Gallop: FOX favored Single TV News...but.....

WOW, would you look at that......

Thats freakn amazing.....

Even you know MSNBC and CNN have been telling lies the entire time, but for some strange reason, you seem to endorse it....

tsk tsk tsk....

 

I don't know, when you look at the numbers, almost a third of the independent viewers are part of that 97%, who are unhappy with Obama. Not to mention the 40%, on the Liberal viewers. Not saying you are wrong, I guess I see these polls as telling me that Obama is just not the guy for the job.

 

nope, i intend to stay educated.

I refuse to bury my head in the sand.

- - - Updated - - -

obama is a liar a cheat and a thief, MSNBC and CNN just tell lies and/or dont report the truth, just to make him look less incompetent.

 

I believe I qualified that point in my title by pointing out Fox is favored "single" news source.

Not 26%, 55%. But hey, who's counting.

Obviously (FOX Noise..?)you have an unbiased outlook.

 

Except the biggest block of time on MSNBC is dedicated to a show hosted by a Republican former Congressman which regularly features the former RNC chairman. There is absolutely no way something like that would ever happen on Fox.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone that starts a "news" organization that caters to a small sliver of society is by definition in the noise generating business. 97% disapproval rating. How can anyone claim someone else is biased while defending that number.

 

- - - Updated - - -



obama is a liar a cheat and a thief, MSNBC and CNN just tell lies and/or dont report the truth, just to make him look less incompetent.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I clearly agree... I have never been a fan of B.O.. But I am just using the supposed unbiased poll that shows me more of what I have come to believe, is all. Amused by some peoples views on how it should be read.

 

Unless you say CNN is just an entrainment channel as well, I'm not sure how you qualify that comment. Oh...I know...it's your "opinion".

 

no i didn't

[video=youtube;8yhgxb3t1fw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yhgxb3t1fw[/video]

 

Yes, the word allegedly should be in your statement unless you are just presenting opinion rather than fact. An American citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We do not become guilty because the government says we are. This man was not killed in battle, he was targeted by a drone strike.
He very well may have been guilty of everything they say and probably deserved to die but that is not what our rights as citizens give us. Do you advocate for the government to take away any of your rights they feel fit to because they believe you to be guilty of something?

 

He won't sue either, and he has no chance of winning anyway.

He'll become a hero to loser everywhere, and maybe a smart publicist will figure a way to keep the other losers throwing money at him.

 

you're confusing an abstract concept, used in the legal system, with reality

awlaki was involved with enemy combatants intent on doing harm to americans

 

No, actually I am not confused. I am just uninformed as to the facts proving his guilt and his defense against those facts. That is what happens when someone is not given a chance to defend themselves in court. Do you honestly believe that the government is always right? Do they never make mistakes? Do we not have a right to defend ourselves in court? Bottom line is this, we have rights and should not have to worry about the government taking those rights away from us. Another way to look at things...Would you be OK with Iran doing a drone strike in Oklahoma on an Iranian citizen that they say was involved with US forces? No? Didnt think so.

 

If you don't report on extreme scandals (or worse, misreport these scandals) just because they might make your Supreme Messianic Leader look bad, you're liberal media.

That said, I'm not impressed with Fox at all. They are GOP, first and foremost - both parties are full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

The fact of the matter is, al-Awlaki was innocent. We have no reason to suspect otherwise, except that the Almighty Fed says so.

 

that's quite obvious

 

They aren't "extreme scandals" no matter how many times you say it. They are very insignificant events in American history (not saying losing an Ambassador is insignificant) but the resulting scandal of it is very insignificant. Some of the most embarrassing attempts of slander I've ever seen. The majority of the country and media understands that. Only Fox News doesn't because they have a monopoly on the cult-like right wing nut jobs.

 

what a joke, awlaki makes it clear that he's an enemy of the usa

"With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim....

To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters?"

In another video statement, posted on jihadist forums in November, 2010, Awlaki was even more direct about what he said was the imperative for Muslims to kill Americans.

[video=youtube;54tioVOU2qI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54tioVOU2qI[/video]

 

As are you unless you were working with him. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

 

akphidelt2007 says:

the gun-running of Fast and Furious is insignificant, though it resulted in the deaths of many Mexicans and an American border patrol agent;

the murder of innocent (until PROVEN guilty) American citizens under the NDAA is insignificant;

the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS just prior to an election is insignificant;

the clear-cut voting fraud throughout the country that got Obama elected is insignificant;

the wiretapping of the Associated Press, which violates the Bill of Rights; is insignificant;

the fact that Obama said sequestration was the Republicans' idea, though false, is insignificant;

the fact that the Obama administration did not give support to a dangerously isolated U.S. embassy in Libya - despite repeated requests for increased security and extreme violence in the area - is insignificant;

the fact that the Benghazi attack was blamed on a protest caused by a YouTube video by Obama's administration and several high-ranking officials - including Jay Carney, the White House spokesman - even though nobody in Libya had even seen the video and no protest had occurred, is insignificant;

and the fact that Obama's Eric Holder signed off on the affidavit naming Rosen a potential criminal, despite Holder's perjury to the contrary, is insignificant.

This frighteningly dishonest, stupid, or possibly dangerously naive collection of akphidelt's opinions could speak for itself, but it's so mind-numbing that it may need a translation:
"I don't give a damn what my government does, and I don't give a damn how they do it. In Gov we trust."

 

As I said before, "innocent until PROVEN guilty" in a court of the law by a jury of peers. That's how this system works. If you don't like it, get the hell out.

Regardless, if China busted down the door to enforce a particular form of government in our country, you can be damn sure that I'd be overjoyed at the thought of blowing them all to hell.

Why is it any different when the U.S. does it?

 

that's funny coming from a guy that's defending a terrorist who left the usa so the he could join al-qaeda and preach jihad

do you think bin laden was innocent too? he didn't get a trial


Mr. Awlaki was a lawful target because he was participating in the war with Al Qaeda and also because he was a specific threat to the country. The overlapping reasoning justified a strike either by the Pentagon, which generally operated within the Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda, or by the C.I.A., a civilian agency which generally operated within a “national self-defense” framework deriving from a president’s security powers.

They also analyzed other bodies of law to see whether they would render a strike impermissible, concluding that they did not. For example, the Yemeni government had granted permission for airstrikes on its soil as long as the United States did not acknowledge its role, so such strikes would not violate Yemeni sovereignty.

And while the Constitution generally requires judicial process before the government may kill an American, the Supreme Court has held that in some contexts — like when the police, in order to protect innocent bystanders, ram a car to stop a high-speed chase — no prior permission from a judge is necessary; the lawyers concluded that the wartime threat posed by Mr. Awlaki qualified as such a context, and so his constitutional rights did not bar the government from killing him without a trial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

 

I would hope most understand Fox is not news...anymore than MSNBC or the new CNN. These are entertainment networks designed to cater to political partisanship.....and pretty damn effective.

Yeah, fox is biased, so is pretty much everyone else....so we end up watching a bunch of exaggerations to form opinion.

Harder than it used to be....but doable.


Fox simply makes stuff up more...but it is the same BS.

 

Believe it or not, all those are insignificant issues that were fabricated in to "scandals". And some of what you say is just a blatant lie also. Let me know when something significant happens.

 

Just did, cutie.

 

Creepy... but aside from that, you didn't show anything of significance. Just fabricated scandals and outright lies. The fact you have convinced yourselves that those are significant events is hilarious.

 

So the govt didn't lie about Benghazi and how citizens die? Wow!!! Obama needs lots of sheep like u.