Fox lets Glenn Beck show Scariest chart ever?!

[silverlinkx2]

lol

by refute he means bitch until an admin gets involved at which point in time he'll either request an ip check against a known database of "msm agents" or i get banned.

 

[silverlinkx2]

I understand this principle very well. However, when their highest rated show proclaims itself "Fair and Balanced" it has to lend to the companies agendas. You mean to tell me that more people wanted to hear the Frankenstein'ish muck coming out of Fred Thompson's mouth as opposed to Ron Paul in the primaries? You're out of your mind.

Fred Thompson got more delegates than RP iirc. And no I'm not out of my mind. And it's not muck just because you don't agree with him. I happened to support him during the primaries. I would have died if there was a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

 

[brandon]

fox news is a business. They have a customer base. Their customer base doesn't line up with your ideals and your beliefs.

Okay, I'm guessing this is your point?

Please answer this question then.

Why did they exclude Ron Paul from the pre NH primary debate, when Ron Paul won every single post debate poll? I think it sends a pretty clear message who Fox viewers want to hear in the debate, when HE WON EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Furthermore, the NHGOP pulled their sponsorship from the debate because they refused to include RP, yet Fox STILL didn't include him.

 

[Kraig]

lol irony at its finest. An RP supporter complaining about a private enterprise.

One of the beauties of a free market is that you are free to be able to not use, bitch about, bad-mouth, argue against, etc. ANY private enterprise you wish.

Just because you love a free market doesn't mean you'll love it's entire contents without question and without individual judgments on their merit and value - that would be absolutely absurd.

I would think this would be completely obvious.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Fred Thompson got more delegates than RP iirc. And no I'm not out of my mind. And it's not muck just because you don't agree with him. I happened to support him during the primaries. I would have died if there was a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

Right. The same Mr. Thompson who is now pimping Ron Paul economic principles.

Nobody was going to turn away from the Fox News Network if more Ron Paul had been added. The mere fact that they consult with him as much as they do now is proof of this. They would have also added a whole new base to their demographic in all of the young people who came out to support him.

Money was not the sole issue in this.

 

[Mister Grieves]

.GIF (animated) version:

Adjusted:

Wow.

Thank you

 

[silverlinkx2]

Okay, I'm guessing this is your point?

Please answer this question then.

Why did they exclude Ron Paul from the pre NH primary debate, when Ron Paul won every single post debate poll? I think it sends a pretty clear message who Fox viewers want to hear in the debate, when HE WON EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Furthermore, the NHGOP pulled their sponsorship from the debate because they refused to include RP, yet Fox STILL didn't include him.

Because those polls were largely tampered with? Yes, RP absolutely dominated the internet and the "unofficial" polls but when push came to shove he didn't have the real world support to back it up. If you had gone to digg or this website, RP would have been elected grand emperor of the universe.

I thought Fox recognized this as well. And the NHGOP had every right to do what it did. I'm not saying what fox did was right in the moral or personal sense but they didn't do anything unethical. Just lame maybe.

 

[silverlinkx2]

Right. The same Mr. Thompson who is now pimping Ron Paul economic principles.

Nobody was going to turn away from the Fox News Network if more Ron Paul had been added. The mere fact that they consult with him as much as they do now is proof of this. They would have also added a whole new base to their demographic in all of the young people who came out to support him.

Money was not the sole issue in this.

I don't believe that at all. A lot of the conservative sites (or I guess here they would be called neocon sites or christian sites or republican sites or whatever) were very very opposed to RP. Michelle Malkin, a big mouthpiece for nonpaleo-conservatives, wrote a lot of negative articles about him. Hannity was pretty opposed to him, he has the 2nd biggest radio audience in america. I don't know how Rush felt about him. I don't remember what Savage felt about him either.

 

[brandon]

Because those polls were largely tampered with? Yes, RP absolutely dominated the internet and the "unofficial" polls but when push came to shove he didn't have the real world experience to back it up. If you had gone to digg or this website, RP would have been elected grand emperor of the universe.

Ahh, here you go believing the MSM spin again..."The polls were tampered with."

There was absolutely NO WAY to tamper with the polls. Neither the debate nor the voting were done on the internet. The debates had NOTHING to do with the internet. So why would you even mention that in your response?

 

[Kraig]

He supported Fred Thompson and chances are he enjoys fox news and that's why this got his panties in a bunch, everyone just walk away.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Fox lets Glenn Beck show Scariest chart ever! Government Prints all the way to DEATH!

But that's all CNN/MSNBC/CBS/et.al do as well...

yeah, didn't all those MSM members of the 4th branch of government, elect Juan McCain to the GOP nominee?

You betcha... let's pick a loser no Democrat can lose to... well done, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, FOX...


American Sheeple... is the definition of 'Ignorance' or just listening to the callers on C-SPAN's Washington Journal gives you an idea that 'No Child Left Behind is a complete failure too!

 

[tmosley]

Because those polls were largely tampered with? Yes, RP absolutely dominated the internet and the "unofficial" polls but when push came to shove he didn't have the real world support to back it up. If you had gone to digg or this website, RP would have been elected grand emperor of the universe.

I thought Fox recognized this as well. And the NHGOP had every right to do what it did. I'm not saying what fox did was right in the moral or personal sense but they didn't do anything unethical. Just lame maybe.

Dude, you have a severe misunderstanding of the word "freedom".

Free market people are generally against the mainstream media because thee ISN'T a free market in television news. There are a few channels here in the US, all of which are biased. None of them show more bias than Fox News. The (very few in number) owners of the media outlets used their power over the press to shut out Ron Paul, and anyone else that they thought was "unelectable". This isn't freedom. They can do the same to any candidate they wish, which constitutes an undue and terrible influence over policy in this country.

I bet you blame free market capitalism for the economic collapse too.

 

[silverlinkx2]

Ahh, here you go believing the MSM spin again..."The polls were tampered with."

There was absolutely NO WAY to tamper with the polls. Neither the debate nor the voting were done on the internet. The debates had NOTHING to do with the internet. So why would you even mention that in your response?

Does it matter? The fact is that his phone support or his texting support or his internet support or his blackberry support or his tin cans and a string support or his mail support or his carrier pigeon support or his ham radio support did NOT translate into ACTUAL PHYSICAL VOTING PEOPLE SUPPORT.

If you think that winning a texting poll is grounds to include someone in a debate, fine. If you think that winning a straw poll is grounds to include someone in a debate, swell. Fox didn't seem to think that way, they wanted to use classic polling numbers from old school places like Zogby or Gallup. You think that's wrong, ok. Great. Call Fox tell 'em how you feel. I agree with Fox. And you know why? Because we were showed this election just how unreliable internet and straw poll support really is. Turns out they were right by not including him based on the numbers bc election time he didn't get very many votes.

Right or wrong, the numbers spoke for themselves. Yes Fox should have included him in NH for the sake of being fair. But they didn't.

 

[fj45lvr]

Manipulated by the 5% support Luntz showed for Paul before the primaries which turned into exactly 5% support Paul got for the primaries?

Evidently I'm also the only one here that's been brainwashed by math and statistics.

The MSM is public enemy number 1 (because it does take EDUCATION to bring change and they FAIL).

Didn't you follow the amount of name dropping and face time given candidates leading up to the primaries??? (there is a group that tracks this)....the point is that the "coverage" is a "self-fulfillment" of results (if you believe that the election results are actually valid)....

I agree that Paul got 5% because I sincerely believe that only 5 of 100 GOP voters even knew who he was (and greater than 50% of the GOP was already "brainwashed" about the dire need for the US to be out there killing "terrorists")

Glenn Beck also showed something in the primaries as his show LITERALLY mocked Dr. Paul by a segment playing "CIRCUS MUSIC" with footage of the doctor.....they were telling people essentially that he was "loony" or "an act".... (this is the facts jack)

Of course we know now that in their MISERY they may actually come to realize that they shouldn't have been MOCKING the Dr. (because the Doctor's ideas were RIGHT ON)

 

[silverlinkx2]

Dude, you have a severe misunderstanding of the word "freedom".

It's a vague word.

Free market people are generally against the mainstream media because thee ISN'T a free market in television news. There are a few channels here in the US, all of which are biased. None of them show more bias than Fox News. The (very few in number) owners of the media outlets used their power over the press to shut out Ron Paul, and anyone else that they thought was "unelectable". This isn't freedom. They can do the same to any candidate they wish, which constitutes an undue and terrible influence over policy in this country.

How would the free market fix this problem exactly? Is our government helping Fox news maintain a news monopoly?

I bet you blame free market capitalism for the economic collapse too.

That's a very loaded statement.

 

[silverlinkx2]

The MSM is public enemy number 1 (because it does take EDUCATION to bring change and they FAIL).

Didn't you follow the amount of name dropping and face time given candidates leading up to the primaries??? (there is a group that tracks this)....the point is that the "coverage" is a "self-fulfillment" of results (if you believe that the election results are actually valid)....

I agree that Paul got 5% because I sincerely believe that only 5 of 100 GOP voters even knew who he was (and greater than 50% of the GOP was already "brainwashed" about the dire need for the US to be out there killing "terrorists")

You're absolutely right. Who's going to educate the people then? On whose dime? Who owns the networks? With whose money? Why should they bother trying to "educate" people? Its their money. Its their business. If they're not getting government help then they really don't have any blame to take.

 

[theoakman]

Does it matter? The fact is that his phone support or his texting support or his internet support or his blackberry support or his tin cans and a string support or his mail support or his carrier pigeon support or his ham radio support did NOT translate into ACTUAL PHYSICAL VOTING PEOPLE SUPPORT.

If you think that winning a texting poll is grounds to include someone in a debate, fine. If you think that winning a straw poll is grounds to include someone in a debate, swell. Fox didn't seem to think that way, they wanted to use classic polling numbers from old school places like Zogby or Gallup. You think that's wrong, ok. Great. Call Fox tell 'em how you feel. I agree with Fox. And you know why? Because we were showed this election just how unreliable internet and straw poll support really is. Turns out they were right by not including him based on the numbers bc election time he didn't get very many votes.

Right or wrong, the numbers spoke for themselves. Yes Fox should have included him in NH for the sake of being fair. But they didn't.

not for nothing, but I tried to convince almost every registered Republican I knew to vote Ron Paul and 90% of the time, they asked me, "who's that?". The biggest problem was that voters had no clue who he even was because they didn't bother to watch debates or even get informed. The two front runners were the guys who we previously knew, Guillianni and McCain. McCain did everything he could to fuck up his campaign and he still came out on top. I have a feeling Guillianni purposely threw the election by refusing to campaign in Iowa because he knows enough people in NY to know that this crisis was coming. Whoever stepped into the presidency is doomed because there's no stopping the economic misery. The only fear I have is that Obama is deified, as he has been, FDR style where no matter how many stupid things he does, they are always looked favorably upon. If people were ever truly informed about how much of a disaster FDR's policies were, we would not even be in this mess.

 

[silverlinkx2]

not for nothing, but I tried to convince almost every registered Republican I knew to vote Ron Paul and 90% of the time, they asked me, "who's that?". The biggest problem was that voters had no clue who he even was because they didn't bother to watch debates or even get informed. The two front runners were the guys who we previously knew, Guillianni and McCain. McCain did everything he could to fuck up his campaign and he still came out on top. I have a feeling Guillianni purposely threw the election by refusing to campaign in Iowa because he knows enough people in NY to know that this crisis was coming. Whoever stepped into the presidency is doomed because there's no stopping the economic misery. The only fear I have is that Obama is deified, as he has been, FDR style where no matter how many stupid things he does, they are always looked favorably upon. If people were ever truly informed about how much of a disaster FDR's policies were, we would not even be in this mess.

Then the real source of your animosity should be towards the complacency and the ignorance of the majority of the American people, and if Fox news is profiting off of their vanity, then maybe you should buy preferred stock, and no amount of "education" or unbiased news coverage is going to change that fact.

Turns out the real reason for the collapse isn't the Fed, or Congress, or the Bush administration, or the bankers. It's your next door neighbors, and how they've let this country be run straight into the ground. Next time you see them, be sure to thank them.

 

[tmosley]

It's a vague word.

No, it isn't. Just like torture isn't a vague word, except in the minds of those who twist words to steal our freedoms.

How would the free market fix this problem exactly? Is our government helping Fox news maintain a news monopoly?

Ever hear of the FCC? How many millions of dollars do you think you have to spend to clear the regulatory hurdles to get on the air? How many other companies that are protected by anti-competitive laws do you think you have to get around before your show is ever picked up by any of the cable or satellite providers? Why do you think there aren't more than 5 or 6 over the air television stations even in the largest cities?

That's a very loaded statement.

And because you didn't answer it, I think I can guess your opinion.

You weren't a Bush administration political appointee by any chance? You sound JUST like them.

 

[teacherone]

Turns out the real reason for the collapse isn't the Fed, or Congress, or the Bush administration, or the bankers. It's your next door neighbors, and how they've let this country be run straight into the ground. Next time you see them, be sure to thank them.

That is a great f"ckin quote and I will be sure to steal it from you in the future.