Fox News Loosing Some ground?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Trumanp, Nov 20, 2012.

  1. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree. If we give them a path to citizenship, we might as well do away with the border. I favor Romney's plan. Not to throw them out, but have them deport themselves by denying them work.

    For jobs Americans don't want to do, come out with a sort of Green Card plan where they can come in and work those jobs for a number of years, but then go home and allow others a chance to come in and work. Have them protected by the government work rules so they aren't taken advantage of. Have them pay taxes.
     
  2. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shep Smith and Anderson Cooper (oddly both gay) have been the two most fair reporters of the news in the last ten years. Fox's news team isn't partisan--in fact, Shep and Sean Hannity have gone at it several times when he's brought over for commentary.
     
  3. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It's not that Americans do not want to do them, it's that they cannot earn a living doing them, for the slave wages (mostly under the table, table scraps) criminal employers (who are the problem in the first place) want to continue to benefit from.
     
  4. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. Winning pulitzers, having an absolutely ridiculous rate of accuracy, and being straight-down-the-middle makes it a reliable source for fact-checking. That you would scream about it being by "some left handed clown" belies just how horrible your understanding of the issues is.

    What I find funny is that, when asked, Krugman ridicules the idea of "death panels". And in fact, if you actually read the politifact article I linked (or this one, where the same claim about death panels was rated "lie of the year"), you'd see why:

    "I actually think that most doctors want to do right by their patients. And if they’ve got good information, I think they will act on that good information," Obama said during an interview with the New York Times on April 28, 2009.

    He also specifically addressed end-of-life care for seniors, discussing the last week of his grandmother's life in 2008, and how her family and doctors decided on treatment for her.

    "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels," Obama said. "And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now."

    And in fact, the House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer." In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select.

    You missing Krugman's sarcasm (probably intentionally) is rather disappointing but entirely unsurprising. That you would shill for the right wing even moreso.

    No, here's one republican congressman talking about that waiver. What a surprise, a member of the republican party brought up republican talking points. Again, did you read the Politifact article? I get the feeling you didn't, because otherwise you might have caught this bit:

    The waivers, then, would allow for flexibility. For example, someone with a special-needs child might require different work arrangements than are currently allowed. Or a person who needs to improve his or her English skills might require more time to take classes.

    "The real starting place is: What’s the most effective program to get this person to work?" Schott said.

    It’s important to note, however, that the waivers would not just be a change on paper. Schott said it’s possible that waivers will allow states to get credit under the work requirement for things that don’t count currently. Romney and other critics contend that this amounts to "gutting" reform. Robert Rector, a welfare expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote that the new standards set a "very weak or counterproductive measure of success."

    But there's no evidence the Obama administration has changed its philosophy. Indeed, the goal of the policy is to boost employment. The HHS letter, in several places, says only proposals from states that "improve employment outcomes" will be considered.

    [...]

    The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.​

    You do know that I'm not just throwing out random articles, right? I'm doing what you seem completely unwilling to do, and that's reading them. See, that's the other thing about politifacts. They don't just throw out random ratings that fit their political agenda and say, "Yep, that'll do it". They do a significant amount of research and back up their claims very heavily. They go so far as to seek clarification from those making the claim when they can find it nowhere else. They ask experts, they consult with major political figures. They do their homework. And yet, somehow, you refuse to. Hatch is just as wrong as Romney and Santorum were.

    Oh, and I love how he says around 2:30 "If Obama wanted this to happen, he should have asked congress!" Yes, because asking congress ever got anything done between 2010 and 2012.

    Here's Obama on Benghazi blaming it on a youtube video.

    Oh, wait, now he's trustworthy? The fact remains that the DREAM act is not amnesty in a traditional sense.

    While some have said any relief from legal action is amnesty, whether it lasts for two years or forever, Chishti said the temporary nature of the Obama plan makes it significantly different than true amnesty. Indeed, the legal definitions provide examples where amnesty is permanent immunity from punishment.

    Chishti’s group estimates that about 1.4 million undocumented residents would be eligible under the new program. How many actually come forward might depend on their assessment of the risks. Ben Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, a group that supports the move by Obama, agreed with Chishti's point that the policy offered people only temporary relief. He said anyone applying under the program has to understand that they will be giving immigration officials a lot of personal information.

    "Two years from now, they might be more vulnerable" to deportation, Johnson said.

    Again, did you read the articles I linked you to?

    No. You didn't. You just rushed on ahead to try to prove me (and politifact, without even knowing what they said) wrong. And you failed.
     
  5. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They're strictly right-wing... And yet they are fair. Huh. Care to tell me how that works? And others didn't "skip important stories". They simply didn't effectively rename their network "Benghazigate Broadcasting Network". They didn't place gigantic focus on a molehill of a problem which seems more and more insignificant as every day passes.

    Yes, and there's a strict difference between an advisory board that does not mandate decisions about the coverage of procedures and what Palin, Gingrich, and the like described. Politifact doesn't hand out Pants on Fire over a poor choice of words.
     
  6. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Leave it a lib, to have the evidence on video, watch it, and STILL claim it's not true. Unbelievable.
     
  7. Consmike

    Consmike New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    45,042
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    They're strictly right-wing... And yet they are fair. Huh. Care to tell me how that works? And others didn't "skip important stories". They simply didn't effectively rename their network "Benghazigate Broadcasting Network". They didn't place gigantic focus on a molehill of a problem which seems more and more insignificant as every day passes.

    Marine1
    First of all you have to realize there is a huge difference in news and commentaries.


    Is it a mole hill when Americans are attacked and murdered? When they asked for help and for over 6 hours none came? Wouldn't it be important to find out if we could have helped them and if we lied about the whole thing?
     
  9. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the republicans didn't lie, then Romney wouldn't have lost the election. :)
     
  10. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Not when it is your life on the line. With no dog in the race, you are looking at the most positive position, assuming they are just there to help "you", which isn't altogether the entire truth, and he (and they) are looking at the most negative aspects of what their responsibility entails, and determining a person's life expectancy is a cold reality of the situation.

    What neither of you is doing is being completely honest with one another since the entire premise is to undermine the reality of the situation to push a particular agenda.
     
  11. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Democrats lied all the way through that campaign. Said Romney hates the poor, has a war against women, said he hates Blacks, Hispanics and gays.They accused him of exporting jobs to China when it's been proven he didn't. Accused him of being so rich he was out of touch with the average American.
     
  12. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. Cloak

    Cloak New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd beg to differ. Just this morning, while getting ready for a late start at the office, I flipped to America Live on FOX News, which is pegged as a "straight news" show. Right off the bat, a story about a car manufacturer accusing the Obama administration of political favoring was brought up, and teased using the language "Is this yet another example of crony capitalism from the White House?" It doesn't take a rhodes scholar to determine that leading a story like that is SUBJECTIVE rather than OBJECTIVE. Then, during the actual segment, their sole "expert" was John Fund of the National Review, which they didn't even label as a conservative news source. That's just one example, they continuously display bias not only in the stories they choose to cover (and omit) and the panelists they feature, but also in the language used by the anchors themselves.

    Is MSNBC any better? No, of course not. But pretending that either station doesn't have a network-wide bias is absurd.
     
  14. snakestretcher

    snakestretcher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    43,996
    Likes Received:
    1,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and McDonald's consistently sell the most cheeseburgers. Does it matter that they're sh1t sandwiches, or would you prefer quality meat? Quantity is no indicator of quality-except in America where apparently more=better.
     
  15. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unfortunately one of the biggest problems with identifying bias, is being blinded/misdirected by bias.
     
  16. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looks like the American people didn't believe your guy. Not that either side is squeaky clean mind you, just your guy wasn't credible enough for the American people to buy into. Fox didn't help matters either. It gave me great pleasure to watch Meghan Kelly squirm in her seat when Fox finally had to project Obama as being re-elected.
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fox is free here with basic cable, have to get expanded cable to get other news channels, so would think they would always have more viewers
     
  18. Dasein

    Dasein New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    8,944
    Likes Received:
    95
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was Romney's own 47% comments that killed him.
     
  19. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Leave it to a conservative to misquote and misrepresent a popular figure with a known opinion on the matter, then claim that they are right when they most definitely are not. Seriously, are you really that thick, or are you just a bad troll?

    Again, what part of "does not mandate" is so unclear?

    It is not a molehill. But it's not Mons Olympus, which seems to be what the republicans are going for.
     
  20. Goldwater

    Goldwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Fox won't have viewers forever unless the GOP figures out how to attract more young people.
     
  21. Iron River

    Iron River Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    7,082
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What lie did Romney tell? What lies are you claiming Republicans told during the campaign?

    So you are saying that McDonald sandwiches are bigger?? You think that you get more at McDonald's?? That shows that you will talk about subjects that you know nothing about.

    Originally Posted by Stagnant
    Yes, and there's a strict difference between an advisory board that does not mandate decisions about the coverage of procedures...


    There is also a difference in being able to buy the treatment you want whether your insurance is willing to pay or not and have an advisory board that is the last word which will be the case once there is a total takeover of the healthcare system. Under Obamacare the AB will deny coverage for something and it will be illegal or at least very hard to find a doctor in this country that will do the procedure. Where will be the cutoff for a procedure that has a chance of saving your life? 70%? 40%? Don't except the AB to let you do a 20% chance procedure.
     
  22. JoeSixpack

    JoeSixpack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    10,940
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your words;

    If they cannot mandate, they can't do this ^ , so what is the point? If they can mandate this ^ then they will inevitably exercise their power for other things, as the political bureaucracy that they are, which means they are just as susceptible to bribes as any other politician. Surely you don't believe the government is all warm fuzzies and pink bunnies just because they represent the party of your choice. Really?
     
  23. Cloak

    Cloak New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very true, many people don't have the cognitive capacity (or willingness) to step outside their worldview and look at the media they consume objectively.
     
  24. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PLease cite the name of the cable company that provides FOXNEWS, but not CNN, and/or MSNBC.
     
  25. Trumanp

    Trumanp Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't deny that both sides told some lies, but I feel that Romney told far more lies, and stretched the truth when he could far far more than Obama did.

    The Jeep thing was the biggest killer for people I know. I live near Toledo, where Jeep has a plant and Jeep is investing millions of dollars in that plant to boost production, while at the same time they are working to build an assembly plant in China to better serve that market. It makes logistical sense to build regional assembly plants to cut costs. Yet Romney wanted to make it appear that Jeep was moving production from Toledo, which was at best a big stretch of the truth, if not an outright lie.

    Romney at best was a flip flopping for each audience when he gave speeches, IE the 47% comments to that group of wealthy people. Why would he ever make that comment if he wasn't being dishonest at best? A two faced liar who would say anything to get elected at worst?

    I'm sorry Marine, but in the case of Romney versus Obama, Obama was the lesser of two evils. Now if someone like John Huntsman had been nominated, it would have been no contest, Obama wouldn't be president today. Romney only got where he did through money and constant shifts in his story depending on who he was talking to. He never had the same opinion twice. Best example, last debate he says we can't simply expect to go and kill all the bad guys internationally or else people will hate us. And not 5 minutes later in response to how he'd deal with foreign aggressors, he says we should just go in and make sure they were all dead.... Any lingering doubts I had at point on who Romney really was were dismissed.
     

Share This Page