Some of you guys need to start learning to value wisdom instead of simply bluster.
I wouldn’t trust FOX to clean my toilet without turning it into some type of one sided political issue.
As usual, you nutbags are buying into the whole, they should have the nads to do this, or do that. Basically, schoolground tactics of calling someone a coward.
Why don’t you ask for more from your news than that? Oh, yes, because schoolground tactics are fairly sophisticated for some of you, aren’t they?
I don’t know what the point would be to debate on FOX other than bring ratings to FOX…why they’d want to do that…? I also don’t think its worth it to listen to them blow their hot air anymore.
Did anyone watch them on MSNBC there was no variation in anything that was said by any candidate except maybe Gravel and Kuncinich. The rest? no point in listening to them any more.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t know what the point would be to debate on FOX other than bring ratings to FOX…why they’d want to do that…? I also don’t think its worth it to listen to them blow their hot air anymore.
Did anyone watch them on MSNBC there was no variation in anything that was said by any candidate except maybe Gravel and Kuncinich. The rest? no point in listening to them any more.
[/quote]
Gravel is awesome.
[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
What would the point be? These are debates that will influence the primaries - how many FOX viewers do you think will be casting their vote for a democrat in the primaries?
[/quote]
The point, OF COURSE, is that the American electorate has a short attention span. People often vote based on a single impression.
It’s not hard to imagine a wavering Republican thinking, “Well, if they can’t handle adversity, I’ll stick with the tried and true.”
Further, what does that say about the candidates and their desire to represent the whole country?
Finally, what does that say about the confidence of the candidates in their own ability?
Get serious. If all the Republicans were dodging everyone but Fox, you’d be up in arms.
JeffR
To quote Ann:
But here’s what’s up (what she said is partially true).
This is not the debate scheduled for Aug 14. That one was cancelled by the Nevada democrats way back in March, but Edwards had stated before that that he would not appear on it.
The debate I am assuming Ann is talking about is the one on Sep 23 that is in Detroit and is hosted by Fox and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute.
Edwards stated he wouldn’t do the first one, and on the 7th of April, as best as I can tell, said he would do this one in Detroit.
Obama and Clinton both said they won’t be in the Detroit debate. But from what I can tell they made this clear almost a month ago.
To be fair to Obama, I am not sure I would want to be on any channel who’s head likened me to our greatest enemy, and which back in January insisted he went to an evil Islamic school. Feel free to disagree with me on that one. On that note though it would have been cool to see him man up enter the debate, provided he came armed for war and ready for the PR battle that would probably follow.
So we have 3 candidates refusing a debate, no word on the other 4.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Some of you guys need to start learning to value wisdom instead of simply bluster.
I wouldn’t trust FOX to clean my toilet without turning it into some type of one sided political issue.
As usual, you nutbags are buying into the whole, they should have the nads to do this, or do that. Basically, schoolground tactics of calling someone a coward.
Why don’t you ask for more from your news than that? Oh, yes, because schoolground tactics are fairly sophisticated for some of you, aren’t they?
[/quote]
Your post is pure bluster.
There are a couple legitimate reasons listed why the debates will not be on Fox and it is based on the demographics of the normal viewership.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Some of you guys need to start learning to value wisdom instead of simply bluster.
I wouldn’t trust FOX to clean my toilet without turning it into some type of one sided political issue.
As usual, you nutbags are buying into the whole, they should have the nads to do this, or do that. Basically, schoolground tactics of calling someone a coward.
Why don’t you ask for more from your news than that? Oh, yes, because schoolground tactics are fairly sophisticated for some of you, aren’t they?
[/quote]
WTF, Vroom? You tell me to “start learning to value wisdom instead of simply bluster”, then blabber on about some vague right-wing Fox News conspiracy. This isn’t name calling, this is about some people who are running for the toughest job on the planet…and they are affraid to go on Fox.
Until you provide some proof of how Fox would somehow tamper with a debate, I suggest you sit quitely and just read. The whole “Fox is biased” stuff is weak and played-out. Name me ONE major news source that isn’t.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Well it’s also about what clips FOX will use when showing a summery of the debate. They will do what they always do, and show clips completely out of context. It’s alright when comedians do it, but FOX is a real news station. We should expect better. CNN is just as bad with GOP clips, for the record.
If this be true about the clips, isn’t that what they will face in a general election campaign?
Any Democract worthy of the United States Presidency should be saying “I can’t wait to get in there and tear up those right-wing hacks while America is watching.” Someone with Presidential mettle would be doing that.
And besides - how hard could it be? Democrats are the really bright Enlightened-types, and the hacks at FOX are paleolithic knuckledraggers (we hear that here all the time).
Wouldn’t it be a cakewalk to get up there and make short work of the FOX neanderthals?
I understand your disappointment - I am disappointed as well. On this, I agree with Coulter, it turns out: if the Democratic candidates are unwilling to face the challenge of a FOX moderator, how will they act across the table from the Iranian maniac?
I may not ordinarily vote Democrat - but I may have a Democratic president come 2008 - and I deserve to know how they can handle the job. That is true of any candidate.
This is really just common sense as Ann actually knows. If 88 percent of fox viewers supported Bush in the last election (more than any other demographic) then logically there is absolutely ZERO point in having debates on FOx. A canidate is invested in helping his own campaign, the odds are highly against it on a fake news propoganda channel.
In other news the the republican debates will not be held on the Daily Show.
I guess we shouldn’t expect the GOP to do anything on CNN, CBS, NBC, or ABC.
Fox News is the biggest cable news channel in the country, by a landslide. Not some “fake” news as you said.
Why wouldn’t the candidates want to get their message out to that many people? A debate is a debate. The Dems only want to talk to their base for some reason. Seriously, how would a debate on Fox News Channel be any different than a debate on CNN or CBS, other than massive ratings?
[/quote]
Again, why would they? If everyone who watches the channel votes republican, and apparently happen to be the same 28 percent who support the President…why in the hell would you ever appear on the channel? It’s really just simple logic.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By contrast, the GOP candidates will be debating at the Reagan Library…
…sponsored by MSNBC and Politico.
And moderated by…Chris Matthews. Yes, Chris Matthews.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_debate
[/quote]
Oh, so the guy who would love to be permanently tea-bagged by McCain while taking it up the rear by Rudy. So what?
[quote]PGJ wrote:
WTF, Vroom? You tell me to “start learning to value wisdom instead of simply bluster”, then blabber on about some vague right-wing Fox News conspiracy. This isn’t name calling, this is about some people who are running for the toughest job on the planet…and they are affraid to go on Fox.
Until you provide some proof of how Fox would somehow tamper with a debate, I suggest you sit quitely and just read. The whole “Fox is biased” stuff is weak and played-out. Name me ONE major news source that isn’t. [/quote]
Any time Vroom starts advising people on “being wise”, you are in for a treat.
We have yet to see any reason FOX wouldn’t run a legitimate debate, and supposing they didn’t, shouldn’t Democrats be chomping at the bit to show the FOX hacks up in front of America?
That is a serious query - look at what happened when Bill Clinton got testy with the FOX interviewer: which Democratic candidate wouldn’t want that reputation going into the primaries?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Well it’s also about what clips FOX will use when showing a summery of the debate. They will do what they always do, and show clips completely out of context. It’s alright when comedians do it, but FOX is a real news station. We should expect better. CNN is just as bad with GOP clips, for the record.
If this be true about the clips, isn’t that what they will face in a general election campaign?
Any Democract worthy of the United States Presidency should be saying “I can’t wait to get in there and tear up those right-wing hacks while America is watching.” Someone with Presidential mettle would be doing that.
And besides - how hard could it be? Democrats are the really bright Enlightened-types, and the hacks at FOX are paleolithic knuckledraggers (we hear that here all the time).
Wouldn’t it be a cakewalk to get up there and make short work of the FOX neanderthals?
I understand your disappointment - I am disappointed as well. On this, I agree with Coulter, it turns out: if the Democratic candidates are unwilling to face the challenge of a FOX moderator, how will they act across the table from the Iranian maniac?
I may not ordinarily vote Democrat - but I may have a Democratic president come 2008 - and I deserve to know how they can handle the job. That is true of any candidate.[/quote]
A) I think they should do it. So don’t go yelling at me 
B) It’s a matter of principal for them. Fox is an ass to them, why should they respect FOX and come on its network? Crappy logic, but logic none the less.
C) No one thinks FOX is stupid. There fucking geniuses, actually, who’ve managed to fill a niche long empty in TV news, a super-conservative highly-sensational channel of bullshit and good TV shows. They tear dems up because they know how to lie and manipulate the news to make people look like they’re saying something they are not. Kerry’s bad Bush joke ring any bells? Obama’s “madrassa” education? Even though they may not have broken these stories, they still ran with them, and others, in a VERY sensationalist way.
Fox News = Shit. I’ve never heard a truly intelligent thing come out of Sean Hannity’s mouth.
Of course, thats not to say most news isn’t shit these days anyway. Theres the rare analyst who seems to make some sense consistently, but they are far and few between these days.
D) For the record, Clinton (Bill) tore em’ a new one. I think Mike Gravel could do the same given the chance. I do not think Hillary or Obama or Edwards could, however.
Give me a break. I’m tired of the “Whatever President Bush says is crap” attitude. Do you guys really believe CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post, and other news sites are completely fair and unbiased? Hell no! Fox doesn’t robotically bash the President for every move he makes (his last State of the Union speech, the traditional media was bashing him BEFORE he spoke and criticizing him for what they THOUGHT he was going to say). Come on. Unlike other news source, they show the man a little respect AND they respect the troops. The troops love Fox, and Hannity, and Ollie, and O’Reiley…
How can anyone say Fox is crap. It consistently kicks CNN’s ass. I’m guessing a lot more than 28% of the people who support the President are watching Fox.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Give me a break. I’m tired of the “Whatever President Bush says is crap” attitude. Do you guys really believe CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post, and other news sites are completely fair and unbiased? Hell no! Fox doesn’t robotically bash the President for every move he makes (his last State of the Union speech, the traditional media was bashing him BEFORE he spoke and criticizing him for what they THOUGHT he was going to say). Come on. Unlike other news source, they show the man a little respect AND they respect the troops. The troops love Fox, and Hannity, and Ollie, and O’Reiley…
How can anyone say Fox is crap. It consistently kicks CNN’s ass. I’m guessing a lot more than 28% of the people who support the President are watching Fox.
[/quote]
As a news channel it’s crap. As entertainment it’s great, but really all the news channels are getting worse, and worse—not just fox–but clearly it’s the worse–catering to the lowest common denominator—the gullible.(as opposed to the stupid-like the others)
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Give me a break. I’m tired of the “Whatever President Bush says is crap” attitude. Do you guys really believe CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post, and other news sites are completely fair and unbiased? Hell no! Fox doesn’t robotically bash the President for every move he makes (his last State of the Union speech, the traditional media was bashing him BEFORE he spoke and criticizing him for what they THOUGHT he was going to say). Come on. Unlike other news source, they show the man a little respect AND they respect the troops. The troops love Fox, and Hannity, and Ollie, and O’Reiley…
How can anyone say Fox is crap. It consistently kicks CNN’s ass. I’m guessing a lot more than 28% of the people who support the President are watching Fox.
[/quote]
Who mentioned Bush?
And who the hell asked the troops what news they watch? Most of them are poor, and I’m gonna go ahead and guess they didn’t do much news watching in high school.
Oh, and appealing to the majority is a fallacy.
NYT and Washington Post are respectable papers that run unbiased articles. Their editorials are biased, but they’re supposed to be. As well, they print plenty of the “other” sides argument in the Op Ed. Print media is staying strong, while the TV news deteriorates into crap, even as paper loses its popularity (though the internet may save it).
Its not about NOT bashing the President, it’s about how FOX uses sensationalist tactics to scare people into watching their channel. As well, it’s level of analysis is usually shallow, if there is any at all.
O’Reilly doesn’t let his interviewees get a real word in edge-wise, Hannity makes absolutely ridiculous arguments (like how escort girls might just be used for the “lonely”, because people elected by thousands are oh so lonely) (and Colmes shouldn’t even be on the show), and the whole News segment is 90% filler “Can refrigerators kill your children?” kind of crap.
CNN isn’t that much better. And it has worse entertainment.
[quote]100meters wrote:
In other news the the republican debates will not be held on the Daily Show. [/quote]
The sad thing is that if they were held there, we would probably see the highlight of political fairness of this election.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That is a serious query - look at what happened when Bill Clinton got testy with the FOX interviewer: which Democratic candidate wouldn’t want that reputation going into the primaries?[/quote]
That would require a combination of balls AND a brain.
So, you are obviously not serious.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Fox News = Shit. I’ve never heard a truly intelligent thing come out of Sean Hannity’s mouth.
[/quote]
You mean like when Sean says, “God Bless America!” or “Remember to vote!” Yes, those are not intelligent…those things are just plain evil.
I’d love to be one of your English teachers. Guess your grade.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
Give me a break. I’m tired of the “Whatever President Bush says is crap” attitude. Do you guys really believe CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Wash Post, and other news sites are completely fair and unbiased? Hell no! Fox doesn’t robotically bash the President for every move he makes (his last State of the Union speech, the traditional media was bashing him BEFORE he spoke and criticizing him for what they THOUGHT he was going to say). Come on. Unlike other news source, they show the man a little respect AND they respect the troops. The troops love Fox, and Hannity, and Ollie, and O’Reiley…
How can anyone say Fox is crap. It consistently kicks CNN’s ass. I’m guessing a lot more than 28% of the people who support the President are watching Fox.
[/quote]
They’d never admit it. Its not politically correct. They’re also afraid of what others might think of them — its called social metaphysics.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
And who the hell asked the troops what news they watch? Most of them are poor, and I’m gonna go ahead and guess they didn’t do much news watching in high school.
[/quote]
Why, them poor dumb hillbillies…dumber’n dog shit and bein’ stoopid enough to get sent to Eye-raq…I jest purely reckon ole Mr. John Kerry was right on, brother!!!
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…
NYT and Washington Post are respectable papers that run unbiased articles. Their editorials are biased, but they’re supposed to be. As well, they print plenty of the “other” sides argument in the Op Ed. Print media is staying strong, while the TV news deteriorates into crap, even as paper loses its popularity (though the internet may save it).
…[/quote]
The problem with the NYT and the Post is the same people writing the slanted editorials are the ones selecting the stories that are published and the location.
Something favorable to the right or critical of the left is usually buried on page 25 or ignored.
Certainly some articles are unbiased but the same can be said for many news reports on Fox and other news channels. The overall selection of which stories to report is VERY biased in both the paper and electronic media.