Why Are Libs Scared of Fox News?

[red states rule]

One again, the kook left is going after Fox News. Why are libs so scared of Fox News and want them silenced?




Liberals Go After Fox News Advertisers

Jul 27 04:21 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer


NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network.
MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

At least 5,000 people nationwide have signed up to compile logs on who is running commercials on Fox, Gilliam said. The groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials.

"It's a lot more effective for Sam's Diner to get calls from 10 people in his town than going to the consumer complaint department of some pharmaceutical company," Gilliam said.

Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.

Representatives for Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., did not immediately return calls for comment.

Home Depot has not had an unusual number of calls, said spokesman Jerry Shields, and the home improvement chain will not change its advertising strategy.

"We're not in the business of censoring media," Shields said. "We need to reach our customer base through all mediums available."

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

The groups seem particularly angry at Fox's Bill O'Reilly, who has done critical reports on left-wing bloggers. On July 16, O'Reilly said the DailyKos.com Web site is "hate of the worst order," and sent a reporter to question JetBlue Airways Corp. CEO Dave Barger about the airline's sponsorship of a gathering run by DailyKos.

He'll never ride on JetBlue again, O'Reilly said.

MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.

"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

[glockmail]

.....
MoveOn.org is campaigning against Fox because it says the network characterizes itself as a fair news network when it consistently favors a conservative point of view, said Adam Green, the organization's spokesman.

"We're not trying to silence anybody," Green said. "Rush Limbaugh has a right to be on the air—he admits his point of view. Fox doesn't."
....

What hypocrisy. O'Reilly is pure opinion, and he states that. What about CNN and PBS that claim to be reporting opinion as fact?

[red states rule]

What hypocrisy. O'Reilly is pure opinion, and he states that. What about CNN and PBS that claim to be reporting opinion as fact?

Libs hate it when the light of truth is shown on them

They run away like cockroachs

[glockmail]

Libs hate it when the light of truth is shown on them

They run away like cockroachs

I don't see fat ass Mike Moore, fat ass Hillary, lard ass Ted Kennedy, or pompous ass George Soros running as fast as roaches.

[red states rule]

I don't see fat ass Mike Moore, fat ass Hillary, lard ass Ted Kennedy, or pompous ass George Soros running as fast as roaches.

They use the liberal media as human shields

Beside how can one pair of legs move that much blubber?

[stephanie]

They know they can't sell their ideas to the Average American, so they have to try and shut up the messenger....

It's funny just as you posted this..I was reading this at Du underground...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
What do we do with right-wing pundits when/if our national nightmare ends?
At the end of WWII, French citizens who collaborated with the Nazis had their heads shaved so their shame would be public and everyone would know who they were.

What I'm getting at here is, once we're rid of the Busheviks, (and assuming we can rebuild a sane, rational media), what, if anything, should we do about our home-grown collaborators? I'm talking about people like Limbaugh, Oreilly, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and all the others who were in league with, and who greatly profited from, those who tried to destroy our Constitution and steal our country?

These people betrayed our Constitution every bit as much as did Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, Rumsfeld, and all the rest on that long list of brutes and thugs. Perhaps, all that's left to us is to simply shun them, or maybe even shave their heads. But somehow, that seems insufficient and to lack any sense of justice.

So keeping in mind that we liberals are people who believe in freedom of speech, what do you think we should do (if anything) about those who aided and abetted the rape of our country?

You'd be amazed with some of the answers...
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x1452787

[red states rule]

Libs and anti depressents - a natural combination

[red states rule]

Day in the Life of CNN Hosts: Promoting Democrat Talking Points
By Matthew Balan | July 27, 2007 - 13:35 ET
CNN's Wolf Blitzer conducted a hardball interview of White House press secretary Tony Snow on Thursday's edition of The Situation Room about the Democrats' subpoena of Karl Rove and the possible perjury investigation against Alberto Gonzales. Blitzer asked Snow a series of tough questions that you might find on any Democrat pundit's list. Contrast this with Blitzer's colleague at CNN, John Roberts, who earlier the same day, did a softball interview of Sen. Charles Schumer, which helped the New York Democrat echo his talking points. Actually, both Roberts and Blitzer helped forward the Democrat talking points, but the major difference was the approach towards the person being interviewed.

Blitzer first asked Snow a series questions concerning the subpoena of Karl Rove.

BLITZER: At issue, the firing of those prosecutors and Karl Rove's role -- if he had some -- in that. What's wrong with the Judiciary Committee engaging in what their constitutional requirement is -- oversight of these kinds of matters?

BLITZER: But, Tony, the Democrats point out that the conditions in which you've made Karl Rove and others available are simply unacceptable. They wouldn't be under oath. They couldn't even take -- do a transcript, have a record of what -- of what he was testifying about, and that's simply unacceptable.


In the first question, Blitzer repeats the "oversight" line used by congressional Democrats since they took power in January. In the second, it actually seems like Blitzer is agreeing with the Democrats, that it's "simply unacceptable" that the White House set the conditions for the testimony of Rove.

The bulk of the interview dealt with the possible investigation against attorney general Gonzales. To his credit, Blitzer brought up the fact that "they want -- some of the Democrats, members of the Judiciary Committee -- a special counsel to investigate whether he [Gonzales] lied, whether he committed perjury" in his testimony before Congress concerning the Terrorist Surveillance Program, something that Roberts didn't even bring up in his interview with Schumer. First, Blitzer asked Snow these questions:

BLITZER: What do you say to these charges that there are flat out contradictions between what they have told Congress and what Alberto Gonzales has testified under oath about?

BLITZER: Did the other three [the former deputy attorney general, James Comey; the former director of national intelligence, John Negroponte; and Monica Goodling] lie?


Blitzer brought up the "charges" of the Democrats, the partisan opponents of the White House. But Roberts never brought up the "charges" or criticisms of the Republican opponents of Schumer's efforts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...talking-points

[avatar4321]

Because when you put conservative and liberal ideas side by side, the liberal ideas wont ever hold up.

[red states rule]

Because when you put conservative and liberal ideas side by side, the liberal ideas wont ever hold up.

I posted this many moons aga, but for the new people here - and to have some fun - here is why conservatoves bets liberals in a debate

We know how to do it and when


How to Debate a Liberal
First, when you debate a liberal, you have to realize something: you’re not going to “win.” Sure, you will have common sense, experience, facts, realistic knowledge, and the very universe in your favor, but that won’t be enough. You see, in order to “win” an argument against a liberal, a liberal has to have the capacity to learn. And a liberal that can learn is a rare thing, indeed. You’ve heard it said “if you’re not a liberal at 16 you don’t have a heart, and if you’re not a conservative at 30, you don’t have a brain.” That’s because liberals tend to “reason” with emotion, like teenagers, while conservatives have learned life lessons and don’t perpetually wear rose-colored glasses all their lives.

So, when arguing with a liberal, the best you can hope for is that a third party reading the debate will look at the differences between you and the liberal and will wise up and join the right side, and that’s not the left.

During the debate, however, you’ll no doubt run into many of the same characteristics others have seen, depending on how long the debate is. Many of these I’ve had the amusing pleasure to see here at Blogster, so there are readily available examples around.

But, you have to be prepared. Here’s a short list of what you should bring with you to a debate:

1) Waders. With liberals, the BS can get awfully deep. The more they talk, the deeper it gets, and they hope to drown their opponents in a sea of sh*t. Come prepared.

2) A pillow or cushion. In a long debate with a liberal, there will be many opportunities to bang your head into something hard as you see your words twisted to mean something else, then attacked. If you type something like “abortions hurt women, and that’s wrong,” and see the liberal reply with “oh, so you’re saying abortions should be illegal because you think raping and incest are just fine and dandy, huh, racist??!!” you may be tempted to run your head into the nearest set of bricks. It’s natural. Being frustrated with arrogant stupidity is something everyone with a brain cell has to endure at times. Just make sure your pillow is nice and soft and you should make it through. Liberals tend to purposely twist words into other meanings so that they can argue against those new meanings. It’s far easier for them than actually debating what you said.

3) A copy of 1984. At some point, if you suggest any limit on any activity liberals like (except campaign contributions to Democrats), you will be compared to something in 1984. I think this is the only book liberals have ever read, and that’s because the title doesn’t have any words in it. As such, despite the fact that they act more like the government in the book, they like accusing their opponents of such behaviors. A Christian meekly stating his view that homosexuals shouldn’t marry is a member of the “thought police,” and everything Bush does us leading us down the path in 1984. On a side note, they may refer to you as a Nazi as well, as in “so you think parents are actually responsible for how they raise their kids? You NAZI from 1984!!” (It doesn’t matter that Nazis weren’t in 1984…a liberal’s grip on reality is tenuous at best, so cut ‘em some slack.)

4) Prepare beforehand. In order to desensitize yourself to a debate with a liberal, you will have to request the assistance of a friend. Have your friend come over before you reply or start a debate, and have him spend no less than one hour screaming obscenities at you. This will ready you for a typical liberal “dialogue” once they are backed into an intellectual corner (which doesn’t take long). If you want to be really prepared, have your friend repeatedly call you the following: bigot, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, war-mongerer, redneck, close-minded, intolerant, and fascist. These make up the core of liberal arguments, even if used improperly. “You conservatives! You’re always wanting people to have to take responsibility for themselves! Homophobes!” Or, “you don’t think Ann Coulter’s latest book should be banned? Racist!!” You get the idea…

5) A scorecard. Just for fun, you may want to write down how often the liberal you’re debating calls you any of the names listed above, or worse. It’s amusing to see how many times a “tolerant,” “open-minded” liberal can use the word bigot or Islamophobe in a debate about school choice. Heck, a liberal could use the word “racist” fifteen times just ordering lunch.

6) A neck brace. If you’re not careful, you could end up with whiplash trying to follow the speedy zips and flips a liberal uses to avoid being pinned down when he knows he’s losing. You think certain cockroaches speed around trying to avoid being caught? Try watching a liberal with nothing he can say. In one sentence he’s arguing against something you didn’t even say, and in the next calling your parentage into question while screaming about how great Clinton was and why you’re a redneck Nazi homophobe for wanting to let Americans vote on abortion. Even quoting a liberal and replying directly to that quote doesn’t help. Apparently, they don’t see what they’ve written afterwards. Selective blindness seems to inflict liberals at a nearly 100% rate. Someone should collect donations to have scientists try to cure it.

7) Another friend. You’ll need someone you can trust to be there with you during some of the longer debates with liberals. This friend should never, under any circumstances, read or listen to the liberal you’re debating. His entire job is just to be there to jump-start your brain when it locks up, stunned into unresponsiveness by the sheer depths of stupidity that the liberal spews out. As a reasonable, thinking person, you may not be prepared to deal with the intellectual black-hole that a liberal can create when they convince themselves of their arguments to the point where they mentally implode and their minds and words become intellectual vacuums. Reading or hearing this level of liberalism can jeopardize your mental capacity, so when your friend sees your eyes glaze over, a trickle of drool coming out of your mouth, and you don’t coherently respond to external stimuli (in essence, you “become” a liberal), he has to be there to start reading to you. Any book above a second grade level should be enough to snap you out of it, seeing as how even that is light-years beyond ultimate liberalism, but the higher the grade, the better. Just don’t use that copy of 1984, or you may find yourself imaging yourself as a Nazi, in keeping with the liberal thought-pattern. In a spot, even “Dick and Jane” will work, but someone has to be there to read it to you.

8) Another cushion. If you’re sitting at a desk, it would be a good idea to put something under your chin, so that when it drops it doesn’t strike the desk and cause pain. This often happens when a conservative sees a liberal accuse him of something that liberals do. A liberal may complain about a person saying something at a graduation ceremony, for example, and states that the person should never have spoken. But, when you reply that they had that right, the liberal can come back with “you conservatives just want to stifle free speech for everyone but who you agree with!” (Usually followed by either “racist,” or “homophobe,” generally.) Having your chin drop all the way into your crotch after reading something this inane not only dries out your mouth, but also can leave you stunned until the pain in your groin fades away. Sometimes, the liberal may say something like this but combine it with Ultimate Liberalism, and leave you writhing on the floor a drooling, slobbering mess. So make sure your friend reads to you and gets you some ice. Or better yet, just have two cushions in advance, and save yourself a little pain.

I hope this helps some people, especially those conservatives who are yet unfamiliar with what can happen when debating a liberal. And here at Blogster, there’s no lack of liberals to practice on, and just be sure to be prepared.

http://edjamacator.blogster.com/debate_liberal.html

[Joe Steel]

One again, the kook left is going after Fox News. Why are libs so scared of Fox News and want them silenced?

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

[red states rule]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

Yea, libs can talke to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and the rest of the liberal media

Why does Fox News cream the liberal CNN and MSNBC is the ratings? IAre you going to give the usual lib response how the people are stupid? t seems libs have a big probelm when people CHOOSE Fox News over the liberal loving CNN and MSNBC

Here is a sample of the unbiased programming at MSNBC

Olbermann Cracks: With Cheney Under Knife, 'Bush Will Actually Get to Be President'
By Brent Baker | July 28, 2007 - 02:46 ET
Keith Olbermann opened Friday night's Countdown show on MSNBC:


Tomorrow morning Vice President Cheney will undergo surgery to have the battery replaced on his heart defibrillator -- which means an exact reversal of last week's colonoscopy and invocation of the 25th amendment. For a few hours, at least, George W. Bush will actually get to be President. Our fifth story on the Countdown, let's hope he uses his alone-time wisely because today his administration was again reduced to try to reform clear reality into foggy myth with a dedication of language-parsing that makes Bill Clinton look like a chronic generalizer. Not that you would have known anything wrong from Mr. Bush's schedule today devoted to an economic speech and to handing out science medals....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-b...ident#comments

[red states rule]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

Another fact libs ignore is this

Fox News is fair and balanced

Fox News has a nice list of liberals that come on a give their opinions. Unlike at CNN and MSNBC where it is overwhelmingly liberal. In a roundtable discussions you will find 3 libs and one conservative - add in the host and the conservative is outnumbered 4 to 1

To the liberal media - THAT is fair and balanced

Of course, libs dismiss those libs who dare to appear on Fox News, as "not real liberals"

[avatar4321]

Fox News isn't.

It's a gop propaganda organization and Democrats don't want to waste time talking with gop hacks and shills.

Typical liberal tactic. Cant deal with the opponent head on. So you try to label them as something else and pretend as though that means you dont really have to deal with the substance of what they say.

Cant handle what you hear in Fox News. So you just pretend it isnt news and refuse to deal with the substance.

Cant handle when people oppose affirmative action because all men should be treated equally and not on the basis of race or when they oppose illegal immigration because they dont want people disobeying the law, so you call them racists and pretend as though that means you dont have to deal with the substance of their points.

Cant handle when people oppose useless and failing entitlement programs, so you label those who oppose them as mean, hateful, uncompassionate and pretend as though you can ignore the substance of their arguments.

Cant handle it when people oppose gay marriage and homosexuality for legitimate reasons, so you label them homophobes and pretend as though you dont have to deal with the substance of their remarks.

Cant handle when President Bush repeatedly hands your asses to you, So you label him "stupid" or a "liar" and pretend that you dont have to deal with the substance of his arguments.

Come to think of it. that is the only arguments you liberals are capable of making. There is no substance to anything you say. So you cant rebutt conservatives with substance and need to resort to "winning" with condecension and name calling. It's really quite sad.

[red states rule]

Typical liberal tactic. Cant deal with the opponent head on. So you try to label them as something else and pretend as though that means you dont really have to deal with the substance of what they say.

Cant handle what you hear in Fox News. So you just pretend it isnt news and refuse to deal with the substance.

Cant handle when people oppose affirmative action because all men should be treated equally and not on the basis of race or when they oppose illegal immigration because they dont want people disobeying the law, so you call them racists and pretend as though that means you dont have to deal with the substance of their points.

Cant handle when people oppose useless and failing entitlement programs, so you label those who oppose them as mean, hateful, uncompassionate and pretend as though you can ignore the substance of their arguments.

Cant handle it when people oppose gay marriage and homosexuality for legitimate reasons, so you label them homophobes and pretend as though you dont have to deal with the substance of their remarks.

Cant handle when President Bush repeatedly hands your asses to you, So you label him "stupid" or a "liar" and pretend that you dont have to deal with the substance of his arguments.

Come to think of it. that is the only arguments you liberals are capable of making. There is no substance to anything you say. So you cant rebutt conservatives with substance and need to resort to "winning" with condecension and name calling. It's really quite sad.

Have you noticed he has ran away from the thread after his talking points were countered with the facts and the truth?