and what's wrong with redistributing wealth? capitalism is great, but left alone the rich get richer and the poor simply dont. the main increases in household incomes come from more women entering the work force
awwwww u hurt my feelings... " obamabot " did u come up with that big word all by yourself ...thats probley why when megyn kelly lost she kept on screaming how "fair & balance Fox news is Fair and & Balanced "lmao
Haha... I love the title of this video, mainly because it is 100% backwards. If you actually listen to the we words that were being spoken, Fox News was exposed to cold hard facts and Megyn Kelly has a hard time accepting them..
@soccdood Umm, she gave facts. McCain's rating on regular networks is 36%. Hmm, seems a little biased to me. She also stated the majority of America watches Fox News. This guy doesn't have facts, he's just spewing bullshit about how Fox isn't fair and supports McCain like he's a God. That seems like something CNN does with Obama.
@futhermucker5 36%.... obviously that is because the majority of the people didn't like McCain, the same reason he didn't get elected. And I agree that Bill Burton is taking an offensive stance, however his information isn't bullshit. Fox is a conservative network, and if you disagree with that, you are simply naive.
@soccdood That's because the major networks, such as CBS, NBC, and ABC lean more to the left, and you know that as well as I do. Now I never said Fox wasn't a Conservative network. That is true. But with so many Liberal networks out there, why can't the Conservatives have one? If you add the ratings of every network, their ratings still aren't higher than Fox's. Each side is a little biased. However, whenever I watch CNN, they don't report news. And they don't back their statements up.
@futhermucker5 Yes, you are 100% correct. I'm not saying conservatives can't have a network, either. It is hard to get all the facts straight with everything leaning to one side. I want to see a truly, "Fair and Balanced" news station, but that might be too much to ask for. Although, I do have to hand it to Fox, they are definitely in the lower half of how biased their news is.
@soccdood Exactly. But don't think there ver will be. Each network will defend their own. When Bush was in office, it was the chance for Liberals to attack. Now with Obama, you can see Hannity attack him all the time. Good point.
All these so called"news" channels are owned by huge entertainment companies and thats all they are .The news is a sideshow and a embarrassment to real people with families and futures who , regrettably,depend on this joke of a Govt. Both sides included.
Anyone who supports Barrack Hussein Obama is a Tory and when all this is said and done and the truth comes out, should have the nerve to stand behind your statements and beliefs and summarily be charged with treasonous activities against these United States.
im not on either side of this... it's obvious which side they both stand on the issues with. it's all just a push to get Fox news shut down. And it will get shut down in due time. First conservative talk radio then right wing television news. No matter where you stand, your freedom of speech is gonna get taken away and fox is the first to go. We'll see what happens in the next 4 years I guess.....
sorry I just don't see it that way...looks as if she is desperate...Burton sounds intelligent...the fact that Kelly tries to perpetuate the LIE that FOX is somehow "fair and balanced" is laughable...the FOX news pundits have WAGED WAR on Obama...its been almost two years and people like Hannity and Beck have yet to utter a SINGLE positive thing about the President...that is fair and balanced? Yes, I know MSNBC is liberally biased but at least they dont claim they are fair and balanced.
oh my good lord. how the fuck did she "level" burton? half the time she's screaming her head off and interuptiing him then telling Burton not to interupt HER when he defends himself. if you believe the shit that fox news claims get your head checked.
Dumb and biased? And how can you call her names like that, do you know her? I'm so tired of you left wing idiots just rambling on about stuff that doesn't matter.
He gets beat up? This the poster of this video actually watch it? Another minute and that bias reporter would've started screaming at him. She was about to lose it, she got completely unraveled.
Kelly talks over Burton: 2:24, 2:39, 4:12, 6:15 Burton cuts back in at 4:24, taking back his time after Kelly interrupted him at 4:12. At 4:29 Kelly says "you can try to talk over me..." 4:31 Burton (correctly) says "No Meghan I think what you were doing is talking over me..."
You're right. Meghan Kelly did beat up Bill Burton by talking over him, being louder than him, and citing a biased Rasmussen issues poll to try and support her failed argument.
Excuse me? Obama a FEDERALIST? Without question?? Do you even know what the term means? He couldn't possibly be FURTHER from a federalist. He's just another Wilson statist, in love with bloated federal government. He doesn't give a shit about the needs and inclinations of individual states, and he's proven that numerous times already in 6 short months. Disgraced SC governor Sanford didn't want his bailout money, and what did Obama do? He rammed it down SC's throat!
Wow Megyn Kelly got owned. A poll by Rasmussen? What a joke. Rasmussen is more conservative and biased than Fox. Of course conservatives who AGREE with Fox in the first place are going to rate them as the least biased network. Anyone who doesn't have the wool completely pulled over her eyes knows that FAUX news has the biggest conservative agenda. (Not to say that other media sources don't have liberal agendas).
Dude, two things. Firstly, Rasmussen Reports is one of the most respected, independent, non-partisan polling groups in the country and that is a fact. Second, we KNOW Fox leans to the right. We GET it. It's no big secret. And if you can acknowledge that the other networks are liberal, then why is it so goddamn terrible that conservatives have ONE network allowing them a voice on ALL of television news? Aren't equality-loving liberals offended by this kind of double-standard?
I should have worded my comment more carefully. Rasmussen is well-respected, independent and non-partisan. That's true. Unfortunately, all of those virtues are consistent with the strong conservative bias in the way their polls are conducted. To understand this, you should check out this piece in the Washington Independent called "Rassmussen, the only poll that matters" You can even just google it (I think). This is why Fox loves Rasmussen, and perhaps why they are so well respected.
Wait....So respect, independence of opinion and non-partisanship are staple virtues of "conservative bias"? I don't quite follow your point, but that sounds good to me!
In response to your second comment, you're right. You didn't quite follow the point. I didn't say that independence and non-partisanship are virtues of conservative bias. I said they are consistent with conservative bias, meaning that one can be independent and non-partisan while exhibiting an extreme conservative bias. If you don't understand how one organization can have all three of these features at the same time, then perhaps you should take a class in critical thinking.
Oh, well then by all means, enlighten me, O sage of critical thought! It's unfortunate your point eluded me amidst your word-mincing and obfuscation. Okay, so independence, and non-partisanship is consistent with conservative bias. Again, I'm fine with that. Just know that antipathy, dishonesty, and above all, ELITISM are consistent with the left.
And to address your second point, it is a big deal because Fox has more viewers than any of the other news networks. Even if they only have one network, if that network has the biggest voice, that's a big deal. Also, they don't just lean to the right, they consistently attack, and they deceive and sometimes even lie. The only liberal network that comes close to Fox in this Arena is MSNBC. The point then is that Fox has a HUGE influence on its viewers.
And WHY is that? It's because traditional (often conservative) people are SICK of turning on the mainstream media and having their views and values mocked and belittled. Fox is an ANSWER to an irresponsible, out-of-control liberal media. If the media had initially DONE ITS JOB, there would be no Fox News nor would there would be any need for talk radio. That Fox News and talk radio are as successful as they are should SAY SOMETHING to you about the sorry state of the mainstream media.
While I have seen mocking on some channels from time to time, the only liberal channel that consistently mocks conservatives using the same sort of tactics and rhetoric as Fox News is MSNBC. And the reason that the shows on that channel, such as Countdown with Keith Olberman, are so anti-conservative, is precisely to combat Fox news. So when you say that Fox is the answer to irresponsible media, you're putting the cart before the horse. The explanation goes the other way around.
Wrong again, schecky. The warped nature of your perspective has become so apparent that it was clearly molded by a steady intake of liberal bias and hate-speech. If MSLGBT began as a counterpoint to Fox News, then it's an abysmal failure, because no one watches that shit. Networks don't need to DIRECTLY mock conservatives. They do so by omitting certain stories and perspectives while ONLY highlighting others. That sort of non-objectivity infuriates both average Americans AND dipshit koreans
I didn't say that MSNBC started as a counterpoint to Fox news. I said that the purpose of the most anti-conservative shows on that channel is to combat Fox news. The fact that their ratings aren't very good doesn't change their purpose. And I wouldn't presume to make such wide sweeping remarks about the other media without lots of evidence to back them up. I also wouldn't assume so much about someone I haven't met just by reading a few their comments.
The amount of evidence that has been mounted publicly to make a case against a mainstream news media complicit in liberal bias has been substantiated by many scholars, far more erudite than I. I would point you to the books 'BIAS: A CBS INSIDER EXPOSES HOW THE MEDIA DISTORT THE NEWS' and 'ARROGANCE: RESCUING AMERICA FROM THE MEDIA ELITE', both by Bernard Goldberg. Or cruise on over to the Media Research Center's website, run by Brent Bozell. It's a treasure trove of liberal media bias.
And if I do check those sources out, I'll then make sure to read "The Myth of the Liberal Media" by Herman and Chomsky, so as not to see things from only one side.
While I haven't read that particular book, I HAVE read enough Chomsky to know that he takes waaaay too much for granted. I'm sure there is some truth to his book. The most effective lies are the ones that don't deviate too far from the truth. Personally I found Goldberg's two books to be far more enlightening than any of the "what liberal bias?" arguments I've encountered already. The evidence is simply too overwhelming.
okay, well I'll check out Bradley's book. I've read one review of it so far, according to which Bradley never defines "liberal", quotes people out of context, and doesn't cite enough studies to support his arguments, but that is just one review and I'll have to check it out for myself. I know Chomsky is known for being very careful and uses a lot of different studies to support his conclusions, but maybe he is wrong.
Who? Bradley? The author's name is Bernard Goldberg. He was a mandarin of TV news in this country. A ten-time emmy award winning journalist, and Dan Rather's right hand at CBS for over 25 years. I think that makes him fairly qualified. Also check out his newest book, 'A SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR: THE TRUE (AND PATHETIC) STORY OF THE TORRID ROMANCE BETWEEN BARACK OBAMA AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA'. Truly enlightening to the unwashed.
Oops. I was thinking of this guy Ben Bradley. Sorry, completely wrong field. I don't know why I wrote that. I'll look at that this stuff if I get the chance, perhaps even today.
Yeah, I don't doubt the guy's qualifications, but we need to set that apart from his intentions and whether or not his arguments make sense. I just need to see what he has to say first.
And I don't understand your comment, "wrong again, schecky." I haven't been wrong about anything I've said so far. If you think otherwise, why don't you quote something I've said that you think is wrong, and then I can tell you why it's not.
You want me to quote what you said was wrong when I just explained why what you said is wrong. That sounds remarkably dull. Why don't you run along and indulge in some Dungeons and Dragons, or some other such deviant nerdery that would no doubt tickle you. Grownups are discussing worldly matters here.
First of all, when you said "wrong, again..." you had not pointed out where I had previously been wrong. Second of all, AFTER you said "wrong, again" you went on to say that other media mock conservatives indirectly. But I never denied this. I just don't think that the purpose of Fox is to try to correct this problem. So at no point did you tell me why I was wrong. And then to further suggest that somehow I cannot participate in these debates seems pretty childish
I stated that Fox is a response to an irresponsible left-leaning media. You said it was the other way around. That is not true. TV network executives are in business to make money like anyone else. They saw that Murdoch's and Ailes' FOX was leading the ratings with their opinion-based coverage. MSNBC tried to emulate the style only with a decidedly liberal perspective, for the same reasons. They failed to achieve success because we're ALREADY saturated with liberal perspective in the news.
yeah, I guess we just disagree on Fox's purpose. I think it exists for the sole purpose of using entertainers and opinionated conservatives to lie, distort, and bully in order to influence their viewers. Whether or not this is supposed to be the "answer" to irresponsible media is debatable. If it is, I think they've gone way overboard. Their "newswatch" segment is a pretty good idea though. I think MSNBC failed because their anti-conservative shows air opposite Fox's most popular shows and...
...because they just don't pull it off as well as Fox commentators like Hannity and O'reilly. Keith Olberman, for example, just isn't a very good personality.
MSNBC is unsuccessful because they lack true dignity and professionalism. Fox may be critical of the left, but they do it with dignity and class. You will never see the sort of vitriol and antipathy on Fox that you see DAILY on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann, as you pointed out, is a fine example. They are petty, classless, bitter, unimportant people. You see Fox as a sinister cabal of lying propagandists, when really it's just the other side of the story that people wouldn't get on the major networks.
I agree with you about MSNBC and I wouldn't call Fox a sinister cabal of lying propagandists. I would say however that they are in the business of distortion, exaggeration and manipulation. And they do this all the time on the air even if they think they are being fair and balanced. They also go way beyond any of the other news channels in doing this (besides MSNBC). They also frequently try to talk over their liberal guests and talk louder than them so that everybody "knows" they are wrong.
You think they beam conservative ideas into the minds of the impressionable. Nonsense. They are so much more respectable than the other cable networks in so many ways. You can see liberals make strong arguments on the network ALL the time. I watch an unhealthy amount of news, obsessed with media analysis, perhaps to a fault. I've seen silly liberal crap like 'Outfoxed'. It's cheap propaganda masquerading as a legit documentary. The left HATES that Fox News dares to exist. They feel THREATENED.
I agree with you. Fox's ratings are high because middle-America trusts them more than other cable news outlets. They are attacked because they have successfully undercut the liberal media. Moreover, as liberals attack them Fox gains popularity. Essentially, this amounts to free publicity.
tone it down, ghetto thug. "Word up!" lmao... good one, "pierre". i guess that means you are a ghetto french thug? if so, go back to drinking your whine with cheese.
You're right. Liberals do make strong arguments on the network sometimes (not all the time). That doesn't mean that Fox is giving liberals a fair platform. Much of the time Fox will give you a liberal perspective and a conservative perspective, and set it up so that the conservative one is cast in a much more favorable light. Having liberals on the network helps the Fox agenda. Having said that, I am glad that we have a conservative network. I just wish it was something other than Fox.
We shouldn't have liberal OR conservative news networks. But too many journalists go into college with this desire to act on ideology and save the world. They want to evoke dramatic, worldly change through their work as journalists. This of course is not the role of journalism. It's my dream to see the abolition of ALL media bias, liberal, conservative or otherwise, but I think that's unrealistic today. Out of curiosity, what comprises your vision of a "proper" conservative network?
Do you think it would be best if people just watched C-SPAN?
I don't really have a complete vision of a good conservative network. But I think it would be good to have at least one network for the millions of Americans with conservative values. Some conservative bias would of course be inevitable, but they could at least do it without distorting the truth, talking over their guests, reporting false information, and occasionally telling (what seem like) boldfaced lies.
the distortation, exaggeration and manipulation at fox news is way beyond the pale compared to msnbc... you know that, and just from watching the channels it is obvious. msnbc is no angel and is not "fair and balanced", but unlike fox news, they dont claim to be. fox news makes that claim in their ridiculous slogan and its not even close to being true.
Excuse me while I catch my breath. Rachel Maddow?? You can't be serious. The commentator who made gay sex jokes about hundreds of thousands of Americans for daring to protest high taxes? MSLGBT is an embarrassment. If she called herself anything but a journalist she might be able to get away with that sort of dismissive, inappropriate, elitist, condescending rhetoric. Maddow's got plenty of class, alright. It's all low.
I think you suffer from a true case of leftist double-standards.
LOL! Actually I speak your LOL! heathen language LOL! fluently, Pedro. No need to LOL! accuse me of LOL! racism. LOL! On what grounds am I a racist, Mr. Pissy-Pants? I guess I'm a little bigoted sometimes, we all are, you know, human nature and all that, but I take issue with being called racist, LOL!
Forrest put it in your mama and made you, Pedro. It's true! I'm your dad! Ve te la chingada, hijo de Forrest!
You already said that, Pedro. Pero la verdad es que tu mama quiere ser embarasado con la semilla mas superior de Forrest, huevonito. Eso es porque yo lo doy a la marrana.
you are such a hypocrite. you defend those paranoid teabaggers and complain about being made fun of, yet you never said anything about the vile hate fox news and conservatives showed against the anti-war protesters... which by the way, would get 10 times the amount of protesters those tea baggers would hope to get. not only that, but fox news heavily promoted the tea parties as "fnc tax day tea parties". now that is embarrassing... especially since they denied ever doing it. you are a joke.
I'd like for you to give specific examples of a Fox News Anchor calling war-protestors names on air. Just one example of Fox News calling a protestor a sexual name. You must have hundreds of examples, right?
First of all, why do you have to keep calling people against out of control government spending "teabaggers"? These are fellow American citizens that you claim to be sticking up for? How dare you. Have you no sense of decency?
As far as you saying Fox News called them "fnc tax day tea parties", this is a lie. Please show me one single place this was ever said on Fox News. They had nothing to do with them other than they covered the protests
Does it make you feel good to call so many of your fellow citizens "teabaggers"? Aren't you embarrassed to have so much hatred for a group of people that you refer to them as a sexual act? Have you no sense of decency towards your fellow Americans that you have such vile hatred and disdain for them simply because they don't want our government spending $10 TRILLION more than it has?
How do you sleep at night with so much hate in your heart?
They REPORTED on the tea parties because it was big news. People gathered around the country to protest government spending, and Fox covered the story like every other network. If you knew anything about the tea parties, you'd know that they were grassroots efforts organized entirely via the internet. Also, the right managed to have an impassioned, relevant protest without setting anything on fire or destroying any private property, which is always worthy of derision in a civilized state.
Funny LuckyPierre78, fox news actually called it patriotic to protest what Obama was doing because they didn't support his plans. It's fair, right to assemble. But do you not know, or like fox news, just not mention the fact when liberals did the same thing about Bush policy fox news shows actually called what they were doing in and protesting what UN-American. People don't hate fox news because it reports news, but because they only report news that support the republican party.
Excuse me, but did you even see any of the left's protests during the eight years Bush was in office? In a word: DISGRACEFUL. You can't compare the two. Their actions were un-American, in every way. When the left protests, it's like a third-world riot. When conservatives (RARELY) do, they're civilized. Why do leftists need to cover their faces with handkerchiefs? Because their whole movement is a just a youth trend of destruction and mayhem in the streets, and of no intellectual or moral value
NO your totally right, everything republicans have been doing in 6 months as compared to 8 years of bush just shows how much more civilized the conservatives are. I mean it's not like they shouted out "he's a terrorist" or "kill him" when referring to Obama during the election. It's not like fox news has had round the clock coverage of Obama about EVERY, EVERY single thing he says and have turned it into a fact of how he's killing America.
Can't you see how dangerous it is to live in a country where the media is in the pocket of the President? The media isn't covering Barack Obama, they're WORSHIPING him! We're talking in circles here. If Fox DOESN'T cover these details, then the public won't know the other side of the story. Contrary views aren't heard on the major networks! If you could get over your anti-Fox inclination for a moment and actually look at what the man is doing, he very much is dismantling the establishment!
If this is what republicans are doing in 6 months, what do you think they'll do by year 3, 6 or 7 (we all know Obama is gonna have two terms) and republicans are destroying themselves with every other week being another governor, senator, mayor saying they've been unfaithful (so much for family values of conservatives) but you guys don't ever seem to hear about that on fox. Tell you what, remember what YOU'RE saying right now when you and your friends firebomb a gov buliding in 2 years.
Try to transcend your slobbering love affair with the president. That's cool that you respect him, you voted for him, whatever, but no public official deserves to have his ass kissed like you sorry water-carriers do for him. We shouldn't elevate our public servants to godlike status. Emperor worship is not an American value. No one can say what will happen in 2012, but if Obama's rapidly slipping approval is any indication, I'm confident the radical Marxist will be defeated at the polls.
wow luckypierre78, you're telling me I'm in love with the president on a video from FOX news. You do know that blonde has a threesome with limbaugh and steele every night before she goes to bed right. You have the gull to tell me I'm love with the President in reference to a FOX NEWS interview clip. Go give hannity his blowjob already.
You defend him blindly because you're a follower incapable of criticizing your own party. I gather this based on your assumption that Obama will undoubtedly serve two terms, which none of us can say with any clarity, as well as your parroting of his well-known anti-Fox sentiment and your assertion that they exist solely to discredit our President. The love-fest is ending, though. Soon the media is going to turn on him and start holding him accountable like they should have for the past 2 years.
The left's protests were pretty disgraceful, and their protests are usually more violent than those of the right, which is sad. But I think you're being too one-sided. Protestors on the right said horrible and false things about Obama when he entered office and they're still saying them today. This is just my opinion, but I also think you see much more racism on the right. Good conservatives are having their names dragged through the mud by people like Audra Shay, just to name one.
What are conservatives saying that's so horrible, so false? Racism? The head of the RNC is a black man. Some of our leading intellectuals like Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele are too. Republicans want nothing more than for minorities and immigrants to lift themselves from poverty and seize greatness through the American free market system. I know scores of hardworking immigrants who are utterly confused by Obama's policies; even they know that America was intended to be a center-right country.
You're saying that because there are respected black Republicans, right-wingers as a whole are not more racist than the left wing? That doesn't make any sense. Part of the Republican ideology is that underprivileged people can work their way toward something greater. So I agree with that tenet of Republicanism. But again, you are switching from talking about right-wingers as a group to Republicans. Are you really not seeing the racism of the right and the neocons?
Neoconservatism began as a response to the crime and violence of 60's radicalism. Liberals in the 60s who lived through the the degradation of decency by radical intellectual rot began to rebel. Confronted with an ideology that always assumed America was the problem and never the solution, these Democrats became in large part that band of intellectuals known as neoconservatives. They got the name from leftists who thought the prefix 'neo' would conjure associations with neo-nazis.
Also, you're right that this was meant to be a center-right country. But "right" doesn't mean the same thing today as it did when our country was founded by REAL conservatives. Neocons are not real conservatives. If you want to see real conservatives look at people like Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater.
I identify myself as a neoconservative. As I said, we are classical liberals. First in the 20s and finally in the 60s, progressivism came to be renamed 'liberalism'. In the past liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith. After the 60s classical liberals were routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were dubbed liberals.
I think Ron Paul is naive, and he attracts the craziest of the left AND the right
That's easy. I stand for a strong defense budget that maintains American security, I believe in the advancement of American values to those who seek them by promoting the cause of political and economic freedom abroad, to maintain healthy bonds with our democratic allies while challenging those who are hostile to our values and as Podhoretz said, "to accept responsibility for our unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our interests, prosperity and principles."
How would you rank these values in terms of their importance? For example, would you be willing to trade certain political freedoms guaranteed by the constitution for greater security? Or would you rather preserve all of our liberties at the cost of a slightly greater risk of being attacked? I assume your answer will depend on the scale of the attack, so for the moment let's leave aside worries about nuclear attacks. Would you trade civil liberties to avoid, for example, another 9-11?
As you see, the gist of the philosophy is foreign policy-conservatism and American exceptionalism. We are the only real superpower in the world and we must act to secure our position.
I see where you're going with this, and it's a baited question. To assume that Bush, under the advisement of neoconservatives, trounced civil liberties in the interest of national security amounts to a classic left-wing misreading of neoconservative ideals and a fundamental misunderstanding of the Patriot Act.
I'm not baiting the question. I want to know how you rank these values with respect to their importance. The patriot act does go against the constitution and it does endanger civil liberties. That's based on an accurate reading of the patriot act and the constitution. But that might be a fair price to pay in order to be more secure. Security is obviously very important and it's hard to know how to weigh that against loss of individual liberties. A similar issue arises in debates over gun control
Think of the Patriot Act as an American provision within international law "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." Sounds reasonable to me.
First, we must have a strong national defense. Without security, nothing else matters. Secondly, to maintain strong ties with our democratic allies so that third, we may through allied coalitions promote our Americanism abroad while challenging regimes hostile to our way of life - which in so doing will ultimately secure our interests and prosperity.
The record of history itself cements the greatness of Reagan's legacy, with or without Republican support. He united the left and the right, and his accolades are bestowed by both parties. The same, however, cannot be said for liberals who to this day gush worshipfully over their demi-god FDR while portraying the utter failure of his New Deal as one of the single greatest liberal achievements of the 20th century. Their devotion for Barack Obama has also ballooned to personality-cult status.
oh yeah, making up lies about obama's policies and editing videos of him to push a far right agenda while claiming he went to a muslim madrassa, constantly repeating his middle name painting him as some sort of towel head, ETC. very dignified indeed. the type of hate spewing going on fox news is NEVER even seen on msnbc or cnn... not even close. any person with a half brain sees that other the blind sheep like yourself. just from watching idiots like oreilly, hannit y and beck proves my point.
and all this coming from a network that likes to claim they are "fair and balanced". having beck, hannity and oreilly to spew far right hate all day and claiming they are fair is a pathetic attempt.
It's a proven fact that Fox News gave the most balanced coverage of the 2008 elections. According to Pew Research and others, Obama and McCain got almost equal amounts of positive coverage on FoxNews, as opposed to MSNBC and CNN which gave Obama almost 3 times and as much positive coverage. It's an indisputable fact that Fox News is more balanced than CNN or MSNBC, giving BOTH sides of every issue...
I'd like to see all the details of that Pew Study. Fox almost never says anything positive about Obama. Any study that doesn't reflect that is automatically suspicious. Fox gives both sides of SOME issues, but they set it up so that the liberal side is cast in a negative light. The point of having liberals on the network is to help the Fox agenda by asking them tougher questions than they ask conservatives, outnumbering them (e.g. Hannity's great american panel) and talking over them.
" Fox gives both sides of SOME issues, but they set it up so that the liberal side is cast in a negative light"- Libtards don't need help to make themselves look bad.
"... asking them tougher questions than they ask conservatives..."
Wow, so sorry... Should the questions be dumbed down for the libtard elite? Let's not hold them accountable and hurt their fuckin feelings.
@leaddrop I don't know what a Libtard is, but regardless of what you say, Fox does set up debates so that the liberal side is cast in a negative light.
"Should the questions be dumbed down for the libtard elite?" No. Obviously not. The correct response would be to make the questions harder for conservatives, thereby holding both sides accountable, and living up to their mission of being fair and balanced.
@GstateBALLER925 Hannity and Beck do, but I would say Bill O'Reilly is a little more in the middle. He's spared Obama several times, but haha Hannity sure hasn't.
no, rasmussen is not respected, certainly not independent or non-partisan. only fox news uses them ALL THE TIME. you barely ever see fox bring up gallup polls unless it fits their agenda.
its wonderful that you know fox news leans right, but the problem is fox news itself, and many of its ignorant viewers buy their stupid "fair and balanced" slogan assuming they bring on the same amount of liberals and conservatives when on almost every show, conservatives strongly outnumbers liberals.
Rassmussen was the most respected and most accurate poll in both the 2004 and 2008 elections.
As far as Gallup polling, they have exclusivity with CNN and USAToday. Fox News CAN'T mention their polls. But, if you want to go there, Obama is WAYYYY down in their poll, too...
@GstateBALLER925 I agree that Conservatives outnumber Liberals. That just means there's still a majority of smart people. Fox interviews Liberals all the time, and EVERY TIME Liberals avoid answering the question asked. And if they do, they can never back up their points. Like Megyn says, Liberals attack Fox when they have nothing else to turn to, because Conservatives outsmart dimwits like this guy all the time.
@GstateBALLER925 rasmussen is the one of the most accurate during elections lol.. can you back up anything you are saying about it being biased other than rasmussen appearing on fox and his poll being used by fox?
@GstateBALLER925 You are definitely right about the rasmussen thing. The really good political polls come out of Zogby and Gallup. The survey samples of the population are what make the difference.
Perhaps, but I managed to pee in your mom's asshole. And it feels great. Think about it: My penis landing safely inside your mom's insidey parts. Bursting with hot brimming urine. ALL UP INSIDE YOUR MOTHER. I open the spigot of my pee; a presentation for all to see. MMMMM HMMMMM!
Saying that, Bill Burton does not get beaten up by Megyn Kelly. Megyn resorted to the tried and tested Fox news tactic of shouting and talking over the other person, a tactic perfected by Hannity and O'Reilly. It doesn't work, it just makes you look like a complete fool who has no debating skills. Fox News IS a biased channel, its owner admits to it. It does skew to the right.
I love Burton's comment - "ok, Megyn, go to town". Brilliant. Megyn kelly is a slamming hottie though, shame really.
Please. Burton could only spew out crap. Megyn had intellegent dialogue while burton resorted to sarcasism and put downs. Go back to your pasture, sheep.
I agree, she is smokin'. thank god she is on FOX not one of the other stations. I would have never seen her!
hahahahah megyn had intelligent dialogue? that stupid cunt was sputtering conservative bullshit the whole time, while bill tried to get a word in. I mean, he was being interviewed wasn't he?
Please you fking retarded b!tch. You have no idea what the fk you're talking about. You just sit back and wait for your hand out.If you know anything bout Obama, Burton, and the rest of the admin, you would know they never have an argument on anything . They ALWAYS respond with cutdowns, name calling, hate speech,etc. This pres and his croonies are the biggest bunch of low life, radical, evil, racist punks to ever come about. I'm sure even your sorry ass has found that out the past few mos.cunt
If we're talking about Economics 101, then lets be honest. No president and no political party has the "silver bullet" to fix the economy, it will take years for the US economy to fix itself, to get rid of its bad loans, and ridiculous mortgage and credit card debts.
obama will fix nothing. and this bias issue is old. and don't start about bias. this election was a joke. we should of crowned him two years ago.. and saved us the trouble of having an election cycle. i hope four years from now people will look at our press selected one in a more objective manner.
hey megyn, who will win on Monday Night Football? 49ers or Steelers
profoak1 1 month ago
Megyn brings up a legitimate and factual point.
Bill: Fox News is biased!
Megyn brings up a legitimate and factual point.
Bill: Fox News is biased!
Megyn brings up a legitimate and factual point.
Bill: Fox News is biased!
Megyn brings up a legitimate and factual point.
Bill: Fox News is biased!
Megyn brings up a legitimate and factual point.
Bill: Fox News is biased!
survivorcow713 3 months ago
and what's wrong with redistributing wealth? capitalism is great, but left alone the rich get richer and the poor simply dont. the main increases in household incomes come from more women entering the work force
canisrufus711 3 months ago
she totally said "rasmussen says fox is the least balanced" at 2:55 lol
canisrufus711 3 months ago
she should run for president. Obama would be a shoe in
canisrufus711 3 months ago
awwwww u hurt my feelings... " obamabot " did u come up with that big word all by yourself ...thats probley why when megyn kelly lost she kept on screaming how "fair & balance Fox news is Fair and & Balanced "lmao
Rizon513 6 months ago
he kick her ass
peterpaul263 6 months ago
bill burton the obamabot, is an idiot and a mororn just like his master puppeteir!
aoz823 7 months ago
@aoz823 AND SO R U...UR PROBLEY A GWB FAN AINT YA?
Rizon513 6 months ago
@Rizon513 iguess it takes a fag to know a fag... fuck you and all the obamabots mother fuckers!
aoz823 6 months ago
Change the words gets beaten to beats
syzygy501 9 months ago 2
Dumb bitch lol
Kris20dwyanewade 9 months ago
change the title to "Megyn Kelly gets beaten up by bill burton"...well actually "ass raped" is more apt than "beaten up".....but whatever
lasku0007 9 months ago 2
Media malpractice... watch it.. it was awsome..
Joshua2019 10 months ago
Let's see if this douchbag is still spewing the same lame liberal lies in the next cycle.
steelersX01 1 year ago
fox news is a sack of shit
theoneali 1 year ago
LOL AT HIM GET BEATEN UP...OTHER WAY AROUND...LOL SHE CAUGHT FEELINGS GETIN ALL PISSY AND INTERRUPING..TYPICAL FOX DICKEHADS....CHANGE THE TITLE
rog815 1 year ago
I think that you have the wrong title. It should read "Obama Spokesperson Slaps Around Fox News Anchor".
mpineyro26 1 year ago
Kelly is awesome. This guy, how did he ever get this job?
underesteemed 1 year ago
Haha... I love the title of this video, mainly because it is 100% backwards. If you actually listen to the we words that were being spoken, Fox News was exposed to cold hard facts and Megyn Kelly has a hard time accepting them..
soccdood 1 year ago
@soccdood Umm, she gave facts. McCain's rating on regular networks is 36%. Hmm, seems a little biased to me. She also stated the majority of America watches Fox News. This guy doesn't have facts, he's just spewing bullshit about how Fox isn't fair and supports McCain like he's a God. That seems like something CNN does with Obama.
futhermucker5 1 year ago
@futhermucker5 36%.... obviously that is because the majority of the people didn't like McCain, the same reason he didn't get elected. And I agree that Bill Burton is taking an offensive stance, however his information isn't bullshit. Fox is a conservative network, and if you disagree with that, you are simply naive.
soccdood 1 year ago
@soccdood That's because the major networks, such as CBS, NBC, and ABC lean more to the left, and you know that as well as I do. Now I never said Fox wasn't a Conservative network. That is true. But with so many Liberal networks out there, why can't the Conservatives have one? If you add the ratings of every network, their ratings still aren't higher than Fox's. Each side is a little biased. However, whenever I watch CNN, they don't report news. And they don't back their statements up.
futhermucker5 1 year ago
@futhermucker5 Yes, you are 100% correct. I'm not saying conservatives can't have a network, either. It is hard to get all the facts straight with everything leaning to one side. I want to see a truly, "Fair and Balanced" news station, but that might be too much to ask for. Although, I do have to hand it to Fox, they are definitely in the lower half of how biased their news is.
soccdood 1 year ago
@soccdood Exactly. But don't think there ver will be. Each network will defend their own. When Bush was in office, it was the chance for Liberals to attack. Now with Obama, you can see Hannity attack him all the time. Good point.
futhermucker5 1 year ago
GUBMENT GO'N TO GIB ME SUM OV DAT FREEEE MONEH.
Firesolved 1 year ago
if i was there in the other screen i would be like peter griffin and say "HEY SHUT UP SHUT UP IM TALKING SHUT UP "
Orcband 1 year ago
so i'll ask the question... where did she own him...
thisisblasphamy 1 year ago 10
@thisisblasphamy i kn ow right? its probably just wishful thinking by whoever posted this.
GitanoRenegado 1 year ago
If this douchebag was so smart and such a great guy (as the obamabots claim) then where the fuck did he go?
I'll tell you where he went... The unemployment line! Cuz he's a dumbass!
leaddrop 1 year ago
Everything that Burton had to say was absolutely true.
cantizzo07 1 year ago
All these so called"news" channels are owned by huge entertainment companies and thats all they are .The news is a sideshow and a embarrassment to real people with families and futures who , regrettably,depend on this joke of a Govt. Both sides included.
937irish 1 year ago
Megyn does the ol "Talk louder" rebuttal. The only thing in her arsenal, typically. Cut people off- talk loud. The Fox News way.
elsephen 1 year ago
The only thing this ho was beating on is that obama spokesperson big black weiner.
celicamaro 2 years ago
Anyone who supports Barrack Hussein Obama is a Tory and when all this is said and done and the truth comes out, should have the nerve to stand behind your statements and beliefs and summarily be charged with treasonous activities against these United States.
937irish 2 years ago
@937irish Pretty much the same thing that should have happened to Bush supporters right?
...but at least there's evidence there rather than crazy scare words.
elsephen 1 year ago
im not on either side of this... it's obvious which side they both stand on the issues with. it's all just a push to get Fox news shut down. And it will get shut down in due time. First conservative talk radio then right wing television news. No matter where you stand, your freedom of speech is gonna get taken away and fox is the first to go. We'll see what happens in the next 4 years I guess.....
neno252009 2 years ago
Once again, Megyn is in her element and utterly leveling this unfortunate excuse for a deputy press secretary.
WH2012 2 years ago 4
sorry I just don't see it that way...looks as if she is desperate...Burton sounds intelligent...the fact that Kelly tries to perpetuate the LIE that FOX is somehow "fair and balanced" is laughable...the FOX news pundits have WAGED WAR on Obama...its been almost two years and people like Hannity and Beck have yet to utter a SINGLE positive thing about the President...that is fair and balanced? Yes, I know MSNBC is liberally biased but at least they dont claim they are fair and balanced.
Fantasmoid 2 years ago
oh my good lord. how the fuck did she "level" burton? half the time she's screaming her head off and interuptiing him then telling Burton not to interupt HER when he defends himself. if you believe the shit that fox news claims get your head checked.
konsfriend 2 years ago
@WH2012 are we watching the same interview??
GitanoRenegado 1 year ago
What is it with Bill Burton, Gibbs and Obama's CONSTANT use of the word 'look' ?
WH2012 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Megyn is so hot and right.
HardAlternative 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this bitch is so dumb and biased! she should just shut up, bend over, and let me give it to her up the ass like the slut she is!
1988blowme 2 years ago
Dumb and biased? And how can you call her names like that, do you know her? I'm so tired of you left wing idiots just rambling on about stuff that doesn't matter.
kentuckydominatesall 2 years ago
He gets beat up? This the poster of this video actually watch it? Another minute and that bias reporter would've started screaming at him. She was about to lose it, she got completely unraveled.
Meda01 2 years ago
bill burton is to turd as megyn kelly is to retarded
strawburrylemonade 2 years ago
Burton talks over Kelly: 2:57 3:28
Kelly talks over Burton: 2:24, 2:39, 4:12, 6:15 Burton cuts back in at 4:24, taking back his time after Kelly interrupted him at 4:12. At 4:29 Kelly says "you can try to talk over me..." 4:31 Burton (correctly) says "No Meghan I think what you were doing is talking over me..."
You're right. Meghan Kelly did beat up Bill Burton by talking over him, being louder than him, and citing a biased Rasmussen issues poll to try and support her failed argument.
tlcambell 2 years ago
dude who takes the time to mark down all the times.. thats lame dude
strawburrylemonade 2 years ago
The purpose of marking the times was to support my claim in the final paragraph. I was just being specific. If that's lame to you, then...whatever.
tlcambell 2 years ago
Bill Burton wiped the floor with the blondy. LOL!
Alexltavares 2 years ago
Excuse me? Obama a FEDERALIST? Without question?? Do you even know what the term means? He couldn't possibly be FURTHER from a federalist. He's just another Wilson statist, in love with bloated federal government. He doesn't give a shit about the needs and inclinations of individual states, and he's proven that numerous times already in 6 short months. Disgraced SC governor Sanford didn't want his bailout money, and what did Obama do? He rammed it down SC's throat!
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Fox news does have an agenda of promoting the republican party against the democrat. Look at foxnews for one day and it's undeniable.
Foxnews adds dramatic and loud anchors to broadcast their news.
maxxj3 2 years ago 3
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Urbania05 2 years ago
dude this guy is such a damn douche!! he sucks at life!
Allie0is0the0name 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a retard.
reklawderf 2 years ago
Wow Megyn Kelly got owned. A poll by Rasmussen? What a joke. Rasmussen is more conservative and biased than Fox. Of course conservatives who AGREE with Fox in the first place are going to rate them as the least biased network. Anyone who doesn't have the wool completely pulled over her eyes knows that FAUX news has the biggest conservative agenda. (Not to say that other media sources don't have liberal agendas).
tlcambell 2 years ago
Really? She got owned? Were you watching the video with the guy that looks like a pig? If so, you are deeply in denial.
Raughwe 2 years ago
Really, why is that? Perhaps you could explain your position.
tlcambell 2 years ago
Dude, two things. Firstly, Rasmussen Reports is one of the most respected, independent, non-partisan polling groups in the country and that is a fact. Second, we KNOW Fox leans to the right. We GET it. It's no big secret. And if you can acknowledge that the other networks are liberal, then why is it so goddamn terrible that conservatives have ONE network allowing them a voice on ALL of television news? Aren't equality-loving liberals offended by this kind of double-standard?
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
I should have worded my comment more carefully. Rasmussen is well-respected, independent and non-partisan. That's true. Unfortunately, all of those virtues are consistent with the strong conservative bias in the way their polls are conducted. To understand this, you should check out this piece in the Washington Independent called "Rassmussen, the only poll that matters" You can even just google it (I think). This is why Fox loves Rasmussen, and perhaps why they are so well respected.
tlcambell 2 years ago
Wait....So respect, independence of opinion and non-partisanship are staple virtues of "conservative bias"? I don't quite follow your point, but that sounds good to me!
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
In response to your second comment, you're right. You didn't quite follow the point. I didn't say that independence and non-partisanship are virtues of conservative bias. I said they are consistent with conservative bias, meaning that one can be independent and non-partisan while exhibiting an extreme conservative bias. If you don't understand how one organization can have all three of these features at the same time, then perhaps you should take a class in critical thinking.
tlcambell 2 years ago
Oh, well then by all means, enlighten me, O sage of critical thought! It's unfortunate your point eluded me amidst your word-mincing and obfuscation. Okay, so independence, and non-partisanship is consistent with conservative bias. Again, I'm fine with that. Just know that antipathy, dishonesty, and above all, ELITISM are consistent with the left.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
okay...
tlcambell 2 years ago
And to address your second point, it is a big deal because Fox has more viewers than any of the other news networks. Even if they only have one network, if that network has the biggest voice, that's a big deal. Also, they don't just lean to the right, they consistently attack, and they deceive and sometimes even lie. The only liberal network that comes close to Fox in this Arena is MSNBC. The point then is that Fox has a HUGE influence on its viewers.
tlcambell 2 years ago
And WHY is that? It's because traditional (often conservative) people are SICK of turning on the mainstream media and having their views and values mocked and belittled. Fox is an ANSWER to an irresponsible, out-of-control liberal media. If the media had initially DONE ITS JOB, there would be no Fox News nor would there would be any need for talk radio. That Fox News and talk radio are as successful as they are should SAY SOMETHING to you about the sorry state of the mainstream media.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
While I have seen mocking on some channels from time to time, the only liberal channel that consistently mocks conservatives using the same sort of tactics and rhetoric as Fox News is MSNBC. And the reason that the shows on that channel, such as Countdown with Keith Olberman, are so anti-conservative, is precisely to combat Fox news. So when you say that Fox is the answer to irresponsible media, you're putting the cart before the horse. The explanation goes the other way around.
tlcambell 2 years ago
Wrong again, schecky. The warped nature of your perspective has become so apparent that it was clearly molded by a steady intake of liberal bias and hate-speech. If MSLGBT began as a counterpoint to Fox News, then it's an abysmal failure, because no one watches that shit. Networks don't need to DIRECTLY mock conservatives. They do so by omitting certain stories and perspectives while ONLY highlighting others. That sort of non-objectivity infuriates both average Americans AND dipshit koreans
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
I didn't say that MSNBC started as a counterpoint to Fox news. I said that the purpose of the most anti-conservative shows on that channel is to combat Fox news. The fact that their ratings aren't very good doesn't change their purpose. And I wouldn't presume to make such wide sweeping remarks about the other media without lots of evidence to back them up. I also wouldn't assume so much about someone I haven't met just by reading a few their comments.
tlcambell 2 years ago
The amount of evidence that has been mounted publicly to make a case against a mainstream news media complicit in liberal bias has been substantiated by many scholars, far more erudite than I. I would point you to the books 'BIAS: A CBS INSIDER EXPOSES HOW THE MEDIA DISTORT THE NEWS' and 'ARROGANCE: RESCUING AMERICA FROM THE MEDIA ELITE', both by Bernard Goldberg. Or cruise on over to the Media Research Center's website, run by Brent Bozell. It's a treasure trove of liberal media bias.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
okay. Perhaps I will check those out.
tlcambell 2 years ago
And if I do check those sources out, I'll then make sure to read "The Myth of the Liberal Media" by Herman and Chomsky, so as not to see things from only one side.
tlcambell 2 years ago
While I haven't read that particular book, I HAVE read enough Chomsky to know that he takes waaaay too much for granted. I'm sure there is some truth to his book. The most effective lies are the ones that don't deviate too far from the truth. Personally I found Goldberg's two books to be far more enlightening than any of the "what liberal bias?" arguments I've encountered already. The evidence is simply too overwhelming.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
okay, well I'll check out Bradley's book. I've read one review of it so far, according to which Bradley never defines "liberal", quotes people out of context, and doesn't cite enough studies to support his arguments, but that is just one review and I'll have to check it out for myself. I know Chomsky is known for being very careful and uses a lot of different studies to support his conclusions, but maybe he is wrong.
tlcambell 2 years ago
Who? Bradley? The author's name is Bernard Goldberg. He was a mandarin of TV news in this country. A ten-time emmy award winning journalist, and Dan Rather's right hand at CBS for over 25 years. I think that makes him fairly qualified. Also check out his newest book, 'A SLOBBERING LOVE AFFAIR: THE TRUE (AND PATHETIC) STORY OF THE TORRID ROMANCE BETWEEN BARACK OBAMA AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA'. Truly enlightening to the unwashed.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Oops. I was thinking of this guy Ben Bradley. Sorry, completely wrong field. I don't know why I wrote that. I'll look at that this stuff if I get the chance, perhaps even today.
Yeah, I don't doubt the guy's qualifications, but we need to set that apart from his intentions and whether or not his arguments make sense. I just need to see what he has to say first.
tlcambell 2 years ago
And I don't understand your comment, "wrong again, schecky." I haven't been wrong about anything I've said so far. If you think otherwise, why don't you quote something I've said that you think is wrong, and then I can tell you why it's not.
tlcambell 2 years ago
You want me to quote what you said was wrong when I just explained why what you said is wrong. That sounds remarkably dull. Why don't you run along and indulge in some Dungeons and Dragons, or some other such deviant nerdery that would no doubt tickle you. Grownups are discussing worldly matters here.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
First of all, when you said "wrong, again..." you had not pointed out where I had previously been wrong. Second of all, AFTER you said "wrong, again" you went on to say that other media mock conservatives indirectly. But I never denied this. I just don't think that the purpose of Fox is to try to correct this problem. So at no point did you tell me why I was wrong. And then to further suggest that somehow I cannot participate in these debates seems pretty childish
tlcambell 2 years ago
I stated that Fox is a response to an irresponsible left-leaning media. You said it was the other way around. That is not true. TV network executives are in business to make money like anyone else. They saw that Murdoch's and Ailes' FOX was leading the ratings with their opinion-based coverage. MSNBC tried to emulate the style only with a decidedly liberal perspective, for the same reasons. They failed to achieve success because we're ALREADY saturated with liberal perspective in the news.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
yeah, I guess we just disagree on Fox's purpose. I think it exists for the sole purpose of using entertainers and opinionated conservatives to lie, distort, and bully in order to influence their viewers. Whether or not this is supposed to be the "answer" to irresponsible media is debatable. If it is, I think they've gone way overboard. Their "newswatch" segment is a pretty good idea though. I think MSNBC failed because their anti-conservative shows air opposite Fox's most popular shows and...
tlcambell 2 years ago
...because they just don't pull it off as well as Fox commentators like Hannity and O'reilly. Keith Olberman, for example, just isn't a very good personality.
tlcambell 2 years ago
MSNBC is unsuccessful because they lack true dignity and professionalism. Fox may be critical of the left, but they do it with dignity and class. You will never see the sort of vitriol and antipathy on Fox that you see DAILY on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann, as you pointed out, is a fine example. They are petty, classless, bitter, unimportant people. You see Fox as a sinister cabal of lying propagandists, when really it's just the other side of the story that people wouldn't get on the major networks.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
I agree with you about MSNBC and I wouldn't call Fox a sinister cabal of lying propagandists. I would say however that they are in the business of distortion, exaggeration and manipulation. And they do this all the time on the air even if they think they are being fair and balanced. They also go way beyond any of the other news channels in doing this (besides MSNBC). They also frequently try to talk over their liberal guests and talk louder than them so that everybody "knows" they are wrong.
tlcambell 2 years ago
You think they beam conservative ideas into the minds of the impressionable. Nonsense. They are so much more respectable than the other cable networks in so many ways. You can see liberals make strong arguments on the network ALL the time. I watch an unhealthy amount of news, obsessed with media analysis, perhaps to a fault. I've seen silly liberal crap like 'Outfoxed'. It's cheap propaganda masquerading as a legit documentary. The left HATES that Fox News dares to exist. They feel THREATENED.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Lucky,
I agree with you. Fox's ratings are high because middle-America trusts them more than other cable news outlets. They are attacked because they have successfully undercut the liberal media. Moreover, as liberals attack them Fox gains popularity. Essentially, this amounts to free publicity.
Raughwe 2 years ago
Word up!
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
tone it down, ghetto thug. "Word up!" lmao... good one, "pierre". i guess that means you are a ghetto french thug? if so, go back to drinking your whine with cheese.
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago
Didn't you hear? All the white kids wanna be black nowadays. The story was on CNN.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
You're right. Liberals do make strong arguments on the network sometimes (not all the time). That doesn't mean that Fox is giving liberals a fair platform. Much of the time Fox will give you a liberal perspective and a conservative perspective, and set it up so that the conservative one is cast in a much more favorable light. Having liberals on the network helps the Fox agenda. Having said that, I am glad that we have a conservative network. I just wish it was something other than Fox.
tlcambell 2 years ago
We shouldn't have liberal OR conservative news networks. But too many journalists go into college with this desire to act on ideology and save the world. They want to evoke dramatic, worldly change through their work as journalists. This of course is not the role of journalism. It's my dream to see the abolition of ALL media bias, liberal, conservative or otherwise, but I think that's unrealistic today. Out of curiosity, what comprises your vision of a "proper" conservative network?
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Do you think it would be best if people just watched C-SPAN?
I don't really have a complete vision of a good conservative network. But I think it would be good to have at least one network for the millions of Americans with conservative values. Some conservative bias would of course be inevitable, but they could at least do it without distorting the truth, talking over their guests, reporting false information, and occasionally telling (what seem like) boldfaced lies.
tlcambell 2 years ago
the distortation, exaggeration and manipulation at fox news is way beyond the pale compared to msnbc... you know that, and just from watching the channels it is obvious. msnbc is no angel and is not "fair and balanced", but unlike fox news, they dont claim to be. fox news makes that claim in their ridiculous slogan and its not even close to being true.
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago
dignity and class? As wonderfully exemplified in this video clip huh? ya right.
4:30 real class and professionalism huh?
You want dignity and class? Tune into the rachel maddow show on MSNBC.
I think you suffer from a true case of projection in your post.
Alexltavares 2 years ago
Excuse me while I catch my breath. Rachel Maddow?? You can't be serious. The commentator who made gay sex jokes about hundreds of thousands of Americans for daring to protest high taxes? MSLGBT is an embarrassment. If she called herself anything but a journalist she might be able to get away with that sort of dismissive, inappropriate, elitist, condescending rhetoric. Maddow's got plenty of class, alright. It's all low.
I think you suffer from a true case of leftist double-standards.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Yes, Rachel Maddow. Pure class and brilliance. Thank God for her.
Based on your posts, I think you just suffer...LOL!
Alexltavares 2 years ago
Hey dude, no matter how much you try and flatter her, she's not gonna give you any pussy because she's a clam-lapper....
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Hey DUD, thanks for highlighting your 3rd grade emotional IQ.
saca la basura de aqui...
Alexltavares 2 years ago
No Pedro, it's the left who represents the party of emotion. The right has a tendency towards logic. LOLOMGROFLWTF!!! Dumbass.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
I knew that comment in Spanish would bring out the racist knuckledragger in you.
Too predictable...like dealing with a third grader - but wait a minute I already pointed that out in my previous post. LOL!
Way to go Forrest...
Alexltavares 2 years ago
LOL! Actually I speak your LOL! heathen language LOL! fluently, Pedro. No need to LOL! accuse me of LOL! racism. LOL! On what grounds am I a racist, Mr. Pissy-Pants? I guess I'm a little bigoted sometimes, we all are, you know, human nature and all that, but I take issue with being called racist, LOL!
Forrest put it in your mama and made you, Pedro. It's true! I'm your dad! Ve te la chingada, hijo de Forrest!
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Cuckoo cuckoo cukoo. Take yer meds boy!!
Actually Forrest you put it in your own mother and had to wait in line. En ese caso, tu eres un hijo de gran puta. LOL!
I definitely got under your skin. What a predictable mental midget, 3rd grade emotional IQ. punk you are.
Alexltavares 2 years ago
You already said that, Pedro. Pero la verdad es que tu mama quiere ser embarasado con la semilla mas superior de Forrest, huevonito. Eso es porque yo lo doy a la marrana.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
last reply to you as I'm not wasting any more time with this useless thread. You've revealed yourself as an immature troll.
Alexltavares 2 years ago
This is all fun and games to me, Pedro. Who got under whose skin?
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
you are such a hypocrite. you defend those paranoid teabaggers and complain about being made fun of, yet you never said anything about the vile hate fox news and conservatives showed against the anti-war protesters... which by the way, would get 10 times the amount of protesters those tea baggers would hope to get. not only that, but fox news heavily promoted the tea parties as "fnc tax day tea parties". now that is embarrassing... especially since they denied ever doing it. you are a joke.
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago
I'd like for you to give specific examples of a Fox News Anchor calling war-protestors names on air. Just one example of Fox News calling a protestor a sexual name. You must have hundreds of examples, right?
jeffbatt2000 2 years ago
You're lying and you know it.
First of all, why do you have to keep calling people against out of control government spending "teabaggers"? These are fellow American citizens that you claim to be sticking up for? How dare you. Have you no sense of decency?
As far as you saying Fox News called them "fnc tax day tea parties", this is a lie. Please show me one single place this was ever said on Fox News. They had nothing to do with them other than they covered the protests
Stop lying...
jeffbatt2000 2 years ago
Does it make you feel good to call so many of your fellow citizens "teabaggers"? Aren't you embarrassed to have so much hatred for a group of people that you refer to them as a sexual act? Have you no sense of decency towards your fellow Americans that you have such vile hatred and disdain for them simply because they don't want our government spending $10 TRILLION more than it has?
How do you sleep at night with so much hate in your heart?
jeffbatt2000 2 years ago
They REPORTED on the tea parties because it was big news. People gathered around the country to protest government spending, and Fox covered the story like every other network. If you knew anything about the tea parties, you'd know that they were grassroots efforts organized entirely via the internet. Also, the right managed to have an impassioned, relevant protest without setting anything on fire or destroying any private property, which is always worthy of derision in a civilized state.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Funny LuckyPierre78, fox news actually called it patriotic to protest what Obama was doing because they didn't support his plans. It's fair, right to assemble. But do you not know, or like fox news, just not mention the fact when liberals did the same thing about Bush policy fox news shows actually called what they were doing in and protesting what UN-American. People don't hate fox news because it reports news, but because they only report news that support the republican party.
Meda01 2 years ago
Excuse me, but did you even see any of the left's protests during the eight years Bush was in office? In a word: DISGRACEFUL. You can't compare the two. Their actions were un-American, in every way. When the left protests, it's like a third-world riot. When conservatives (RARELY) do, they're civilized. Why do leftists need to cover their faces with handkerchiefs? Because their whole movement is a just a youth trend of destruction and mayhem in the streets, and of no intellectual or moral value
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
NO your totally right, everything republicans have been doing in 6 months as compared to 8 years of bush just shows how much more civilized the conservatives are. I mean it's not like they shouted out "he's a terrorist" or "kill him" when referring to Obama during the election. It's not like fox news has had round the clock coverage of Obama about EVERY, EVERY single thing he says and have turned it into a fact of how he's killing America.
Meda01 2 years ago
Can't you see how dangerous it is to live in a country where the media is in the pocket of the President? The media isn't covering Barack Obama, they're WORSHIPING him! We're talking in circles here. If Fox DOESN'T cover these details, then the public won't know the other side of the story. Contrary views aren't heard on the major networks! If you could get over your anti-Fox inclination for a moment and actually look at what the man is doing, he very much is dismantling the establishment!
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
If this is what republicans are doing in 6 months, what do you think they'll do by year 3, 6 or 7 (we all know Obama is gonna have two terms) and republicans are destroying themselves with every other week being another governor, senator, mayor saying they've been unfaithful (so much for family values of conservatives) but you guys don't ever seem to hear about that on fox. Tell you what, remember what YOU'RE saying right now when you and your friends firebomb a gov buliding in 2 years.
Meda01 2 years ago
Try to transcend your slobbering love affair with the president. That's cool that you respect him, you voted for him, whatever, but no public official deserves to have his ass kissed like you sorry water-carriers do for him. We shouldn't elevate our public servants to godlike status. Emperor worship is not an American value. No one can say what will happen in 2012, but if Obama's rapidly slipping approval is any indication, I'm confident the radical Marxist will be defeated at the polls.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
wow luckypierre78, you're telling me I'm in love with the president on a video from FOX news. You do know that blonde has a threesome with limbaugh and steele every night before she goes to bed right. You have the gull to tell me I'm love with the President in reference to a FOX NEWS interview clip. Go give hannity his blowjob already.
Meda01 2 years ago
You defend him blindly because you're a follower incapable of criticizing your own party. I gather this based on your assumption that Obama will undoubtedly serve two terms, which none of us can say with any clarity, as well as your parroting of his well-known anti-Fox sentiment and your assertion that they exist solely to discredit our President. The love-fest is ending, though. Soon the media is going to turn on him and start holding him accountable like they should have for the past 2 years.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
The left's protests were pretty disgraceful, and their protests are usually more violent than those of the right, which is sad. But I think you're being too one-sided. Protestors on the right said horrible and false things about Obama when he entered office and they're still saying them today. This is just my opinion, but I also think you see much more racism on the right. Good conservatives are having their names dragged through the mud by people like Audra Shay, just to name one.
tlcambell 2 years ago
What are conservatives saying that's so horrible, so false? Racism? The head of the RNC is a black man. Some of our leading intellectuals like Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele are too. Republicans want nothing more than for minorities and immigrants to lift themselves from poverty and seize greatness through the American free market system. I know scores of hardworking immigrants who are utterly confused by Obama's policies; even they know that America was intended to be a center-right country.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
You're saying that because there are respected black Republicans, right-wingers as a whole are not more racist than the left wing? That doesn't make any sense. Part of the Republican ideology is that underprivileged people can work their way toward something greater. So I agree with that tenet of Republicanism. But again, you are switching from talking about right-wingers as a group to Republicans. Are you really not seeing the racism of the right and the neocons?
tlcambell 2 years ago
Neoconservatism began as a response to the crime and violence of 60's radicalism. Liberals in the 60s who lived through the the degradation of decency by radical intellectual rot began to rebel. Confronted with an ideology that always assumed America was the problem and never the solution, these Democrats became in large part that band of intellectuals known as neoconservatives. They got the name from leftists who thought the prefix 'neo' would conjure associations with neo-nazis.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Also, you're right that this was meant to be a center-right country. But "right" doesn't mean the same thing today as it did when our country was founded by REAL conservatives. Neocons are not real conservatives. If you want to see real conservatives look at people like Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater.
tlcambell 2 years ago
I identify myself as a neoconservative. As I said, we are classical liberals. First in the 20s and finally in the 60s, progressivism came to be renamed 'liberalism'. In the past liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith. After the 60s classical liberals were routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were dubbed liberals.
I think Ron Paul is naive, and he attracts the craziest of the left AND the right
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
So, in your view, what are the central tenets of neoconservatism? What do you stand for?
tlcambell 2 years ago
That's easy. I stand for a strong defense budget that maintains American security, I believe in the advancement of American values to those who seek them by promoting the cause of political and economic freedom abroad, to maintain healthy bonds with our democratic allies while challenging those who are hostile to our values and as Podhoretz said, "to accept responsibility for our unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our interests, prosperity and principles."
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
How would you rank these values in terms of their importance? For example, would you be willing to trade certain political freedoms guaranteed by the constitution for greater security? Or would you rather preserve all of our liberties at the cost of a slightly greater risk of being attacked? I assume your answer will depend on the scale of the attack, so for the moment let's leave aside worries about nuclear attacks. Would you trade civil liberties to avoid, for example, another 9-11?
tlcambell 2 years ago
As you see, the gist of the philosophy is foreign policy-conservatism and American exceptionalism. We are the only real superpower in the world and we must act to secure our position.
I see where you're going with this, and it's a baited question. To assume that Bush, under the advisement of neoconservatives, trounced civil liberties in the interest of national security amounts to a classic left-wing misreading of neoconservative ideals and a fundamental misunderstanding of the Patriot Act.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
I'm not baiting the question. I want to know how you rank these values with respect to their importance. The patriot act does go against the constitution and it does endanger civil liberties. That's based on an accurate reading of the patriot act and the constitution. But that might be a fair price to pay in order to be more secure. Security is obviously very important and it's hard to know how to weigh that against loss of individual liberties. A similar issue arises in debates over gun control
tlcambell 2 years ago
Think of the Patriot Act as an American provision within international law "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." Sounds reasonable to me.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
First, we must have a strong national defense. Without security, nothing else matters. Secondly, to maintain strong ties with our democratic allies so that third, we may through allied coalitions promote our Americanism abroad while challenging regimes hostile to our way of life - which in so doing will ultimately secure our interests and prosperity.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
It's a good thing republicans do put any person on such a high pedestal, oh no wait, I forgot about your demo-god Reagan.
Meda01 2 years ago
The record of history itself cements the greatness of Reagan's legacy, with or without Republican support. He united the left and the right, and his accolades are bestowed by both parties. The same, however, cannot be said for liberals who to this day gush worshipfully over their demi-god FDR while portraying the utter failure of his New Deal as one of the single greatest liberal achievements of the 20th century. Their devotion for Barack Obama has also ballooned to personality-cult status.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
oh yeah, making up lies about obama's policies and editing videos of him to push a far right agenda while claiming he went to a muslim madrassa, constantly repeating his middle name painting him as some sort of towel head, ETC. very dignified indeed. the type of hate spewing going on fox news is NEVER even seen on msnbc or cnn... not even close. any person with a half brain sees that other the blind sheep like yourself. just from watching idiots like oreilly, hannit y and beck proves my point.
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago 2
and all this coming from a network that likes to claim they are "fair and balanced". having beck, hannity and oreilly to spew far right hate all day and claiming they are fair is a pathetic attempt.
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago 3
It's a proven fact that Fox News gave the most balanced coverage of the 2008 elections. According to Pew Research and others, Obama and McCain got almost equal amounts of positive coverage on FoxNews, as opposed to MSNBC and CNN which gave Obama almost 3 times and as much positive coverage. It's an indisputable fact that Fox News is more balanced than CNN or MSNBC, giving BOTH sides of every issue...
jeffbatt2000 2 years ago
I'd like to see all the details of that Pew Study. Fox almost never says anything positive about Obama. Any study that doesn't reflect that is automatically suspicious. Fox gives both sides of SOME issues, but they set it up so that the liberal side is cast in a negative light. The point of having liberals on the network is to help the Fox agenda by asking them tougher questions than they ask conservatives, outnumbering them (e.g. Hannity's great american panel) and talking over them.
tlcambell 2 years ago 2
@tlcambell
" Fox gives both sides of SOME issues, but they set it up so that the liberal side is cast in a negative light"- Libtards don't need help to make themselves look bad.
"... asking them tougher questions than they ask conservatives..."
Wow, so sorry... Should the questions be dumbed down for the libtard elite? Let's not hold them accountable and hurt their fuckin feelings.
leaddrop 1 year ago
@leaddrop I don't know what a Libtard is, but regardless of what you say, Fox does set up debates so that the liberal side is cast in a negative light.
"Should the questions be dumbed down for the libtard elite?" No. Obviously not. The correct response would be to make the questions harder for conservatives, thereby holding both sides accountable, and living up to their mission of being fair and balanced.
tlcambell 1 year ago
@GstateBALLER925 Hannity and Beck do, but I would say Bill O'Reilly is a little more in the middle. He's spared Obama several times, but haha Hannity sure hasn't.
futhermucker5 1 year ago
no, rasmussen is not respected, certainly not independent or non-partisan. only fox news uses them ALL THE TIME. you barely ever see fox bring up gallup polls unless it fits their agenda.
its wonderful that you know fox news leans right, but the problem is fox news itself, and many of its ignorant viewers buy their stupid "fair and balanced" slogan assuming they bring on the same amount of liberals and conservatives when on almost every show, conservatives strongly outnumbers liberals.
GstateBALLER925 2 years ago 6
Rassmussen was the most respected and most accurate poll in both the 2004 and 2008 elections.
As far as Gallup polling, they have exclusivity with CNN and USAToday. Fox News CAN'T mention their polls. But, if you want to go there, Obama is WAYYYY down in their poll, too...
jeffbatt2000 2 years ago
@GstateBALLER925 I agree that Conservatives outnumber Liberals. That just means there's still a majority of smart people. Fox interviews Liberals all the time, and EVERY TIME Liberals avoid answering the question asked. And if they do, they can never back up their points. Like Megyn says, Liberals attack Fox when they have nothing else to turn to, because Conservatives outsmart dimwits like this guy all the time.
futhermucker5 1 year ago
@GstateBALLER925 rasmussen is the one of the most accurate during elections lol.. can you back up anything you are saying about it being biased other than rasmussen appearing on fox and his poll being used by fox?
Chslosers 1 year ago
@GstateBALLER925 You are definitely right about the rasmussen thing. The really good political polls come out of Zogby and Gallup. The survey samples of the population are what make the difference.
baph333333 1 year ago
This guy is getting wrecked. He is trying to spin out of it to no avail. Excellent. Also looks like a pig.
Raughwe 2 years ago
You are also retarded
reklawderf 2 years ago
Perhaps, but I managed to pee in your mom's asshole. And it feels great. Think about it: My penis landing safely inside your mom's insidey parts. Bursting with hot brimming urine. ALL UP INSIDE YOUR MOTHER. I open the spigot of my pee; a presentation for all to see. MMMMM HMMMMM!
Raughwe 2 years ago
1:40
OMFG!! what fuckin polls is she lookin at?! xDD
"fox is the least biased network"
oh lol, your not fooling anybody, most of america knows fox is full of shit! thanks for the laugh though ^_^'
and wow, i love the title, its soo misleading o_O'
since when has that dumb noisy bitch beaten up ANYBODY xDD. can't even beat a fuckin cold =P
SEF6519 2 years ago
SEF6519,
Hey cumguzzler! You said "most of america knows fox is full of shit". Wrong. Most of America is watching Fox. I pee in your butt.
Raughwe 2 years ago 4
why does their campaign act like some fags most of all news channels talk shit about MCcain and MCcains doesnt act like a dooshe bag on t.v
but i never really liked MCcain
greenl1me 2 years ago
Megyn Kelly is the best female anchor out there hands down.
josiahdallas 2 years ago
Wow. Republican's are dilusional. You really think she won? Bill Burton schooled this dumb , loud mouthed moron,lol.
fee316 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are retarded too.
reklawderf 2 years ago
I believe it was the other way around...idiots!
ASacredSpirit 2 years ago
bill burton... really sad. what a pig. baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Urbania05 2 years ago
eat a dick
reklawderf 2 years ago
Thank you rekladerf, i do believe i shall.
Urbania05 2 years ago
If you think Bill Burton got beat up your intellectual does not meet human standards.
AhmadiyyaTrueIslam 2 years ago
I was actualy expecting something different... I think Magyn Kelly is the one who got owned. And big time.
hermanoarnoldo 2 years ago
I hope I'm never in her cross hairs. Tough,smart, and beautiful. A fantastic combination.
sugardaddy583 2 years ago
I love how she turns into Darth Vader at 2:24.
trythinkingforonce 2 years ago
"you can save the for your friends at the other channels we don't put up with that here" LMAO!! BILL GOT OWNED
teltelamont 2 years ago
Saying that, Bill Burton does not get beaten up by Megyn Kelly. Megyn resorted to the tried and tested Fox news tactic of shouting and talking over the other person, a tactic perfected by Hannity and O'Reilly. It doesn't work, it just makes you look like a complete fool who has no debating skills. Fox News IS a biased channel, its owner admits to it. It does skew to the right.
I love Burton's comment - "ok, Megyn, go to town". Brilliant. Megyn kelly is a slamming hottie though, shame really.
Tanman007 2 years ago
baaaaaaa
Urbania05 2 years ago
Please. Burton could only spew out crap. Megyn had intellegent dialogue while burton resorted to sarcasism and put downs. Go back to your pasture, sheep.
I agree, she is smokin'. thank god she is on FOX not one of the other stations. I would have never seen her!
tiebanana 2 years ago
hahahahah megyn had intelligent dialogue? that stupid cunt was sputtering conservative bullshit the whole time, while bill tried to get a word in. I mean, he was being interviewed wasn't he?
strawburrylemonade 2 years ago
hate much?
Urbania05 2 years ago
Please you fking retarded b!tch. You have no idea what the fk you're talking about. You just sit back and wait for your hand out.If you know anything bout Obama, Burton, and the rest of the admin, you would know they never have an argument on anything . They ALWAYS respond with cutdowns, name calling, hate speech,etc. This pres and his croonies are the biggest bunch of low life, radical, evil, racist punks to ever come about. I'm sure even your sorry ass has found that out the past few mos.cunt
tiebanana 2 years ago
If we're talking about Economics 101, then lets be honest. No president and no political party has the "silver bullet" to fix the economy, it will take years for the US economy to fix itself, to get rid of its bad loans, and ridiculous mortgage and credit card debts.
Tanman007 2 years ago
obama will fix nothing. and this bias issue is old. and don't start about bias. this election was a joke. we should of crowned him two years ago.. and saved us the trouble of having an election cycle. i hope four years from now people will look at our press selected one in a more objective manner.
Urbania05 2 years ago