Fox goes nuts...and other right wing hits
ohhh....how the talking points change :wiseguy:
Printable View
Fox goes nuts...and other right wing hits
ohhh....how the talking points change :wiseguy:
Wow, and they said all that with a straight face. Rush Limberger has obviously been eating sour grapes.
I don't know why certain aspects the American right rely so heavily on guy who never graduated college and is so clearly not an average Joe either, anymore. We need new heroes.
In a way Rush is easier to accept...he´s just one guy with a loud-mouth radio show who thinks he´s Archie Bunker.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Now...Fox News....that´s an entire TV station full of those crazy wingnuts....now that´s scary :wall:
Rush needs a new connection for his happy pills. He's obviously suffering withdrawal symptoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Yes, but now MSNBC legitimizes Fox, wouldn't you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I am not familiar with MSNBC...I don´t get them on cable over here.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
are they nutty like this but on the opposite direction?....if so...that´s wrong too.
but I wouldn´t call that "legitimization"....this crap isn´t news broadcasting...it´s propaganda.... and 2 wrongs don´t make a right.
Actually - 2 wrongs can make a right. It accurately represents the breakdown in the US. We have our news (Fox), they have theirs (MSNBC), people in the middle have one too (CNN - I hope that it realizes the opportunity it has to really define a central position and become the legitimate channel). I appreciate that the networks are showing us the cards that we know they are holding anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
If anyone wants to learn anything, they should watch all 3 channels. It will force them to think a bit harder for themselves when they try to find out which side is lying to them at various times.
Limbaugh is an abomination of God. Nothing more than a drug addicted coward who makes money by tearing others down using a moral scale that he can't even live up to. Advocating a failing republic for patisian gain is not something an American does.
Well, I'm sure Obama's New World Order will take care of Rush Limbaugh soon enough. :mellow:
Priceless...
The United States has not "broken down."
We go through these bouts of hyper-partisanship from time to time.
1796 through 1808 or so: Hamiltonians v Jeffersonians. All of the papers during that stretch make the current Fox or MSNBC efforts look tame.
1850 through 1865: North v South -- several hundreds of thousands dead for a finisher.
1918 through 1925: Evil internationalists (Wilson & Dems) v. reactionary isolationists (Harding et al). Teapot dome scandals etc.
1990 to present: current spate of "us v them"ing.
As the good book says, "this too shall pass."
Seamus- you forgot the 1820's when his opponent's accused Andrew Jackson's wife of baring an illegitimate child outside of marriage(In other words, being a *rhymes with "DOOR"*), with Jackson promptly accusing them of harassing her to death after she suffered a stroke just before the election.
But yeah, it does make one wonder what their true purpose is, trying to actively encourage others to oppose a newly inaugurated President.
What's so shocking? If you disagree with what someone is trying to do, you want them to fail. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by seireikhaan
I never said it was shocking. Just that I was curious what the true motive is, since he's talking out both sides of his mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Hmm, not sure I can go there. I thought the invasion of Iraq was maybe the most misguided foreign policy decision of my lifetime, but I hoped it would succeed. If it had all been over in a few weeks, and Iraq paid for its own (brief) occupation, and a Jeffersonian democracy flowered between the Tigris and Euphrates, I would have been relieved and pleased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
By your logic I should have been fervently wishing for OIF2 to fail. That's kinda messed up.
I'm beginning to get the impression that Republican's don't really want to return to power anytime soon.
He disagrees with trying to fix the economy? :stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Actually, by my logic, you would've been hoping for the AUMF vote to go down in defeat and for the president's foreign policy to be repudiated. But hey, have fun putting words in my mouth. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Lemur, I can't believe you gave Xiahou the bird. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I didn't see any such distinctions in the way you phrased it originally, an I don't see any such distinctions in the words coming from Limbaugh, Hannity or Malkin. I certainly accept your clarification, but that info wasn't there originally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do you think Malkin, Hannity and Limbaugh have equally fine and nuanced positions, or are they up to their usual demagoguery? I suspect the latter.
It was unpatriotic to oppose Bush, but it's deeply patriotic to oppose Obama. Sounds about right for their level of discourse.
Limbaugh wants Reaganesque conservatism back at the forefront. Currently, the only standard bearer for that is Sarah Palin. I think its understandable that he's lashing out in frustration. He actually is consistent in that he took the same attitude with Clinton...as in :daisy: the honeymoon, any admin advancing liberal/socialist/big government ideas must be opposed at every turn. He was also far more critical of Bush's big gov/socialist compromises than were the others named.
Hannity has always been a GOP pit-bull. He pays lip service to overarching conservative doctrine but always "happens" to come down on the side of simplistic support for the attack machine wing of the GOP. His credibility with me is NOT affected by this latest round of commentary -- negative numbers are only an imaginary concept after all. I'm down to about 10 minutes max of him per radio program before I flip to NPR or local sports.
Can't speak to Malkin; don't read/listen to much of Malkin's stuff.
The Divine Leader has spoken!
Wait just am minute here!:inquisitive:
You are discussing News from ?The Daily Show???:embarassed:
It isn’t like they are not coming from a particular point of view now is it.
It is a comedy show for, god sake! And a bit left of center too….
If you want to know where an administration stands look at the appointments.
If you find you don’t like the people they are surrounding themselves with, then chances are you are not going to like the policies.
It says a lot more than all of the partisan rhetoric!
:laugh4:
To paraphrase a popular saying, "There is no 'you' in 'bipartisan'." Obama isn't going to score points by fingerpointing at the folks he's trying to woo. There was similar nonsense going on during debate over the first stimulus package back in September/October. These boys need to learn how to play nicely together if they really want to get things accomplished. This is where hockey-mom Palin could step in to straighten the boys out. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Modern day press is about selling advert space, journalistic integrity is only used to aid that endeavour where it is viable. Where it is more profitable for a lack of integrity it is done. Shock jocks sell more then the rest, so they are vetted by the board.
Tabloids sell a lot more when they have opposition to pick a fight with. And having an opposing tabloid is like giving both of them a money press.
They can rip into each other and the readers can have fun as they read their modern day equivalent of the circus. The more hyperbolic and agreeable with their already established world view the better. Its all pie in the face slapstick commentary. Who needs accountability, substance, context, critique and insight into an issue when you can reconfirm that you are right and have fun doing it.
it could be worse....we could be discussing "news" from Fox News....then we would really be in the realm of science fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The daily show simply showed footage of Fox News and Rush acting like fools.
Is it partisan rhetoric to simply quoting people you don´t agree with saying dumb things?
one can´t say something stupid and then when it is pointed out say that pointing it out is partisan rhetoric.
that´s like showing a video of a cat being run over by a truck and then claim the cat committed suicide....let´s get back to reality shall we? ~:rolleyes:
I have not seen Fox News for quite a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
If the network is still set up the way it was though, then you are making a silly distinction.
All of those “Opinion Shows” are not pretending to be News and come at their subjects in an unabashed political viewpoint.
In their actual News Broadcasts, and yes those were few, their news was much more balanced than what you could get elsewhere.
I would much prefer to have the simple facts and make my own decisions as to what it really means than be feed tripe colored for consumption for those with a strict political agenda and have it called News.
I was making no political arguments in my post. I only pointed out what it was.
I don’t think any better of the Democans than I do of the Republicrats.
It’s kind of like keeping mosquitoes for pets…you should know that at some point you are going to be bitten…
:yes:
:laugh4:
I don't think it's dawned on the Republicans in the House yet just how out in the wilderness they are. I personally think the Democrats WELCOME this sort of 'loyal opposition', as it just makes for even wider margins next election cycle and they just might get the 61st senate seat. And then you'll REALLY see a big 'all about us' moment commence.
Seriously, I'm not saying lay down and abandon your principles. But this is beyond tilting at windmills. If Republicans ever want more than 170 house seats or 35 senate seats again, they're going to have to learn do something other than whine and moan about Democrats.
The one group that I believe DOES realize just how precarious their position has become is the Senate Republicans, and they clearly are trying to get on board and 'mold', not block.
Honestly, as a fiscal conservative, I can't tell the difference between the parties anymore. And when John Boehner goes from "whatever the president needs, we'll sign the check" to "let's represent the taxpayer" in the span of 24 hours around Jan 20th, it rings more than a little hollow.
I think you hit the crux of the problem there. They're not so much the loyal opposition now as opposed to the loyal...what? Psychologically they're more comfortable playing the role of the underdog. The party forgot how to lead. It's also sad how many "conservatives" are rallying around Ronald Regan now. He was a great President (one of the best) but where is the future? Obama is right in many respects: Hope and change (even as ill-defined as it was during the campaign) strikes a powerful cord with the American people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism embodied "hope and change."
The "Contract with America" embodied the hopes for a smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
But after Clinton whipped Newt and successfully lambasted him as the "Gingrich that stole Christmas" the only stand the GOP took was:
"What can I do to keep my seat?"
The answer most hit upon was to nuance and parse a la Clinton -- but that has NEVER been the strength of the GOP. That approach has always been the hallmark of the great Dem political machines. We played the other person's game and got our :daisy: handed to us. Unfortunately, all I'm seeing from the GOP so far is more of the same.
Let's say mean things about every Dem scandal; let's assert ourselves as good pork providers; let's make Obama look bad by hammering one of his nominees....DRECK!!!!!!