Why won't obama call out fox news???

[Vast LWC]

Now, don't get me wrong, I would say that George Bush shouldn't have given any interviews on MSNBC either. I know I wouldn't if I were him.

Which is probably why he didn't.

 

[Meister]

And I'll ask you again, in a separate post...
Is the rest of the media not actually "liberally biased", or are Foxnews Viewers outnumbered by "Liberal" viewers by like 5-to-one?

That's a hard one to answer, because a lot of moderate liberals go to Fox for the news, also. Now...how can your question really be answered with any certainty?

 

[Vast LWC]

No, Obama haters aren't traitors...we're racists.

If that's the case then Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Obama and many more should be under the prison.

At least they weren't called racists. Which begs me to ask the question, why aren't blacks called racists when they oppose Bush????????

See, now you know how we feel.

And I personally have NEVER called anyone a racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies.

I call people a racist when they say "******" or make ignorant negative stereotypes about minorities.

But not for disagreeing. Which is why I called Jimmy Carter a moron for claiming Joe Wilson's outburst was "racist".

So I'm just gonna call you all "traitors" instead, k?

 

[txlonghorn]

And I'll ask you again, in a separate post...

Is the rest of the media not actually "liberally biased", or are Foxnews Viewers outnumbered by "Liberal" viewers by like 5-to-one?

Who knows??? I haven't gotten a solid number out of the liberal media in years. Perfect example is the coverage (or lack of coverage) for the march last weekend. 60-70 thousand??? LOL You could have filled 6 stadiums with that crowd and maybe more. Looks like liberals were WAY outnumbered there. Not sure where you're getting your figures from, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Meister]

And I'll ask you again, in a separate post...

Is the rest of the media not actually "liberally biased", or are Foxnews Viewers outnumbered by "Liberal" viewers by like 5-to-one?

Who knows??? I haven't gotten a solid number out of the liberal media in years. Perfect example is the coverage (or lack of coverage) for the march last weekend. 60-70 thousand??? LOL You could have filled 6 stadiums with that crowd and maybe more. Looks like liberals were WAY outnumbered there. Not sure where you're getting your figures from, so I'll leave it at that.

A source would have been helpful, huh?

 

[Vast LWC]

And I'll ask you again, in a separate post...
Is the rest of the media not actually "liberally biased", or are Foxnews Viewers outnumbered by "Liberal" viewers by like 5-to-one?

That's a hard one to answer, because a lot of moderate liberals go to Fox for the news, also. Now...how can your question really be answered with any certainty?

My point is, one point cannot be made while making the other.

With the "ratings" comments, Fox is trying to make it seem like their viewpoints are "mainstream", because such a large percentage of the population watches them.

But then they turn around and say all the rest of the media are "Liberal". And since a vast majority of news viewers are not in fact watching FoxNews, that would mean that they are vastly outnumbered, making them specifically NOT mainstream.

 

[txlonghorn]

This is politics. President Obama is punishing Fox for their behavior towards him for the last year and a half. He's punishing them for promoting tea parties, the birther movement, and the racist nonsense that permeates a lot of their "news". For Hannity O'Reilly and Beck. For that miserable Megan Kelly, who actually curls her lip when she says his name. For those idiots in the morning- Doucy etc. For allowing the posters at Fox Nation to malign his wife and call her ugly.
And he's 100% correct. Screw Fox.

He's punishing FOX....LOL. That's hilarious.

What racist nonsense are you talking about???? The ONLY ones screaming racism are the loonie left. Jimmy Carter claimed racism. But he's a dumbass anyway. Pelosi is claiming it this week too. Last month it was swastika's for her. So Nazi White supremists....is that it? I'm so glad that we got the race thing cleared up, because you morons aren't even listening to your own networks. You are obviously spending too much time watching FOX. How else can you know so much about EVERYTHING they say?

 

[Vast LWC]

And I'll ask you again, in a separate post...

Is the rest of the media not actually "liberally biased", or are Foxnews Viewers outnumbered by "Liberal" viewers by like 5-to-one?

Who knows??? I haven't gotten a solid number out of the liberal media in years. Perfect example is the coverage (or lack of coverage) for the march last weekend. 60-70 thousand??? LOL You could have filled 6 stadiums with that crowd and maybe more. Looks like liberals were WAY outnumbered there. Not sure where you're getting your figures from, so I'll leave it at that.

We're not seriously going to go back to this point again, are we?

There were like 6 threads in the past week on this subject.

Here, I'll just copy and paste my stock answer from another thread, that pretty much covers the whole argument:

1. The city of Washington DC was PARALYZED by the inauguration crowds, which numbered 1.8 million. Extra police and other civil services had to be called in for crowd control and to take care of other city needs. Traffic throughout the city and in a 10 mile radius was completely out-of-control. Any crowd over 1 million would have caused the same effects. NONE OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED DURING THE TEA PARTY PROTEST.. Period.

2. The supposed "source" for the 2 million number was a supposed spokesman for the Parks Services named "Dan Bana". There is in fact no spokesman for the Parks Services named Dan Bana, instead there is a chief spokesman named "Dave Barna". As seen here. Who has specifically stated in at least one past interview, concerning the Obama Inauguration, that the Parks department does not make estimates of this type. As seen here.

3. The ONLY reliable report of crowd size was reported by ABC News, who received a crowd size estimate from the DC Fire/EMC Department, and that was "around 60-70 Thousand" at approximately 11:30 AM. As seen here.

4. Even the organizers of the protest, FreedomWorks, admitted that the crowds were nowhere near their original estimates, and apologized for mis-quoting ABC News with a 1.2 Million person quote. As seen here. FreedomWorks later posted a corrected, perhaps still overly-optimistic un-official estimate of "Hundreds of Thousands" on their site.

5. To bolster countless claims on blogs and Facebook, many posted a photograph that showed a gargantuan crowd sprawling from Capitol Hill down the National Mall to the Washington Monument. But it turns out the photo is more than 10 years old, apparently taken during a 1997 Promise Keepers rally.
As seen here.

 

[txlonghorn]

No, Obama haters aren't traitors...we're racists.

If that's the case then Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Obama and many more should be under the prison.

At least they weren't called racists. Which begs me to ask the question, why aren't blacks called racists when they oppose Bush????????

See, now you know how we feel.

And I personally have NEVER called anyone a racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies.

I call people a racist when they say "******" or make ignorant negative stereotypes about minorities.

But not for disagreeing. Which is why I called Jimmy Carter a moron for claiming Joe Wilson's outburst was "racist".

So I'm just gonna call you all "traitors" instead, k?

whatever floats your sinking ship there captain. At least we agree on one thing. JIMMY CARTER IS A MORON. He was a moron before he ever KNEW Joe Wilson. Uh oh, does that make me a traitor too??? DAMN!!!

 

[txlonghorn]

And I'll ask you again, in a separate post...
Is the rest of the media not actually "liberally biased", or are Foxnews Viewers outnumbered by "Liberal" viewers by like 5-to-one?

That's a hard one to answer, because a lot of moderate liberals go to Fox for the news, also. Now...how can your question really be answered with any certainty?

My point is, one point cannot be made while making the other.

With the "ratings" comments, Fox is trying to make it seem like their viewpoints are "mainstream", because such a large percentage of the population watches them.

But then they turn around and say all the rest of the media are "Liberal". And since a vast majority of news viewers are not in fact watching FoxNews, that would mean that they are vastly outnumbered, making them specifically NOT mainstream.

Jees..why not just focus on the content? Any network that spews as much crap about how great Obama is doing is in the tank. Polls are out...56% oppose healthcare. 43% approve. That's a 13 point difference. So you tell me...who's outnumbered now?

 

[txlonghorn]

And I'll ask you again, in a separate post...

Is the rest of the media not actually "liberally biased", or are Foxnews Viewers outnumbered by "Liberal" viewers by like 5-to-one?

Who knows??? I haven't gotten a solid number out of the liberal media in years. Perfect example is the coverage (or lack of coverage) for the march last weekend. 60-70 thousand??? LOL You could have filled 6 stadiums with that crowd and maybe more. Looks like liberals were WAY outnumbered there. Not sure where you're getting your figures from, so I'll leave it at that.

We're not seriously going to go back to this point again, are we?

There were like 6 threads in the past week on this subject.

Here, I'll just copy and paste my stock answer from another thread, that pretty much covers the whole argument:

1. The city of Washington DC was PARALYZED by the inauguration crowds, which numbered 1.8 million. Extra police and other civil services had to be called in for crowd control and to take care of other city needs. Traffic throughout the city and in a 10 mile radius was completely out-of-control. Any crowd over 1 million would have caused the same effects. NONE OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED DURING THE TEA PARTY PROTEST.. Period.

2. The supposed "source" for the 2 million number was a supposed spokesman for the Parks Services named "Dan Bana". There is in fact no spokesman for the Parks Services named Dan Bana, instead there is a chief spokesman named "Dave Barna". As seen here. Who has specifically stated in at least one past interview, concerning the Obama Inauguration, that the Parks department does not make estimates of this type. As seen here.

3. The ONLY reliable report of crowd size was reported by ABC News, who received a crowd size estimate from the DC Fire/EMC Department, and that was "around 60-70 Thousand" at approximately 11:30 AM. As seen here.

4. Even the organizers of the protest, FreedomWorks, admitted that the crowds were nowhere near their original estimates, and apologized for mis-quoting ABC News with a 1.2 Million person quote. As seen here. FreedomWorks later posted a corrected, perhaps still overly-optimistic un-official estimate of "Hundreds of Thousands" on their site.

5. To bolster countless claims on blogs and Facebook, many posted a photograph that showed a gargantuan crowd sprawling from Capitol Hill down the National Mall to the Washington Monument. But it turns out the photo is more than 10 years old, apparently taken during a 1997 Promise Keepers rally.
As seen here.

No...we're not going back to anything. I simply use it as an example of liberal reporting in action. To deny coverage and downplay the magnitude of it is piss poor journalism. All Im gonna say about it....again

 

[Catbert]

The less people exposed to his lies, the less accountable he'll have to be.
Here's why he doesn't want to appear on FOX:

CABLE NEWS RACE
Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
CNN KING 1,355,000
CNN COOPER 1,086,000

 

[Vast LWC]

No...we're not going back to anything. I simply use it as an example of liberal reporting in action. To deny coverage and downplay the magnitude of it is piss poor journalism. All Im gonna say about it....again

It's not "downplaying the magnitude" to give the FACTS. That's called "reporting the news".

And as far as coverage goes, the demonstration got much more coverage by every single network, than the 2004 anti-war rally at the RNC in New York City, which consisted of 400,000+ people, according to the NYPD.

Just because the other networks didn't give it some sort of special status among protests, like FoxNews did, does NOT make their coverage biased.

 

[Vast LWC]

The less people exposed to his lies, the less accountable he'll have to be.
Here's why he doesn't want to appear on FOX:

CABLE NEWS RACE
Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
CNN KING 1,355,000
CNN COOPER 1,086,000

Good, now take every single other host on television and combine them, and compare that number to the combined numbers of Fox, and you'll have a point.

 

[txlonghorn]

The less people exposed to his lies, the less accountable he'll have to be.
Here's why he doesn't want to appear on FOX:

CABLE NEWS RACE
Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
CNN KING 1,355,000
CNN COOPER 1,086,000

Good, now take every single other host on television and combine them, and compare that number to the combined numbers of Fox, and you'll have a point.

Why would you want to combine them? These are time slots. Networks use the numbers you see here.

As for your previous post, there was very little coverage until the numbers fight began. If there had never been a screw up in the numbers by ABC, then there would have been vertually nothing else said.

 

[txlonghorn]

Hate to leave this stimulating exchange of wit and banter, but I'm off to start my Nazi, Racist, Traitor style weekend! Sieg Heil!

 

[Vast LWC]

That's a hard one to answer, because a lot of moderate liberals go to Fox for the news, also. Now...how can your question really be answered with any certainty?

My point is, one point cannot be made while making the other.

With the "ratings" comments, Fox is trying to make it seem like their viewpoints are "mainstream", because such a large percentage of the population watches them.

But then they turn around and say all the rest of the media are "Liberal". And since a vast majority of news viewers are not in fact watching FoxNews, that would mean that they are vastly outnumbered, making them specifically NOT mainstream.

Jees..why not just focus on the content? Any network that spews as much crap about how great Obama is doing is in the tank. Polls are out...56% oppose healthcare. 43% approve. That's a 13 point difference. So you tell me...who's outnumbered now?

And, according to the most recent CBSNews poll, approval for the President's health care plan went up to 52%, with just a 38 Percent Disapproval, after his speech.

(There you go, if you people want to pick a poll and roll with it, then two can play at that game.)

 

[Vast LWC]

Hate to leave this stimulating exchange of wit and banter, but I'm off to start my Nazi, Racist, Traitor style weekend! Sieg Heil!

Enjoy!

Have a good time, and be sure to clean your white, swastika-imprinted hood before selling out some random CIA agent! Those things get nasty.

 

[WillowTree]

The less people exposed to his lies, the less accountable he'll have to be.
Here's why he doesn't want to appear on FOX:

CABLE NEWS RACE
Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2009

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 4,039,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,451,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,421,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,785,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,273,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 2,201,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,395,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,369,000
CNN KING 1,355,000
CNN COOPER 1,086,000

Good, now take every single other host on television and combine them, and compare that number to the combined numbers of Fox, and you'll have a point.

Why would you want to combine them? These are time slots. Networks use the numbers you see here.

As for your previous post, there was very little coverage until the numbers fight began. If there had never been a screw up in the numbers by ABC, then there would have been vertually nothing else said.

That screw up was on purpose. From the WH.. throw out the number 2 million then we can set about proving that number wrong..thing is it ended up being pretty damn near 2 million,, that's what has their knickers in a knot. it backfired on their asses as usual.

 

[Vast LWC]

That screw up was on purpose. From the WH.. throw out the number 2 million then we can set about proving that number wrong..thing is it ended up being pretty damn near 2 million,, that's what has their knickers in a knot. it backfired on their asses as usual.

Whatever dude, you can keep on posting this lie until your head explodes, it's not going to change the facts.

I present evidence, and you people just keep on repeating the same thing over and over again.

It's the "No it's not!" defense.

And CNN, for insntance, has given the Tea Party LOTS of attention. They're still giving it attention. And most of what they covered had nothing to do with the argument over obviously falsified numbers.