• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News pulls Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum off the air …

Why are the poor MSNBC viewers so sensitive?
Find one and ask them, lol.
People have no hesitation in criticizing Fox News,
They shouldn't. It's a crappy place if you're actually looking for news.
though their criticisms are seldom specific, but laugh at the Left and they go into a snit! The poor dears just can't take it and will either sulk or fly into a rage whenever their goofy beliefs are at all scrutinized.
Laugh at the left and they go into a snit? MSNBC sucks. I argued that I never watch MSNBC. That's not defending them, that's admitting that even though they are liberal like me that I still realize that it's hardly a great place for news or for any kind of unbiased information. You can laugh at MSNBC all you want and you won't find me coming to their defense.

Where exactly is that rage? Apparently you think pointing out how wrong you are is "flying into a rage". Maybe I've been around adults for too long and forgot exactly how to play nice with children.


You insinuated I'm an MSNBC viewer - Wrong
You insinuated that I think commercials should be fair and balanced - Wrong
You accused me of sulking or flying into a rage (surprise surprise that you weren't specific) and you were - wrong
 
Find one and ask them, lol.
They shouldn't. It's a crappy place if you're actually looking for news.Laugh at the left and they go into a snit? MSNBC sucks. I argued that I never watch MSNBC. That's not defending them, that's admitting that even though they are liberal like me that I still realize that it's hardly a great place for news or for any kind of unbiased information. You can laugh at MSNBC all you want and you won't find me coming to their defense.

Where exactly is that rage? Apparently you think pointing out how wrong you are is "flying into a rage". Maybe I've been around adults for too long and forgot exactly how to play nice with children.


You insinuated I'm an MSNBC viewer - Wrong
You insinuated that I think commercials should be fair and balanced - Wrong
You accused me of sulking or flying into a rage (surprise surprise that you weren't specific) and you were - wrong

Actually I was summing up many of the comments we've heard from critics of Fox News over the years and it was not intended for you personally. It was the generic Left I was referring to. My apologies for being uncear.
 
And you have absolutely no idea what journalism is. How is this different than having Paul Begala or James Carville on CNN?
The difference is that neither Begala nor Carville have expressed any aspirations to run for political office, especially for president.

Hint: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity aren't journalists. They don't claim to be either. Neither are Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, or any of the fools you likely follow.
I'm talking about presidential candidates being employed by Fox. I said nothing about O'Reilly or Hannity.
 
The difference is that neither Begala nor Carville have expressed any aspirations to run for political office, especially for president.


I'm talking about presidential candidates being employed by Fox. I said nothing about O'Reilly or Hannity.

That potential Presidential candidates are being employed by Fox says a great deal about the quality of their commentators. No one would seriously suggest that any regular commentators for ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, etc. would ever be serious Presidential candidates..
 
Last edited:

Dean is a contributor to financial news network CNBC, and also a frequent guest on sister network MSNBC in shows such as The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell and he has also guest hosted Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show. He is also the chairman of the Progressive Book Club.[50]

Note the "sheik" avoided this completely. I'd say that about sums up his "outrage".
 
Why are the poor MSNBC viewers so sensitive?

People have no hesitation in criticizing Fox News, though their criticisms are seldom specific, but laugh at the Left and they go into a snit! The poor dears just can't take it and will either sulk or fly into a rage whenever their goofy beliefs are at all scrutinized.
I don't find MSNBC to be a credibile news source either. Other than they lean left whereas Fox leans right, I see little difference.
 
That potential Presidential candidates are being employed by Fox says a great deal about the quality of their commentators. No one would seriously suggest that any regular commentators for ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, etc. would ever be serious Presidential candidates..
Don't be ridiculous, if ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, or MSNBC wanted to, they too could hire presidential candidates.
 
MrVicchio said:
Howard Dean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Awaiting your "outrage"
Dean is a contributor to financial news network CNBC, and also a frequent guest on sister network MSNBC in shows such as The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell and he has also guest hosted Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show. He is also the chairman of the Progressive Book Club.[50]

Note the "sheik" avoided this completely. I'd say that about sums up his "outrage".
Well, no, it sums up nothing of the sort, other than perhaps, you demonstrating for the third time that you don't understand what I'm talking about. CNN did not hire Dean knowing it was likely that he is going to run for president, which unless you know something Dean doesn't -- he isn't.
 
Like who?

If it would help their ratings, as well as their credibility, why wouldn't they do it? Why don't they try to get the best?
Thank you for making my point ... it would damage, not help, their credibility.
 
Thank you for making my point ... it would damage, not help, their credibility.

Actually I didn't make any point for you, and if you read the response again you'll see why.

It is clear that the news channels I mentioned are lacking in credibility while Fox News is rapidly becoming the go to network for responsible broadcasting. That's probably because Fox hires the best commentators available while their competition has no one of any note, or credibility.
 



Well, no, it sums up nothing of the sort, other than perhaps, you demonstrating for the third time that you don't understand what I'm talking about. CNN did not hire Dean knowing it was likely that he is going to run for president, which unless you know something Dean doesn't -- he isn't.

You are VERY dishonest. Rarely do any serious candidates challenge their parties sitting President for the nomination. It happened seriously last time in 1980 if memory serves.

2008 Cheney wasn't running so it was a wide open field, thus more contenders who made it far enough to get a system in place, thus more people likely to run again in 2012 against a polarizing President.

You're using at best, "bumper sticker" logic, i.e. it sounds great till you realize it's just a blurb on the back of a Yugo.
 
Who said they became Conservative politicians after working for Fox? This isn't about the Conservative politicians, it's about Fox hiring them. How can they be fair and balanced when they make it a practice to hire likely presidential candidates?

They're obviously biased and that taints their credibility as a news agency.
Once again, I forgot no other news media besides Fox is biased, my lord, you're digging yourself a hole. When Fox hired them nobody including the four people themselves probably knew they would "run" or be "considered to run" for president, making your point invalid

You don't think it's a little ridiculous that at least four Fox News employees are in position to run for president? Not just one person, and not for an appointed position of press secretary, but four and for the President of the United States of America.

Do you really think it would be OK if four people who worked for CNN ran for the democratic nomination? I don't think it would be ok. If four of my candidates come from one company, I know somethings wrong.
Four people aren't officially running, four people have in an essence been nominated or encourage if you will, to run for president.

Really? You don't get it? Or is it that you do get it, but you don't care? You don't see how a news agency which hires likely presidential candidates is no longer presenting news, it's pushing propaganda?

By the way, the upcomining election is not this nation's first, which news agency ever made a practice of hiring likely presidential candidates?
Oh I forgot the liberal cable media doesn't push propaganda either. Bashing one news network isn't going to play over with anyone, as they all are crap.
 
Actually I didn't make any point for you, and if you read the response again you'll see why.
Yeah, ya did. My point is that a news agency which hires presidential candidates, takes a hit to its credibility. You point out that only Fox does. That makes my point. Now I understand you believe it's the opposite of that, that being Fox is the one here with credibility, and that no other news agency has the credibility of Fox, but that would rely on there being nothing wrong with a news agency being married to a potential president, which I would hope, you can understand the inherent problems with that.

It is clear that the news channels I mentioned are lacking in credibility while Fox News is rapidly becoming the go to network for responsible broadcasting. That's probably because Fox hires the best commentators available while their competition has no one of any note, or credibility.
How do you plan on backing that up?
 
You are VERY dishonest. Rarely do any serious candidates challenge their parties sitting President for the nomination. It happened seriously last time in 1980 if memory serves.
That doesn't mean Fox had to hire people with a strong likelihood of running for office.

But again, you've already proven you don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm not surprised you still haven't figured it out.
 
That doesn't mean Fox had to hire people with a strong likelihood of running for office.

Who better to comment on political matters of the moment then high profile public figures?

But again, you've already proven you don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm not surprised you still haven't figured it out.

I KNOW what you're talking about, I'm mocking you're faux outrage and silly premise as mattering. It's fun sometimes to take the time educate folks like you.
 
Last edited:
Once again, I forgot no other news media besides Fox is biased, my lord, you're digging yourself a hole. When Fox hired them nobody including the four people themselves probably knew they would "run" or be "considered to run" for president, making your point invalid
All four were very likely contenders. And so far, two of them severed their ties with Fox because they went from "likely candidates" to "serious candidates." The other two won't be far behind.

Oh I forgot the liberal cable media doesn't push propaganda either. Bashing one news network isn't going to play over with anyone, as they all are crap.
Such as ... ? (and don't bother mentioning MSNBC or CNBS, I agree they are biased, push propaganda, and are no different than Fox)
 
Last edited:
All four were very likely contenders. And so far, two of them severed their ties with Fox because they went from "likely candidates" to "serious candidates." The other two won't be far behind.


Such as ... ? (and don't bother mentioning MSNBC or CNBS, I agree they are biased, push propaganda, and are no different than Fox)
If you were in Fox's situation why wouldn't you hire a group of people like the four that we're talking about. They obviously have exclusive knwoledge to the conservative movement, and are public idols for the figure.

Secondly, such as...? What are you arguing? You agreed with my statement that all networks push propoganda, not just Fox..
 
Who better to comment on political matters of the moment then high profile public figures?
For starters, how about ex-politicians with no aspirations of running for president? Then at least, the news agency hiring them acquires the same level of expertise without taking a hit to their credibility.

I KNOW what you're talking about, I'm mocking you're faux outrage and silly premise as mattering. It's fun sometimes to take the time educate folks like you.
No, ya don't. Don't even try to pretend like you do because it's obvious you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have even mentioned the names, Stephanopoulos, Ferraro, or Dean, as none of those examples were comparable to what I am talking about.
 
If you were in Fox's situation why wouldn't you hire a group of people like the four that we're talking about. They obviously have exclusive knwoledge to the conservative movement, and are public idols for the figure.
Personally, no, I wouldn't hire anybody who was possibly running for president in an upcoming election because as a news agency, I wouldn't want to appear biased. Someone earlier mentioned CNN hiring Pat Buchanan. That, I believe, is almost as wrong as what Fox is doing now. The only difference being that at least CNN hired him in a format which pitted left against right, so it's hard to find bias when both sides are presented in the same show; it was still wrong for the same inherent reason, but not as blatantly biased as Fox is being about it.

Secondly, such as...? What are you arguing? You agreed with my statement that all networks push propoganda, not just Fox..
Oh? How did I do that?
 
For starters, how about ex-politicians with no aspirations of running for president? Then at least, the news agency hiring them acquires the same level of expertise without taking a hit to their credibility.

I have a funny feeling nothing short of hiring Olbremann and turning the News Room over to the NY Times would raise Fox's credibility with you. However, I'll bite on your non-point.

What you are MAD about isn't "Fox News' credibility, it's pretty clear you just don't like the network. What has you upset is that these politicians were given public visibility via their work with Fox News. Let's just cut the bull eh? I've already decimated every point you've made. Let's get down to brass tacks. By working with Fox, Palin, Huckabee, Newt... are able to "stay in the public discourse", and that irks you.

No, ya don't. Don't even try to pretend like you do because it's obvious you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have even mentioned the names, Stephanopoulos, Ferraro, or Dean, as none of those examples were comparable to what I am talking about.
I was using SIMILAR situations because you are being dishonest as hell. Who, aside a few fringe elements, will even attempt to get the 2012 Nod for the Dems? Hmm? Hillary? There ARE no Dem Candidates looking to run of any note.

You're claims are silly, your basis unfounded, your logic flawed and your analysis dishonest.

Class dismissed!
(that means I'm through schooling you, feel free however to rant on, who'll listen to you now?)
 
Yeah, ya did. My point is that a news agency which hires presidential candidates, takes a hit to its credibility.


OK< Which presidential candidates did Fox News hire? The fact is they didn't hire any.

You point out that only Fox does. That makes my point. Now I understand you believe it's the opposite of that, that being Fox is the one here with credibility, and that no other news agency has the credibility of Fox, but that would rely on there being nothing wrong with a news agency being married to a potential president, which I would hope, you can understand the inherent problems with that.

You seemed to have missed the news that as soon as there was a possibility that these people were likely candidates, they were dismissed.

What I'm saying is that the the caliber of the people at Fox is much higher than that of the other news networks. That is obvious by the candidates who are making noises about running for president. There may be more who will resign should they become candidates, and that could include Huckabee or Palin, but in the meanwhile it certainly seems that Fox hires the best people. Nobody else even comes close. Not one candidate among them, or likely candidate.


How do you plan on backing that up?

By the ratings and the fact that several of their commentators are possible presidential candidates. There is simply no comparison.
 
Last edited:
For starters, how about ex-politicians with no aspirations of running for president? Then at least, the news agency hiring them acquires the same level of expertise without taking a hit to their credibility.

No, ya don't. Don't even try to pretend like you do because it's obvious you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have even mentioned the names, Stephanopoulos, Ferraro, or Dean, as none of those examples were comparable to what I am talking about.

Oh jeez PB has a twin.
 
What I'd like to know is how can Fox News be considered a credible news agency when it's very likely that most, if not all, of the serious Republican candidates next year will have at one time been on their pay role? How can they possibly be fair and balanced?

what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

FOX is not a credible news agency, because people who contribute on air run for President? I hope you hole ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. all to that standard.
 
Back
Top Bottom