Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Monday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Weekend Edition »

Fox News Channel - Fair & Balanced


 

Comments

Is FOX news unbalanced? Yeah...

I'd've gone for the mental rather than physical imagery.

There may be 2 sides to every story, but there's only 1 side to every lie.

The unedited interview is just a click away, for those who haven't seen it.

Mother Jones hit on this part of the interview as well. I'm sure Ailes will have them back stepping for a day or 2.

Thing is MSNBC is as unbalanced. There is Morning Joe in the morning (of course) but after that MSNBC is as biased as FOX.

I think Jon alludes to this in the unedited interview, but it went by quickly. I don't get cable thus poor tv reception, so it's npr and the interwebs for me. Jon's other point about the MSM being sensationalist and lazy are true, although I can put some of that in NPR's lap as well.

What is your measurement of biased?

Please justify your remark.

There can't be "as unbalanced", when one side is represents creationists, racists, xenophobes and homophobes.

Stewart proves again that he's just smarter than the other guys.

NPR tries for too much balance. Just because there are opposing views on a subject doesn't mean that both views deserve attention.

Anyone remember when we used to argue about war mongering presidents? I swear, it's as if all our wars ended on January 20, 2009 with you people! Does MSNBC even cover war anymore?

it's as if all our wars ended on January 20, 2009 with you people!

... and they started, with "you people"?

Hey Andyo, I know you won't hear about it on MSNBC, so let me be the first to tell you. We're at war in Libya. Not only that, but we're three months into it, and congress has yet to authorize it. Can you imagine the conniption you'd be having if W had tried that? You've all been played for fools, and you refuse to say anything about it because you know you're going to vote for him again, and you're going to call anyone who doesn't vote for Him a racist.

Did we ever really see a vote on Iraq? I thought there was that support resolution before the attack and then no actual war vote.

And what exactly are you hoping for here, that we mention our disapointment in every discussion.

Obama has committed to a slow and painful withdrawl in both Iraq and Afganizta and had committed no ground troops to Lybia.

I think Lybia is perhaps the most justified of the three conflicts.

Libya... Dislexia is comming on strong this morning.

I'm hoping at least a few of you could be consistent in your aversion to war no matter which party is in control. This BS about it being justified on humanitarian grounds is about as lame as saying the Iraqis were going to greet our troops with cheers. Arab uprisings are happening all over the Arab world, yet we choose to bomb one of them thinking the revolutionaries are going to somehow be better to the people than Gaddafi when we know nothing about them. What I'm telling you Red is you have no principles.

My actual thought on justification was that Libya has actually killed americans in a state sponsored act of terrorism.

So when he was about to kill all the members of a revolution that was hinting at democracy, we supported a bombing campaign on military targets and him as a leader.

Compared to Iraq that sounds pretty well thought out.

It depends, if you'd rather vote for Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Bachmann, than any sane black person then yeah, it's very likely you're either a racist or a homophobe or both. Unless of course you have other selfish motives, like lots of money coming your way.

You're saying that a guy who ran promising to end wars, and then STARTS ONE is the sane one? He may be sane, but you certainly aren't. How many Che T-shirts do you own Andyo?

You're assuming liberals aren't complaining about the wars. That's not true. Are you lying, or just blind?

Also, I'm sure you were complaining about those damn illegal wars when Bush was starting them?

And yeah, the sane one is the one that believes in, you know, reality. Wars are complicated political issues, not settled (for all sane people) scientific fact.

And WTF is it with the Che reference? Yeah, I own a shirt. So?

Comparing Obama with che (and should I presume, by association, Fidel?), that's another type of insanity coming from the conservatives. Take it from a Latin American, the US is still not communist.

I wasn't comparing Obama to Che. My point was that communists and liberals are two entirely different things. Communists love war, and Che was certainly no exception. Seriously Andyo, if you hate homophobes, burn that shirt.

I'll say it: Obama is an asshole for keeping us in Bush's two wars and then bombing the hell out of Libya. When was the last time we tried diplomacy? I have been dead against all of these wars from the beginning and I haven't changed my opinion. To me war is an all or nothing proposition. You either go all in or you avoid it at all costs. The problem is that there is way too much money being made on defense.

I'll say it: Obama is an asshole for keeping us in Bush's two wars and then bombing the hell out of Libya.

And I'll second it.

Yet it doesn't make it into your links.

So post it on the forum. Very little political makes it into the links these days from me. Most politicians are assholes Obama included, but he is less of an asshole than those leading the Republican party.

Point me to a conservative blog that isn't full-time right-wing poison. If you don't like what is posted here click on an ad on your way out (on your way over to rushlimbaugh.com I would imagine).

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives