Dems cancel Nevada Pres Debate on Fox

[Kulindahr]

Returning to the actual topic of the thread....

If politicians decide not to make use of a certain news organization, it's certainly their choice. But one has to ask what the motive is. There's no point pretending politicians are lily-white; they've learned too long and too well how to manipulate people and even the law to their own ends. So when I see any batch of politicians declining to appear on a broadcast channel, my first question is, "What embarrassing questions don't they want to answer?" Not that embarrassing questions are usually a problem; they answer the question they wish had been asked, and the media normally lets them get away with it. That leads to the more general question, "What are they afraid of?"
That goes to the heart of campaign politics. Attack ads work, no matter how much everyone professes to despise them. So politicians in campaign mode operate on fear, out of a desire for damage control -- or more correctly, damage avoidance. They don't want to give anyone a chance to strike a blow that might leave a mark, because it might cost them votes.
So, why don't the Democrats want to appear on FOX? It's because they're afraid of something. Afraid of being associated with people who don't tell the truth? Hardly; they don that every time they walk into Congress -- apologies to those who are governors. Are they afraid of being pinned down and actually having top answer a question? Not likely; except for novices, they're all too experienced at evasion. There doesn't seem to be anything having to do with that particular network they really have to worry about.
So what are they afraid of? At this stage of the game, politicians are usually afraid of someone in their own party who has clout. And since they're reacting en masse, it isn't one of them.
Maybe the lefty blogs?

 

[NickCole]

what's really interesting is that clearly Ailes is first and foremost A BUSINESS MAN. He saw the giant vacuum - NO CONSERVATIVE LEANING TV CHANNEL - and bam - success. It's because no one else does it. That's why it is so popular.

It's true that no other TV news channel serves as a propaganda arm for a political party. Clearly there is a market for the Limbaugh/Coulter crowd. And people like me watch it because we're interested to know firsthand the context in which BushRepublican propaganda is being presented to the faithful. But that doesn't demonstrate anything about the supposed liberal or conservative bent of any other news channel.

All the others vie for the liberal viewer, one trying harder than the next.

That's your biased opinion but there is no objective evidence that it's true.

Sorry Nick - but you're making the case against yourself

Why do you try to make everything personal.

This isn't about me and I'm not making a case for or against myself.

 

[NickCole]

Ailes is first and foremost motivated by $ - the ideology is convenient but not necessary - the $ are

You don't know that, and Ailes' history indicates it probably isn't true.

Nick's point is that Ailes is ideologically driven

Striving for financial success and driving an ideological agenda are not mutually exclusive.

And Ailes' ideological bent is consistent from the start when he was Richard Nixon's executive producer of TV. He also was the one who coached Reagan after he'd stumbled in his first debate with Mondale then, with Ailes' help went on to win the second debate. He also worked with the infamous Lee Atwater to turn around Bush I's campaign from trailing Dukakis -- with the same kind of nasty dishonest propaganda that Fox is famous for.

Fox News is a tremendous money maker - why?

Because there's a market for sleaze and exploitation, and lies that feed into the prejudices and bitterness and delusion of grandeur of some people. There are people who are glad to be deluded as long as it feeds into their needs -- the success of Bush & Co's "Mission Accomplished" show is an obvious example.

because real people are sick and tired of the media being slanted ONE way

That's a typical Ailes/Fox/Atwater/Rove/Bush propaganda technique, asserting that "real people" are the ones who are on your side even though it's an empty assertion.

 

[NickCole]

good one

antiwar.com
fair.org
dailykos??
huffington?

please

you're just proving how much extreme liberal crap is out there posing as legit news or balanced POV

I think ur making my point

Actually this post supports the point that BushRepublians only see what they want to see.

Those sources that you dismiss provided links to or actual video that supports their point. It wasn't commentary blasting Fox News, it was words and pictures from Fox News itself that consistently proved the point that it's dishonest.

 

[chance1]

Nick - I think 2 posts in a row is the max - in terms of good taste anyway

As for all of Fox's viewers being republican sleaze whatever, I think you're clearly misrepresenting a lot of people who see Fox as the only place that doesn't tilt the news in the same direction. Simple as that. Check it

NETWORK BENT (like that?)
FOX CONSERVATIVE

CNN LIBERAL
NBC EXTREME LIBERAL
MSNBC EXTREME LIBERAL
CBS LIBERAL
ABC LIBERAL

Let's see - what's the scorecard?

Yet the only time u hear about biased media is about Fox

Look in the mirror my peeps

You are ahead in the game 5-1

stop your whining

 

[Nishin]

^ Just one question, why do you keep posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... like doing so will validate your point or something... ??

You made your above [STRIKE]point[/STRIKE] claim n-times already... what you're asked to do now is to prove it.

Who is it that you're trying to convince with your mantra... is it us or... yourself?
Sorry to say but it really is starting to sound... dumb... at a monopathic/psychiatric level... you know... like winxp with the blaster worm... keeps rebooting every 60seconds... or something...

Most media are more or less biased... that's not an issue, just takes an extra neuron to fill in the gap... but it's totally different when it comes to deliberate LIES... a "value" (apparently) that seems more and more prominent in that American political party with the support of "media" like FOX ...

How can anyone support a lying media??

 

[NickCole]

Yet the only time u hear about biased media is about Fox

That's hilarious.

"Liberal media" has been the most consistent Republican whine for years.

 

[1st love ron]

that if mccain or rudy or whomever can go on one of the multitude of extreme liberal, liberal and/or liberal leaning nets - then good old country bizillionaire Edwards can go on Fox

Example of "extreme liberal net?"

I'll give you one: Air America Radio. Surely you are not saying that CBS, NBC, ABC and NYT are in the same category.


EDIT: Never mind, there is no hope for a level-headed answer after reading post #117 that I missed somehow.

 

[OtterJoq]

NBC is "extreme liberal?"

L.

M.

F.

A.

O.

 

[texpatriot]

Nick - I think 2 posts in a row is the max - in terms of good taste anyway

As for all of Fox's viewers being republican sleaze whatever, I think you're clearly misrepresenting a lot of people who see Fox as the only place that doesn't tilt the news in the same direction. Simple as that. Check it

NETWORK BENT (like that?)
FOX CONSERVATIVE

CNN LIBERAL
NBC EXTREME LIBERAL
MSNBC EXTREME LIBERAL
CBS LIBERAL
ABC LIBERAL

Let's see - what's the scorecard?

Yet the only time u hear about biased media is about Fox

Look in the mirror my peeps

You are ahead in the game 5-1

stop your whining

Ahead in the game?

What I find funny, is that we're all saying the same thing. We're all saying that FOX News isn't like everyone else.

The best analogy that I can come up with is that of an "out-house."

Out in the country, back in the days before indoor plumbing, people use to dig a hole in the ground, and then they would build a house over it. This way they'd have some privacy when "nature called."

During the hot summer months, the area around and inside this house would stink to high heaven.

The problem is, once you sat in the house for a while you kind of got use to the smell.

Everyone who wasn't inside the out-house knew how bad it smelled, but the person inside had forgotten how bad it smelled.

You my friend, appear to be the one sitting in the out-house.

So come on.

Come outside, and smell how fresh the air is out here.

I know you want to.

 

[smelter]

 

[chance1]

^ Just one question, why do you keep posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... like doing so will validate your point or something... ??

You made your above [strike]point[/strike] claim n-times already... what you're asked to do now is to prove it.

Who is it that you're trying to convince with your mantra... is it us or... yourself?
Sorry to say but it really is starting to sound... dumb... at a monopathic/psychiatric level... you know... like winxp with the blaster worm... keeps rebooting every 60seconds... or something...

Most media are more or less biased... that's not an issue, just takes an extra neuron to fill in the gap... but it's totally different when it comes to deliberate LIES... a "value" (apparently) that seems more and more prominent in that American political party with the support of "media" like FOX ...

How can anyone support a lying media??

sorry to bore you

sometimes things take time to get thru

I can prove that Maryland beat Davidson today in the NCAA's - it is a matter of record. Bias in the media is a debatable issue - there is no "proof"

But the fact that you and yours deny the overriding slant (won't repeat it for u nishin) it is proof that you and yours are unable to see things outside of your zone.

Question for you:

why can I see the merit/funniness of Bill Maher or a point well made by an extreme liberal (Russell Feingold) and yet you and yours are incapable of anything other than your warped Bush sucks/get out of Iraq/fill in the blanks mantra

don't think u can answer that one

 

[Andreus]

just thought his was worth repeating at this point

 

[gewhite3]

Bush sucks/get out of Iraq

don't think u can answer that one

Easy......

Bush does suck

and we do need to get out of Iraq

Simple really.

I know, truth hurts.

 

[Nishin]

sorry to bore you

... it's not about boredom... it's about conducting a debate... when doing so, one usually listens to/uses someone's argument to propose new ideas/analysis/points of view... but with you, no matter what is retorted, you'll just repeat first claim over and over... apparently not able to see beyond, I just don't understand the point of doing so... so no it's not about boredom, I'm questioning your intellectual ability at debating something... (although you already showed me before how you deal with questions which answers will prove your intellectual dishonesty... the above picture illustrate this perfectly).

sometimes things take time to get thru

What is it that you really are trying to make go thru?
Bias in the media? I recognized it posts ago... why go on with it??
I'm asking you about LIES.

I can prove that Maryland beat Davidson today in the NCAA's - it is a matter of record. Bias in the media is a debatable issue - there is no "proof"

How very convenient... so I guess we must take your word for it? ... why should we take your word for it and not someone else's?
However I believe "we" (since I've been cordially bundled with an American political party I actually don't belong to) have provided proofs of FOX bias and lies... which you failed to comment on, appart from trying to ridicule the source of less than a handful of them... which is childish and irrelevent... shall I understand this line of defense as an acknowledgment of your inability to deny the FACTS mentioned?

Let me ask you again: Do you think it is ok for a media to deliberatly LIE to its audience?. I would like to hear your answer to that question...

But the fact that you and yours deny the overriding slant (won't repeat it for u nishin) it is proof that you and yours are unable to see things outside of your zone.

Very interesting... well since you claim I did such thing... can you please quote me doing so?

Question for you:
why can I see the merit/funniness of Bill Maher or a point well made by an extreme liberal (Russell Feingold) and yet you and yours are incapable of anything other than your warped Bush sucks/get out of Iraq/fill in the blanks mantra
don't think u can answer that one

You're right that I can't answer this question... I have no idea who Bill Maher is or what he does...
This being said, here again I fail to understand your logic... what does the fact that you can appreciate someone have to do with the fact that I will not give any credit to a news channel that deliberatly lies to its audience and has been proven of doing so?
Besides, what do you know of my opinion as to whether troops should get out of Iraq or not? Please quote me.
What with my alledged inability at "anything other than [my] warped Bush sucks/get out of Iraq/fill in the blanks mantra"?? This is simply a false allegation. Just check my posts to be proven wrong.

 

[chance1]

... it's not about boredom... it's about conducting a debate... when doing so, one usually listens to/uses someone's argument to propose new ideas/analysis/points of view... but with you, no matter what is retorted, you'll just repeat first claim over and over... apparently not able to see beyond, I just don't understand the point of doing so... so no it's not about boredom, I'm questioning your intellectual ability at debating something... (although you already showed me before how you deal with questions which answers will prove your intellectual dishonesty... the above picture illustrate this perfectly).


What is it that you really are trying to make go thru?
Bias in the media? I recognized it posts ago... why go on with it??
I'm asking you about LIES.


How very convenient... so I guess we must take your word for it? ... why should we take your word for it and not someone else's?
However I believe "we" (since I've been cordially bundled with an American political party I actually don't belong to) have provided proofs of FOX bias and lies... which you failed to comment on, appart from trying to ridicule the source of less than a handful of them... which is childish and irrelevent... shall I understand this line of defense as an acknowledgment of your inability to deny the FACTS mentioned?

Let me ask you again: Do you think it is ok for a media to deliberatly LIE to its audience?. I would like to hear your answer to that question...


Very interesting... well since you claim I did such thing... can you please quote me doing so?


You're right that I can't answer this question... I have no idea who Bill Maher is or what he does...
This being said, here again I fail to understand your logic... what does the fact that you can appreciate someone have to do with the fact that I will not give any credit to a news channel that deliberatly lies to its audience and has been proven of doing so?
Besides, what do you know of my opinion as to whether troops should get out of Iraq or not? Please quote me.
What with my alledged inability at "anything other than [my] warped Bush sucks/get out of Iraq/fill in the blanks mantra"?? This is simply a false allegation. Just check my posts to be proven wrong.

dude you listed 10 or so extreme liberal websites as proof that Fox lies

I think that says it all about your political positions

but feel free ..................

 

[NW007]

Funny, when the radical right wing religious zealots flexed its authoritarian muscle and demanded the ENTIRE Republican caucus in the US Senate fly back to the American seat of government to insert itself into the death of a single person, Mrs. Schiavo, I don't recall the right-wing WSJ getting its yellow, draft-dodging feathers ruffled. Not even if the GOP was trampling on the Journal's so-called "strongly" held beliefs in so-called "less government." Nor do I recall the right-wing WSJ falling onto its fainting couch when Bush decided that it was necessary to amend the US Constitution and write gays out of the succor of the USC so as to appease and energize his radical religious freaks. Huh. I Wonder Why? Is it because the Journal sluts itself for the extremists?

However, the WSJ seems to feel that the Democrats of Nevada are incapable of figuring out what is in the best interests of the party when it comes to who will host a debate. Wow. No matter that Fox repeatedly insults the party, or that Fox is an organ of the GOP, no matter that Fox's president is a known liar and agent of the Republican party.

Tell you what. The WSJ and the closet queens and hideous social misfits who draw a paycheck from that Pug rag can do the following: Go pound sand, you misfits, you closeted Marys. No wonder the WSJ's editorial board is mocked and dismissed by normal, wholesome Americans.

Perhaps two or maybe four years ago, Dems would be shamed by this sort of editorial and even moderates might wonder what the Dems were up to, but not today, not now. America is on to the lying bastards of the radical, America-hating right and it will not work.

BTW, as a point of curiosity: Why is no Democrat on this forum has ever expressed a problem with the simple, basic competency required to copy/paste stuff, and that it is always a right winger that struggles with the easy part of computing? It is a sociological puzzle. Just wondering.

​

I probably should not dignify your insults with any response. but, I will say that there are JUB Democratic pollsters that are actually civil and have informed me of the correct computer technology issues I needed answered. There are JUB members that actually listen to what others have to say and help resolve questions and issues that are raised on this site.

 

[White Eagle]

Thank you Nishin
You have captured what I have been unable to get across to him.
Don't expect any answers to your questions. He never says anything but
what he first posts. Over and over, and over, and over, and over, to
infinity. He's been watching fox so much that he believes what they
say. A classic example of brainwashing.

 

[Andreus]

dude you listed 10 or so extreme liberal websites as proof that Fox lies

I think that says it all about your political positions

but feel free ..................

and you listened to one station, fox, that says all others lie and you believe it

by your method of evaluation what should we assume about YOUR bias?

but feel free to spout off republican talking points if you need to

just remember

we can tell

 

[Kulindahr]

Also why would Edwards want a debate broacasted on a channel where they employ a woman who insults him and uses FAGGOT in a highly derogatory way at him.

Maybe because he's one of the guys who supposedly believes in diversity and tolerance?