Is FoxNews going to exposed?

[N4mddissent]

Fair enough. Unlike Fox.

 

[editec]

The CNN online poll has Obama winning 79% to 17%. I'm guessing that y'all think they're fair and balanced, huh?

Just heard on CNN their polls were more along the lines of 57% Obama 30% McCain.

These are polls taken from viewers of that network.

As with Fox those audiences have their own biases to begin with...that's why they're watching coverage on those networks.

 

[DavidS]

So the market is the most volatile that it's ever been and Bill Hemmer from FoxNews, who isn't a financial expert, who isn't anything more than just a suit on TV who reads from the teleprompter saw that the DOW was up 130 points and told everyone to "buy, buy, buy." And Megyn Kelly keeps telling people that the breaking news "everyone's talking about" is John McCain's proposals to buy the bad mortgages from homes and re-negotiate them with the homeowners. Of course, she fails to mention that WE ALREADY DID THAT.

Irresponsible reporting.

 

[xsited1]

Perry the Platypus won the debate. Go Perry!

 

[slackjawed]

So just maybe one should gather news from more than one source(they are all biased) and make up one's own mind.
Maybe one shouldn't depend on a TV station to make up one's mind.
Just a thought.....

 

[glockmail]

I mean, it's kind of like Clay Aiken being gay. Most people kind of know it already, but no one's really admitting it. 86% of their viewers believe McCain won the debate?? Come on! I wouldn't have such a problem with Fox News if they outright admitted they were biased, but this is just terrible.

No other poll is even close. Not even MSNBC's polls show Obama with any kind of lead like that.

This is just atrocious that they call themselves "fair and balanced" at the same time have that kind of poll.

FNC doesn't vote in their polls (well, maybe their employees do). Their viewers by and large do. Their viewers tend to be conservative, since the remainder of the cable and networks news stations are liberal. Moreover the other stations won't admit that they are liberal and don't come close to being fair and balanced.

 

[DavidS]

FNC doesn't vote in their polls (well, maybe their employees do). Their viewers by and large do. Their viewers tend to be conservative, since the remainder of the cable and networks news stations are liberal. Moreover the other stations won't admit that they are liberal and don't come close to being fair and balanced.

CNN is pretty neutral. MSNBC... well... they've got Olbermann AND Buchannan.

 

[AllieBaba]

Cnn tries to be neutral, after they slid so low in the ratings they couldn't compete, and after humiliating themselves in the last presidential election.

However, damned if they aren't doing it again. They take these ridiculous polls which they acknowledge are skewed...and they do it ANYWAY. I mean, I don't mind spending a few minutes each night on the pretend imaginary election, and crystal ball predictions, but HOURS of it? And none of it is NEWS. It's their journalists giving their best guesses.

Anderson Cooper is the only one with any sense at all, and he has darn little. At least he's drawn the line at interviewing people in the "Spin Room" and identified those interviews as useless.

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks again, but I have to point out how I feel differently about these questions.

On the first question, I think any links that you are describing are tenuous, but certainly not able to be classified as "Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization? " I think the second question is generally understood to refer to WMD discoveries that posed a threat or helped validate that particular justification for the invasion. But even if that is allowed to pass as ambiguous, I think the last question is one you know the answer to. I recognize that your opinion is that you don't care, but I believe you are informed enough to know the correct answer.

the ties were enough to send more than $3 MILLION to Al Qaeda
i'd say that was a significant tie
as to operational ties, we dont have any links for that
however, we also know he was supporting OTHER terrorist groups as well
as to WMD, finding ANY was enough for me, but then, WMD wasnt the ONLY reason for the liberation of Iraq
it was but one of many(they were all spelled out in the 2003 SotU address, go read that again)

Now your statement was that the study used lies and then called the honest answers wrong. I think the correct answer to the first question is no. Especially since Bush has since stated there were no ties linking Al Qaeda to Saddam. People somehow got the misperception that not only were there ties, but that they worked closely together (As if Bin Laden, a fundamentalist nutjob would ever work with someone in the secular Baathist party). The generally agreed upon view is that WMD's were not found, a few 10 year old buried and forgotten shells aside. This is not even challenged by the administration. And of course, world opinion was not in our favor concerning the invasion of Iraq. So what do you see as the lies?

yes, the studdy assumed the correct answers were that there were NO WMD found, which as you have already agreed, is a lie
it also assumed that there was no proof of ANY links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and as i have pointed out and yopu seem to have agreed, there were some, so they assumed lies to be the truth, and when those that were actually informed enopugh to KNOW the truth, the studdy claimed they had been mislead


i hope you understand exactly why i said what i said, and that i was very much correct

 

[Epsilon Delta]

ah yes, the report that uses lies as facts calls the truth tellers liars

What the fuck does that mean?

 

[KMAN]

polls = LOL

 

[nia588]

I mean, it's kind of like Clay Aiken being gay. Most people kind of know it already, but no one's really admitting it. 86% of their viewers believe McCain won the debate?? Come on! I wouldn't have such a problem with Fox News if they outright admitted they were biased, but this is just terrible.

No other poll is even close. Not even MSNBC's polls show Obama with any kind of lead like that.

This is just atrocious that they call themselves "fair and balanced" at the same time have that kind of poll.

Fox news is pretty bad. I would hate them so much if they didn't keep on spouting that whole "we are balanced news network" crap so much. not only are they a far right network, they tend to exaggerate and sometimes out right lie about stories.

And don't even get me started on sean hannity and bill o rielly.

 

[N4mddissent]

he ties were enough to send more than $3 MILLION to Al Qaeda
i'd say that was a significant tie
as to operational ties, we dont have any links for that
however, we also know he was supporting OTHER terrorist groups as well
as to WMD, finding ANY was enough for me, but then, WMD wasnt the ONLY reason for the liberation of Iraq
it was but one of many(they were all spelled out in the 2003 SotU address, go read that again)

Please provide a source for the oil for food ties, I'd like to read up and get a clear picture of what you are discussing. I'm not saying they didn't exist, but I'm not saying I accept it at face value. I'm also interested in the date when these revelations were made. In any case, it would have to be a lot more detailed than what you seem to be describing for me to consider the link to accurately fit the description that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. All the information I've seen indicates a disdain of Saddam Hussein by Al Qaeda. Wasn't one of the many reasons behind Bin Laden's call for jihad anger over Saudi Arabia allowing U.S. forces to push Saddam out of Kuwait when he wanted his mujahadeen to do it?

As far as WMD's, I believe I stated that it was generally understood to be the WMD discoveries that would validate that particular justification for war. I never said anything about it being the only reason for war, nor would that be relevant. I did not agree that NO wmd found was a lie. I think very few would have interpreted that question in the manner you suggest. And, though I may be mistaken, I seem to remember that the few old warheads they found were already past their effectiveness and posed no threat. I mean come on, you don't feel that you're stretching even a little?

no proof of ANY links between Saddam and Al Qaeda

I don't think the question I quoted even implied that there were not ANY links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I think it was specific enough to lend itself to a common sense interpretation. I have seen you make some reasonable posts, DiveCon, but surely you see that you have reworded the question in this case, implying that it suggested ANY links rather than close-working relationship. Sort of like the Obama-Myers and Palin-AIP. Were there any links in these two cases? Yes. Would I characterize either as a close working relationship? No. Are there supposed links between AIP and Iran? According to the AIP there are. Does that mean the AIP has a close working relationship? You're better than this. Lots of media shows bias at certain times and some are more blatant than others. But Fox is poor journalism and an echo chamber for RNC talking points. Sure, some shows like Olbermann are obviously biased to the left. The difference is that Fox tries to claim it is unbiased and that it is only presenting stories hidden by the "liberal media". I mean, when they did the documentary on Bush and said he had delivered some of the most eloquent and visionary speeches of our time... I mean...Damn. That just makes my hair hurt.

 

[DiveCon]

Please provide a source for the oil for food ties, I'd like to read up and get a clear picture of what you are discussing. I'm not saying they didn't exist, but I'm not saying I accept it at face value. I'm also interested in the date when these revelations were made. In any case, it would have to be a lot more detailed than what you seem to be describing for me to consider the link to accurately fit the description that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. All the information I've seen indicates a disdain of Saddam Hussein by Al Qaeda. Wasn't one of the many reasons behind Bin Laden's call for jihad anger over Saudi Arabia allowing U.S. forces to push Saddam out of Kuwait when he wanted his mujahadeen to do it?

As far as WMD's, I believe I stated that it was generally understood to be the WMD discoveries that would validate that particular justification for war. I never said anything about it being the only reason for war, nor would that be relevant. I did not agree that NO wmd found was a lie. I think very few would have interpreted that question in the manner you suggest. And, though I may be mistaken, I seem to remember that the few old warheads they found were already past their effectiveness and posed no threat. I mean come on, you don't feel that you're stretching even a little?



I don't think the question I quoted even implied that there were not ANY links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. I think it was specific enough to lend itself to a common sense interpretation. I have seen you make some reasonable posts, DiveCon, but surely you see that you have reworded the question in this case, implying that it suggested ANY links rather than close-working relationship. Sort of like the Obama-Myers and Palin-AIP. Were there any links in these two cases? Yes. Would I characterize either as a close working relationship? No. Are there supposed links between AIP and Iran? According to the AIP there are. Does that mean the AIP has a close working relationship? You're better than this. Lots of media shows bias at certain times and some are more blatant than others. But Fox is poor journalism and an echo chamber for RNC talking points. Sure, some shows like Olbermann are obviously biased to the left. The difference is that Fox tries to claim it is unbiased and that it is only presenting stories hidden by the "liberal media". I mean, when they did the documentary on Bush and said he had delivered some of the most eloquent and visionary speeches of our time... I mean...Damn. That just makes my hair hurt.

yeah, Obama/Ayers had a working relationship and Obama had claimed he was a friend and mentor
as to Palin/AIP, the only link is her husband was a member for a few years and attended one of their conventions when it was in his home town of Wasilla

the former is far greater than the later


as to the Saddam/Al Qaeda links, they were NOT operational ties, as i have already said, but this is not the "global war on Al Qaeda"

 

[xsited1]

CNN is pretty neutral. MSNBC... well... they've got Olbermann AND Buchannan.

When did CNN become neutral? 2016?

 

[N4mddissent]

yeah, Obama/Ayers had a working relationship and Obama had claimed he was a friend and mentor
as to Palin/AIP, the only link is her husband was a member for a few years and attended one of their conventions when it was in his home town of Wasilla

For a party who wants to change the future, these republicans sure are spending a lot of time looking at the past. Wait...haven't I heard something similar to this before?

I understand your point about the Ayers/Obama thing, but since I think we both understand these personal attacks are irrelevant, I want to offer up a different perspective. Not because it's important, just because it helps illustrate how these subjective assessments of character based on associates are really useless.

First of all, while Ayers had a troubled past and does seem radical in his views, his actions are those that have earned him Citizen of the Year in Chicago. He is a professor of education at a prestigious university and additionally works to help provide better education to children in poverty. William Ayers helped co-write the grant proposal to bring an Annenberg challenge grant to Chicago. Barack Obama was elected founding president and chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Most would agree that the goal of providing better education to children in poverty is important and worthwhile. Just as when there is a crisis in the world, America may work with some other nations, to provide relief during that crisis and may even refer to them as "our friends", or even without a crisis may have an open working and even friendly relationship with countries like Saudi Arabia, it is a matter of practicality and circumstance and in no way implies that we adhere to their fundamental beliefs or principles, nor do we support their principles ideologically. We do not condone their unsavory actions.

Additionally, though you mentioned Palin's husband's membership for almost 7 years, you did not mention the fact that Ms. Palin gave a speech to a convention for the AIP as recently as this year. A speech in which she encouraged them to "keep up the good work". The AIP as recently as 2006 attempted to have placed on the ballot a resolution for the state of Alaska to secede from the United States. It in fact is the primary goal around which their party is organized. Is this the good work she was encouraging?

John McCain early in his political career was on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom which was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League. The World Anti-Communist League, was tied to South American Death squads and worked with a Nazi fugitive through its South American branches and later was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal. The chairman just prior to John McCain joining it, stepped down after it was exposed that he was a member of several neo-nazi organizations.

So one might say that McCain was on the board of an organization which supported some pretty unsavory activities while he was there. But that was in the past. Palin was not a member nor closely associated with AIP, but did give a supportive speech to a group that is currently putting forth some ideas that most Americans would find distasteful. Obama worked for an organization with commendable goals but worked with someone who had belonged to an unsavory organization in the past.

Looks to me like Obama was the only one who neither supported nor was a member of any organization tied to criminal, questionable, or anti-American activities. He just knew a guy who was.

A lot can be read into these because in truth, they're hollow. I think it's pointless in terms of relevance and I certainly don't think it's a situation that is objectively justifiable for you to say one ridiculous claim of guilt by association is more or less significant than another ridiculous claim of guilt by association.

as to the Saddam/Al Qaeda links, they were NOT operational ties, as i have already said, but this is not the "global war on Al Qaeda"

And no operational ties between the two would to me indicate that there was not a "close working relationship", therefore the answer to the question was no.

 

[DiveCon]

For a party who wants to change the future, these republicans sure are spending a lot of time looking at the past. Wait...haven't I heard something similar to this before?

I understand your point about the Ayers/Obama thing, but since I think we both understand these personal attacks are irrelevant, I want to offer up a different perspective. Not because it's important, just because it helps illustrate how these subjective assessments of character based on associates are really useless.

First of all, while Ayers had a troubled past and does seem radical in his views, his actions are those that have earned him Citizen of the Year in Chicago. He is a professor of education at a prestigious university and additionally works to help provide better education to children in poverty. William Ayers helped co-write the grant proposal to bring an Annenberg challenge grant to Chicago. Barack Obama was elected founding president and chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Most would agree that the goal of providing better education to children in poverty is important and worthwhile. Just as when there is a crisis in the world, America may work with some other nations, to provide relief during that crisis and may even refer to them as "our friends", or even without a crisis may have an open working and even friendly relationship with countries like Saudi Arabia, it is a matter of practicality and circumstance and in no way implies that we adhere to their fundamental beliefs or principles, nor do we support their principles ideologically. We do not condone their unsavory actions.

Additionally, though you mentioned Palin's husband's membership for almost 7 years, you did not mention the fact that Ms. Palin gave a speech to a convention for the AIP as recently as this year. A speech in which she encouraged them to "keep up the good work". The AIP as recently as 2006 attempted to have placed on the ballot a resolution for the state of Alaska to secede from the United States. It in fact is the primary goal around which their party is organized. Is this the good work she was encouraging?

John McCain early in his political career was on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom which was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League. The World Anti-Communist League, was tied to South American Death squads and worked with a Nazi fugitive through its South American branches and later was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal. The chairman just prior to John McCain joining it, stepped down after it was exposed that he was a member of several neo-nazi organizations.

So one might say that McCain was on the board of an organization which supported some pretty unsavory activities while he was there. But that was in the past. Palin was not a member nor closely associated with AIP, but did give a supportive speech to a group that is currently putting forth some ideas that most Americans would find distasteful. Obama worked for an organization with commendable goals but worked with someone who had belonged to an unsavory organization in the past.

Looks to me like Obama was the only one who neither supported nor was a member of any organization tied to criminal, questionable, or anti-American activities. He just knew a guy who was.

A lot can be read into these because in truth, they're hollow. I think it's pointless in terms of relevance and I certainly don't think it's a situation that is objectively justifiable for you to say one ridiculous claim of guilt by association is more or less significant than another ridiculous claim of guilt by association.


And no operational ties between the two would to me indicate that there was not a "close working relationship", therefore the answer to the question was no.

please show me where, on their site, they are calling for secession?

Alaskan Independence Party

any other site will not be accepted as part of them

 

[N4mddissent]

How about this, Divecon. I will give you the link to the Alaska Supreme Court ruling that prevented their attempt to place on the ballot a resolution calling for secession. Note, it called for independence. The AIP tries to split hairs and say that it's different from secession, but I think we can dispense with the semantics.

Here's a link to a page on their website where the ballot initiative I mentioned is discussed.
Link
Relevant portion as follows:
March 11, 2007
The petition Parnell trashed was submitted by Scott Kohlhass and 242 others, including Lynette Clark, chair of the Alaska Independence Party and a disciple of the late Alaska independence advocate Joe Vogler.

Here's a link to the Alaska Division of Elections where you can read the proposal
Link

 

[N4mddissent]

I mean, hey, they call themselves the Alaska Independence Party. It would be as surprising as finding out that the National Wildlife fund was concerned about animals or that the Union of Concerned Scientists focused on science issues or that Homeland Security protects the nation...oh wait. That last one would be surprise.

 

[DiveCon]

How about this, Divecon. I will give you the link to the Alaska Supreme Court ruling that prevented their attempt to place on the ballot a resolution calling for secession. Note, it called for independence. The AIP tries to split hairs and say that it's different from secession, but I think we can dispense with the semantics.

Here's a link to a page on their website where the ballot initiative I mentioned is discussed.
Link
Relevant portion as follows:
March 11, 2007
The petition Parnell trashed was submitted by Scott Kohlhass and 242 others, including Lynette Clark, chair of the Alaska Independence Party and a disciple of the late Alaska independence advocate Joe Vogler.

Here's a link to the Alaska Division of Elections where you can read the proposal
Link

again, that was just to put it up for a vote
i dont see that being the same as what you do

http://www.akip.org/goal.html


hmm, seems there are also issues with the way Hawaii statehood was done