the thread with an indefensible position, in the first place.

 

[protectionist]

OK. I turned on Fox News. It's the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot. First speaker was Hillary Clinton, who spoke for about 150 words. No interruptions. They're talking about the Hobby Lobby case. Not too interesting to me. I will admit that there are no liberals on this particular show (other than the videos) right now, so far, but in this thread, I'm talking about the many shows that DO have liberals on them. I'll keep watching this though and see if they bring any liberals on for the subsequent segments. But even if they don't, like I said, many, if not most Fox News shows DO have liberals on them, providing the balance you don't see on the liberal mouthpiece, MSNBC.

Whether or not a liberal shows up is NOT proof of fairness. It depends on what is being said.

Now they are talking unions. The tone is decidedly anti- union. Would you agree?

Having liberals BALANCE off the conservatives is what provides balance, thereby providing fairness, in that particular respect. no matter what they say. But what they say is generally, liberal by the liberals, and conservative by the conservatives.

I didn't see that part. I was typing. And right now they're in a commercial. Hopefully it will be about immigration after the break (one of my favorite subjects) Well, what do you know ? A Florida Democratic Party commercial against Rick Scott.

Barrack Obama speaking right now. Now it Bret Stephens, and he's blaming House Republicans. Talking pure RINO Hispanic appeaement. Now the black guy (didn't catch his name) is agreeing with Stephens. Sounds like MSNBC.
Frankly, none of this discussion sounds very conservative. If I were there, I'd say there should be deportation of all illegal aliens, including these most recent ones, in a remake of Eisenhower's 1954 Operation Wetback, and nothing less.

Oh oh. Phone;s ringing. gotta go.

 

[Wry Catcher]

OK. I turned on Fox News. It's the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot. First speaker was Hillary Clinton, who spoke for about 150 words. No interruptions. They're talking about the Hobby Lobby case. Not too interesting to me. I will admit that there are no liberals on this particular show (other than the videos) right now, so far, but in this thread, I'm talking about the many shows that DO have liberals on them. I'll keep watching this though and see if they bring any liberals on for the subsequent segments. But even if they don't, like I said, many, if not most Fox News shows DO have liberals on them, providing the balance you don't see on the liberal mouthpiece, MSNBC.

A good editor - even a piss poor one - can take 150 words from anyone and make whatever they want of them. That you don't know that is more evidence my characterization of you was spot on.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OK. I turned on Fox News. It's the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot. First speaker was Hillary Clinton, who spoke for about 150 words. No interruptions. They're talking about the Hobby Lobby case. Not too interesting to me. I will admit that there are no liberals on this particular show (other than the videos) right now, so far, but in this thread, I'm talking about the many shows that DO have liberals on them. I'll keep watching this though and see if they bring any liberals on for the subsequent segments. But even if they don't, like I said, many, if not most Fox News shows DO have liberals on them, providing the balance you don't see on the liberal mouthpiece, MSNBC.

Whether or not a liberal shows up is NOT proof of fairness. It depends on what is being said.

Now they are talking unions. The tone is decidedly anti- union. Would you agree?

Having liberals BALANCE off the conservatives is what provides balance, thereby providing fairness, in that particular respect. no matter what they say. But what they say is generally, liberal by the liberals, and conservative by the conservatives.

I didn't see that part. I was typing. And right now they're in a commercial. Hopefully it will be about immigration after the break (one of my favorite subjects) Well, what do you know ? A Florida Democratic Party commercial against Rick Scott.

Barrack Obama speaking right now. Now it Bret Stephens, and he's blaming House Republicans. Talking pure RINO Hispanic appeaement. Now the black guy (didn't catch his name) is agreeing with Stephens. Sounds like MSNBC.
Frankly, none of this discussion sounds very conservative. If I were there, I'd say there should be deportation of all illegal aliens, including these most recent ones, in a remake of Eisenhower's 1954 Operation Wetback, and nothing less.

Oh oh. Phone;s ringing. gotta go.

No. That is what provides simpletons with the appearance of fairness and balance. They are props. They are there to further the FOX agenda. And that agenda is CONSERVATIVE.

You really think that there is honest unscripted debate taking place there. I'm so sorry for you.

 

[Pogo]

OK. I turned on Fox News. It's the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot. First speaker was Hillary Clinton, who spoke for about 150 words. No interruptions. They're talking about the Hobby Lobby case. Not too interesting to me. I will admit that there are no liberals on this particular show (other than the videos) right now, so far, but in this thread, I'm talking about the many shows that DO have liberals on them. I'll keep watching this though and see if they bring any liberals on for the subsequent segments. But even if they don't, like I said, many, if not most Fox News shows DO have liberals on them, providing the balance you don't see on the liberal mouthpiece, MSNBC.

Whether or not a liberal shows up is NOT proof of fairness. It depends on what is being said.

Now they are talking unions. The tone is decidedly anti- union. Would you agree?

Having liberals BALANCE off the conservatives is what provides balance, thereby providing fairness

Ever watch that fake wrestling shit? They always have a morality play going on, with a "good guy" and a "villain". The latter wears him down for a while until the good guy prevails. It's all staged and scripted. They're all playing a part, and they know the outcome before they go in.

Now think "conservatives" and "liberals" -- or at least those who play the parts -- on Fox Noise.

Voilà.

 

[protectionist]

OK. I turned on Fox News. It's the Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot. First speaker was Hillary Clinton, who spoke for about 150 words. No interruptions. They're talking about the Hobby Lobby case. Not too interesting to me. I will admit that there are no liberals on this particular show (other than the videos) right now, so far, but in this thread, I'm talking about the many shows that DO have liberals on them. I'll keep watching this though and see if they bring any liberals on for the subsequent segments. But even if they don't, like I said, many, if not most Fox News shows DO have liberals on them, providing the balance you don't see on the liberal mouthpiece, MSNBC.

A good editor - even a piss poor one - can take 150 words from anyone and make whatever they want of them. That you don't know that is more evidence my characterization of you was spot on.

I didn't "take" (cherry-pick) any 150 words. They just happened to be what showed up on the TV screen, at that small segment of time. And I didn't make anything out of Hillary's words, nor did I say anything about them here. Further evidence that your characterization is spot-OFF.

 

[protectionist]

Whether or not a liberal shows up is NOT proof of fairness. It depends on what is being said.

Now they are talking unions. The tone is decidedly anti- union. Would you agree?

Having liberals BALANCE off the conservatives is what provides balance, thereby providing fairness, in that particular respect. no matter what they say. But what they say is generally, liberal by the liberals, and conservative by the conservatives.

I didn't see that part. I was typing. And right now they're in a commercial. Hopefully it will be about immigration after the break (one of my favorite subjects) Well, what do you know ? A Florida Democratic Party commercial against Rick Scott.

Barrack Obama speaking right now. Now it Bret Stephens, and he's blaming House Republicans. Talking pure RINO Hispanic appeaement. Now the black guy (didn't catch his name) is agreeing with Stephens. Sounds like MSNBC.
Frankly, none of this discussion sounds very conservative. If I were there, I'd say there should be deportation of all illegal aliens, including these most recent ones, in a remake of Eisenhower's 1954 Operation Wetback, and nothing less.

Oh oh. Phone;s ringing. gotta go.

No. That is what provides simpletons with the appearance of fairness and balance. They are props. They are there to further the FOX agenda. And that agenda is CONSERVATIVE.

You really think that there is honest unscripted debate taking place there. I'm so sorry for you.

Sounds like the liberal thought machine has got you programmed. To the hilt. If these guys were scripted by Fox to be conservative, then why were they speaking pro-liberal stuff ? Your theory doesn't add up. Why am I not surprised ?

 

[protectionist]

Whether or not a liberal shows up is NOT proof of fairness. It depends on what is being said.

Now they are talking unions. The tone is decidedly anti- union. Would you agree?

Having liberals BALANCE off the conservatives is what provides balance, thereby providing fairness

Ever watch that fake wrestling shit? They always have a morality play going on, with a "good guy" and a "villain". The latter wears him down for a while until the good guy prevails. It's all staged and scripted. They're all playing a part, and they know the outcome before they go in.

Now think "conservatives" and "liberals" -- or at least those who play the parts -- on Fox Noise.

Voilà.

Voila. Instant liberal mind machine programming. Just like Lone laugher, you fit it like a glove. No rocket science here. Easy as ABC. You'll have to come up with something a lot better.

 

[Indeependent]

Having liberals BALANCE off the conservatives is what provides balance, thereby providing fairness

Ever watch that fake wrestling shit? They always have a morality play going on, with a "good guy" and a "villain". The latter wears him down for a while until the good guy prevails. It's all staged and scripted. They're all playing a part, and they know the outcome before they go in.

Now think "conservatives" and "liberals" -- or at least those who play the parts -- on Fox Noise.

Voilà.

Voila. Instant liberal mind machine programming. Just like Lone laugher, you fit it like a glove. No rocket science here. Easy as ABC. You'll have to come up with something a lot better.

LoneLaughter asked concerning the Union story.
I'm interested in your take vs his/hers/its.