[TheRealVille]

Fox News Channel's morning show Wednesday twice aired a nearly 4-minute video that portrayed President Obama's first term as a series of failed promises.

The video, credited to a producer of "Fox & Friends," had most of the hallmarks of a campaign attack ad, except it was produced and paid for by a news network rather than a candidate or a political action committee.

Fox public-relations executives have described "Fox & Friends" as an entertainment show, but it has an obviously conservative tilt, with near-constant criticism of Obama and other Democrats. ("Fox & Friends" falsely reported that Obama attended an Islamic madrassa school while living in Indonesia.)

The anti-Obama video contains ominous music and grainy footage of the president, along with stock images from campaign ads: a flag fluttering in the breeze, a child running in a baseball game, a bald eagle.

The segment mixes Obama's words with a litany of statistics, contrasting the national debt, the jobless rate and the number of Americans on food stamps "then" and "now," although the time frame isn't explained clearly. The jobless rate is inflated, portraying it as 8.3 percent when the true number is 8.1 percent.

A part about rising gasoline prices illustrates the current price by showing a cartoon car overheating with a puff of steam, with what resembles an Obama campaign graphic on its side. Statistics on reduced family savings are shown with a graphic of a piggy bank tumbling down stairs.

Besides Obama's words, verbal images flash by — clips of newscasters saying phrases such as "more Americans are out of work," "inflation fears rising" and "fear we'll see the long gas lines of the '70s."

The video ends with Obama saying, "that's the power of hope. That's the change we seek. That's the change we can stand for."

The co-anchors of "Fox & Friends" congratulated the producer, Chris White, for compiling the video.

While writing "I don't disagree with much, if anything," Ed Morrissey, of the conservative media blog Hot Air, questioned the video. "If anyone wanted to look for evidence that the overall Fox News organization intends to campaign against Obama rather than cover the campaign," Morrissey wrote, "this video would be difficult to refute as evidence for that claim."

The video was posted on the program's website Wednesday, with the headline "Four years of hope and change," but was removed later.

Fox programming executive vice president Bill Shine late Wednesday said the video was not authorized at the senior level. Through a spokeswoman, he would not address what action, if any, had been taken against the producers or how the video was aired a second time without executives' knowledge.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po...ama31.html

[nky]

and this is different from MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC how?

[Truth]

TheRealVille needs to start early in the morning any day Monday through Friday with MSNBC and follow it until 11:00 pm. From the male whore, Joe Scarborough, the acid-tongued Ice Princess, and the other regulars on "Morning Joe" through the various and sundry liberal/Obama hacks, some with quite dubious pasts, who pander and preach the agenda all day and all evening long, the attacks on Romney/Republicans/Judeo-Christian traditional beliefs, etc. are only interrupted by commercials. If weekdays don't satisfy the craving, TheRealVille can even watch the somewhat wierd and hyperactive Chris Hayes and the lovely Alex Witt who follows him on weekends.

Fortunately, few actual voters watch MSNBC.

[Hoot Gibson]

TheRealVille needs to start early in the morning any day Monday through Friday with MSNBC and follow it until 11:00 pm. From the male whore, Joe Scarborough, the acid-tongued Ice Princess, and the other regulars on "Morning Joe" through the various and sundry liberal/Obama hacks, some with quite dubious pasts, who pander and preach the agenda all day and all evening long, the attacks on Romney/Republicans/Judeo-Christian traditional beliefs, etc. are only interrupted by commercials. If weekdays don't satisfy the craving, TheRealVille can even watch the somewhat wierd and hyperactive Chris Hayes and the lovely Alex Witt who follows him on weekends.

Fortunately, few actual voters watch MSNBC.

Viewers have already voted with their remotes and his extreme left wing pals are the big losers.

[TheRealVille]

and this is different from MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC how?

It's not. Conservatives always take up for Fox though, saying they are report only truth, without bias.

[TheRealVille]

TheRealVille needs to start early in the morning any day Monday through Friday with MSNBC and follow it until 11:00 pm. From the male whore, Joe Scarborough, the acid-tongued Ice Princess, and the other regulars on "Morning Joe" through the various and sundry liberal/Obama hacks, some with quite dubious pasts, who pander and preach the agenda all day and all evening long, the attacks on Romney/Republicans/Judeo-Christian traditional beliefs, etc. are only interrupted by commercials. If weekdays don't satisfy the craving, TheRealVille can even watch the somewhat wierd and hyperactive Chris Hayes and the lovely Alex Witt who follows him on weekends.

Fortunately, few actual voters watch MSNBC.

I don't watch MSNBC, I know how they are.

[SKINNYPIG]

It's not. Conservatives always take up for Fox though, saying they are report only truth, without bias.

Who are the "conservatives" that said FOX only reported truths without bias?

[TheRealVille]

TheRealVille needs to start early in the morning any day Monday through Friday with MSNBC and follow it until 11:00 pm. From the male whore, Joe Scarborough, the acid-tongued Ice Princess, and the other regulars on "Morning Joe" through the various and sundry liberal/Obama hacks, some with quite dubious pasts, who pander and preach the agenda all day and all evening long, the attacks on Romney/Republicans/Judeo-Christian traditional beliefs, etc. are only interrupted by commercials. If weekdays don't satisfy the craving, TheRealVille can even watch the somewhat wierd and hyperactive Chris Hayes and the lovely Alex Witt who follows him on weekends.

Fortunately, few actual voters watch MSNBC.

You do remember that Joe was a conservative congressman, and received a 95% rating from the American Conservative Union? He appears to be to consummate conservative.

[TheRealVille]

Who are the "conservatives" that said FOX only reported truths without bias?

It is the news that you all quote, and stake everything you talk about here on.

[Hoot Gibson]

Who are the "conservatives" that said FOX only reported truths without bias?

Good luck getting a straight answer to your question. :popcorn:

[TheRealVille]

Good luck getting a straight answer to your question. :popcorn:

You all put all your eggs in the Faux News basket.

[Hoot Gibson]

You all put all your eggs in the Faux News basket.

And you once again made a statement that you cannot substantiate. No shock there.

BTW, I have never cited an "article" from a campaign web site as "news." I can only think of one person who has. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

And you once again made a statement that you cannot substantiate. No shock there.

BTW, I have never cited an "article" from a campaign web site as "news." I can only think of one person who has. nicker:

You never did show any falsehood from the points I posted from the website. Are you just hanging your hat on the fact that it's a campaign website?

[WideRight05]

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, they aren't biased or anything....Right TRV?

[TheRealVille]

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, they aren't biased or anything....Right TRV?

They all are, including conservatives beloved Fox. If I watch TV news, I watch CNN, it's the least biased of them all.

[SKINNYPIG]

It is the news that you all quote, and stake everything you talk about here on.

I dont think I have ever quoted FOX News.

[TheRealVille]

And you once again made a statement that you cannot substantiate. No shock there.

BTW, I have never cited an "article" from a campaign web site as "news." I can only think of one person who has. nicker:

I've noticed you have a hard time sticking to the thread topics without carrying over snide remarks based on other threads. Kind of childish much? Still waiting on anything that I posted from the website that is a lie. Still hanging your hat on it being false just because it's a campaign site?

[Hoot Gibson]

I've noticed you have a hard time sticking to the thread topics without carrying over snide remarks based on other threads. Kind of childish much? Still waiting on anything that I posted from the website that is a lie. Still hanging your hat on it being false just because it's a campaign site?

I've noticed that it often takes you two posts to respond to one of mine. You made a false statement that you could not back up. You childishly refer to Fox News as Faux News, yet you have the audacity to cite Obama's official campaign web site to support your own position. Hypocritical? Of course. Predictable? Certainly.

[TheRealVille]

I've noticed that it often takes you two posts to respond to one of mine. You made a false statement that you could not back up. You childishly refer to Fox News as Faux News, yet you have the audacity to cite Obama's official campaign web site to support your own position. Hypocritical? Of course. Predictable? Certainly.

Same type of stuff. You are predictable, even when you can't dispute what is posted.

[TheRealThing]

Same type of stuff. You are predictable, even when you can't dispute what is posted.

LOL, you mean like the promise Obama made to the Catholic Church about providing abortions and birth control measures? Or how bout the promise he made to the American public at large when he said, no tax dollars would ever pay for abortions under ObamaCare? I love the part where he further promises that ObamaCare will SAVE taxpayers money. Of course, mums the word, when it comes to abortion based on sex. Just another little service from 'planned infanticide'.

Should the Supreme Court fail to save us all from health insurance perdition this summer, the way I keep hearing it, we will all be forced into the insurance exchanges later this year. Then I want to hear you singing Obama's praises when people who don't contribute one nickel to their own livelihoods go to the front of the line at the doctors office ahead of you and your family members, (there's that equality thing popping up again and that courtesy of your tax dollars, remember these folks don't work and you want to embrace them like a martyr embraces a leper). It's just a universal leveling of the playing field, no matter who you are, you'll be treated like any other GI at sick call. But, if I understand you correctly, that's how you want it. BTW, if Obama is reelected your financial state of affairs will soon erode into the quasi-socialistic la-la land the liberal dreams about.

[Hoot Gibson]

Same type of stuff. You are predictable, even when you can't dispute what is posted.

The bottom line, RV, is that you simply are not worth the time to debate. Regardless of how much information is presented to you, you respond with childish posts consisting of a sentence or two of nonsense and insults.

Obama is a well documented liar and I have no interest in picking apart the propaganda that populates his campaign web site. He is a lame duck president with virtually no hope of being elected to a second term. How many times has he pronounced that our economy has turned the corner and how many times has he boasted of prodigious job growth? The truth is that the economy grew at only a 1.9% annual rate in the first quarter. Yesterday's economic numbers prove that the economic growth is slowing and whoever wins the election will most likely inherit another recession. I look forward to watching the inevitable collapse of Obama's poll numbers. He is even polling under 50 percent in California, although there are enough of your fellow socialists there to ensure that he will carry that state.

If we allow it, Obama's legacy will be that he managed to turn a recession into a hopeless depression. Anybody who thinks that Obama deserves a second term is really not a worth debate opponent.

[Truth]

You do remember that Joe was a conservative congressman, and received a 95% rating from the American Conservative Union? He appears to be to consummate conservative.

Indeed. That was before he was lured to the "Dark Side" by greenbacks. Now he is merely a high paid prostitute. At least the others on MSNBC have always preached their brand of dogma. I think it is safe to say that Scarborough would never again be nominated in his home district as a Republican and, if he ran as a Democrat, he would lose.

[vundy33]

This isn't really news, lol. They're all biased, with NBC and Fox both being a little extreme and much more obvious, and then CNN, CBS and ABC being less obvious about it, especially CNN.

CNN has a lot of their on-air employees that are left leaning, and you can tell on their programs. But the key difference between CNN, MSNBC an Fox is that CNN's
small amount of bias doesn't come down from corporate, when the other two's do.

[Hoot Gibson]

This isn't really news, lol. They're all biased, with NBC and Fox both being a little extreme and much more obvious, and then CNN, CBS and ABC being less obvious about it, especially CNN.

CNN has a lot of their on-air employees that are left leaning, and you can tell on their programs. But the key difference between CNN, MSNBC an Fox is that CNN's
small amount of bias doesn't come down from corporate, when the other two's do.

I respectfully disagree with you, Vundy. CNN is extremely biased in its news reporting. IMO, ABC and Fox are the least biased in their news reporting - but the problem with Fox is that their opinion and entertainment shows overshadow its actual news reports. Brett Baier and Chris Wallace are no more biased in their reporting than anybody else who I consider TV journalists, and Shepard Smith would probably be more comfortable on CNN or MSNBC. Smith is a left wing idiot who is not smart enough to be featured on any channel. Maybe he married into Murdock's family or has something on Roger Ailes.

CNN was founded by Ted Turner and it has always had a strong liberal bias when it comes to reporting news. CNN does not rely on opinion and entertainment shows to the extent that Fox does, but it certainly has a liberal bias in its news reports. I recall that the network sent a large team to Alaskato investigate rumors that Sarah Palin's son, Trigg, was actually born to her daughter. No evidence, just rumors posted in left-wing blogs, but that was enough to send reporters to Alaska to dig for dirt.

Fox's bias is evident in its shows like Hannity, The 5, Fox and Friends (weekdays, not so much on weekends), etc., but its coverage of news is not that much different than ABC, NBC (excluding MSNBC), or CBS. The video that is the subject of this thread ran twice on Fox and Friends, but was pulled from FNC's web site pretty quickly. Fox knows that its audience, like the United States in general, is heavily conservative and its prime time shows cater to that audience.

Here is a recent example of CNN's bias in covering the news, which involves Soledad O'Brien's interview of Romney supporter, John Sununu:

[INDENT]

[COLOR="Blue"]
[/COLOR]

[/INDENT]

I cannot imagine Chris Wallace, Brett Bair, or even Shepard Smith conducting an interview like this with an Obama staffer. Yet, O'Brien has an Emmy for her work at CNN. This is the kind of exchange that belongs on opinion shows like Hannity, Hardball, etc., not an interview that a reporter should be conducting. CNN's bias is in its reporting of "hard" news. Fox's is in its opinion shows. There are no pure news networks and CNN is no exception.

[vundy33]

You're proving my point for me Hoot. CNN's bias mainly comes from individual hosts, not the way they report the news. It doesn't matter how many liberal ties the company has, the fact is that it just doesn't report actual news with a bias towards one party or the other most of the time, like Fox.

When I want political commentary or if something happens in Afghan or the other numerous wars and conflicts we're involved in that these pathetic media pieces of shit (including Fox) think is newsworthy, (sadly, none of them consider our killed in action "news"), I watch Fox, because at least Fox will cover it a little it and give them some respect, even though it's not even close to the amount of time they deserve.

When I want to get news and breaking news fast with the story without much commentary about it besides explaining the details, I go to CNN. Just like I did on 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and following war(the "cool" war that America didn't forget about), and many more news instances over the years.

God help us if we want to catch some news on Fox News, or CNN for that matter, on Veteran's and Memorial Day. They can't even report our KIA, and just ignore what our boys are going through, but they and the rest of America can act like they give a shit on two holidays out of the year? I and no other active troop or vet want to see this war on the news 24/7, because it'd be fake feelings, like the free dinners an all that other crap on Vet's Day. I just want to see the 5 or 6, at the very most 10, killed in action we have a week on my country's national news channels. They deserve to be recognized because they're dead now, no matter if you agree with the cause or not, they were doing a job that hardly any Americans can even qualify for. Whether Americans believe it or not, we're doing good over there, and we're killing bad guys that come after good, hardworking Afghans as soon as we're not looking. Not that many people can genuinely look in the mirror and say they've done some good for someone today...these boys can. If for any reason, they should be mentioned just so those idiots who call for war after war (like Beetle does) have to see the faces of the boys that have died because of their war that they think is so badly needed, while they're enjoying their normal lives, able to go to the store and get some beef, get laid, go to church, barbecue, have days off, ect. But their response to that, stupidly enough, is that our boys chose this life, which is true. But our life would be normal for the most part, in the U.S. and in a barracks or in base housing with family without these wars so many want.

I just don't see why our media can't give them any time...it wouldn't even take 2 minutes of air time out of the day, especially since they "care" so much on Vet's and Memorial Day.

The media can talk about military intervention in Iran (which both Fox and CNN both do), and our administration can act like they'll do it if they have to, but they can't even mention the CURRENT damn war we're in?! And our Administration and military leaders have the balls to say they'll "do what it takes" to stop Iran, when what it would take is many more resources than Iraq and those very same resources they're cutting the shit out of as we speak?!

Just an example..I've personally watched not one, but two boys die because we couldn't get then to a hospital in time. Why? Because either the medevac helicopter couldn't get any Apache or A-10 escorts, or because the area was too hot and higher wouldn't hit the area with close air support for whatever stupid ass reason, or because they just didn't have the resources to hit it. The point of this example? This was BEFORE the cuts to the military! Damn 2009/2010 timeframe!

But will you ever see that on the news? Or a politician, Democrat OR Republican, mention it? Hell no you won't. Elections mean more to most politicians than lives, and arguing politics means more to most Americans than our lives. The media, all of it, recognizes that America has forgotten about this war and it's generation that's supposedly the "worst ever", so they don't even cover it anymore. If the men I worked with are part of the so called worse generation ever, then I'm proud to be part of it.

It's a pathetic cycle, and it's not going to change anytime soon. Those of you that are for intervening in Iran because of their "threat" to Israel, or just like to forget about us period unless its convenient for you, these posts are for you. As long as we are at war in Afghanistan, I will continue to have our boys' backs, because no one else will or cares enough to spend a few mins paying attention to them.

[Hoot Gibson]

You're proving my point for me Hoot. CNN's bias mainly comes from individual hosts, not the way they report the news. It doesn't matter how many liberal ties the company has, the fact is that it just doesn't report actual news with a bias towards one party or the other most of the time, like Fox.

When I want political commentary or if something happens in Afghan or the other numerous wars and conflicts we're involved in that these pathetic media pieces of shit (including Fox) think is newsworthy, (sadly, none of them consider our killed in action "news"), I watch Fox, because at least Fox will cover it a little it and give them some respect, even though it's not even close to the amount of time they deserve.

When I want to get news and breaking news fast with the story without much commentary about it besides explaining the details, I go to CNN. Just like I did on 9/11, the invasion of Iraq and following war(the "cool" war that America didn't forget about), and many more news instances over the years.

God help us if we want to catch some news on Fox News, or CNN for that matter, on Veteran's and Memorial Day. They can't even report our KIA, and just ignore what our boys are going through, but they and the rest of America can act like they give a shit on two holidays out of the year? I and no other active troop or vet want to see this war on the news 24/7, because it'd be fake feelings, like the free dinners an all that other crap on Vet's Day. I just want to see the 5 or 6, at the very most 10, killed in action we have a week on my country's national news channels. They deserve to be recognized because they're dead now, no matter if you agree with the cause or not, they were doing a job that hardly any Americans can even qualify for. Whether Americans believe it or not, we're doing good over there, and we're killing bad guys that come after good, hardworking Afghans as soon as we're not looking. Not that many people can genuinely look in the mirror and say they've done some good for someone today...these boys can. If for any reason, they should be mentioned just so those idiots who call for war after war (like Beetle does) have to see the faces of the boys that have died because of their war that they think is so badly needed, while they're enjoying their normal lives, able to go to the store and get some beef, get laid, go to church, barbecue, have days off, ect. But their response to that, stupidly enough, is that our boys chose this life, which is true. But our life would be normal for the most part, in the U.S. and in a barracks or in base housing with family without these wars so many want.

I just don't see why our media can't give them any time...it wouldn't even take 2 minutes of air time out of the day, especially since they "care" so much on Vet's and Memorial Day.

The media can talk about military intervention in Iran (which both Fox and CNN both do), and our administration can act like they'll do it if they have to, but they can't even mention the CURRENT damn war we're in?! And our Administration and military leaders have the balls to say they'll "do what it takes" to stop Iran, when what it would take is many more resources than Iraq and those very same resources they're cutting the shit out of as we speak?!

Just an example..I've personally watched not one, but two boys die because we couldn't get then to a hospital in time. Why? Because either the medevac helicopter couldn't get any Apache or A-10 escorts, or because the area was too hot and higher wouldn't hit the area with close air support for whatever stupid ass reason, or because they just didn't have the resources to hit it. The point of this example? This was BEFORE the cuts to the military! Damn 2009/2010 timeframe!

But will you ever see that on the news? Or a politician, Democrat OR Republican, mention it? Hell no you won't. Elections mean more to most politicians than lives, and arguing politics means more to most Americans than our lives. The media, all of it, recognizes that America has forgotten about this war and it's generation that's supposedly the "worst ever", so they don't even cover it anymore. If the men I worked with are part of the so called worse generation ever, then I'm proud to be part of it.

It's a pathetic cycle, and it's not going to change anytime soon. Those of you that are for intervening in Iran because of their "threat" to Israel, or just like to forget about us period unless its convenient for you, these posts are for you. As long as we are at war in Afghanistan, I will continue to have our boys' backs, because no one else will or cares enough to spend a few mins paying attention to them.

As to the bolded, if you believe that, then I failed to make myself clear. I have many problems with Fox but their actual news anchors are as unbiased as any on the air. They just do not get enough air time because of all of the opinion shows that are on. Invariably, when people show their ignorance of FNC by referring to it ad nauseum as "Faux News," they either do not understand the distinction between reporting and editorializing on FNC or they are being deliberately dishonest.

I don't spend much time watching any of the cable news networks but I have noticed that CNN, with its hiring of Piers Morgan seems to be padding its schedule of opinion shows, just as Fox began doing years ago. Have you ever noticed how little news actually gets reported on a daily basis and how every network covers basically the same stories? Fox found a formula to make money by entertaining its audience with opinion shows but at the cost of curtailing the time it reports news. Initially, other networks simply reported the same news over and over, so they lost viewers to Fox.

Now, IMO, the other networks are trying to emulate Fox's formula for success. The problem is that the only network that actively tries to appeal to the right with their opinion shows if Fox and there are at least twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country. That leaves CNN, MSNBC, and the other players fighting over a potential market that is roughly half the size that
that Fox targets. That is why Fox's success drives liberals so crazy. The math is pretty simple, but they cannot fathom why so many more people watch Fox instead of networks like CNN and MSNBC.

I think that there is still an unfilled market for a network that would focus on hard news, even if its reporting is repetitive, and avoids trying to entertain viewers - but none of the networks, including CNN, fills that need. CNN even has garbage shows on HLN, which I used to watch because it was repetitious but caught you up on the days news in just a few minutes without making you wait.

I agree that none of the networks report the wars enough. You probably disagree, but if a Republican were still president, daily casualty figures would still be getting reported but the coverage of the war would be very one-sided against the administration. How many Americans realize that more Americans have died in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than during the Bush years? I would wager that it is a small minority.

Just consider how much criticism Bush received for Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. Obama is personally deciding who gets hit with drone attacks and look at the sparse media coverage. The media would have been advocating Bush's impeachment if he had elected to target so many suspected terrorists with drone strikes instead of risking lives trying to capture them for interrogation. I don't disagree with targeting known terrorists with drones but the difference between coverage of the role that Obama and Bush have played in the wars is pretty amazing. Nothing demonstrates media bias any better.

[vundy33]

As to the bolded, if you believe that, then I failed to make myself clear. I have many problems with Fox but their actual news anchors are as unbiased as any on the air. They just do not get enough air time because of all of the opinion shows that are on. Invariably, when people show their ignorance of FNC by referring to it ad nauseum as "Faux News," they either do not understand the distinction between reporting and editorializing on FNC or they are being deliberately dishonest.

I don't spend much time watching any of the cable news networks but I have noticed that CNN, with its hiring of Piers Morgan seems to be padding its schedule of opinion shows, just as Fox began doing years ago. Have you ever noticed how little news actually gets reported on a daily basis and how every network covers basically the same stories? Fox found a formula to make money by entertaining its audience with opinion shows but at the cost of curtailing the time it reports news. Initially, other networks simply reported the same news over and over, so they lost viewers to Fox.

Now, IMO, the other networks are trying to emulate Fox's formula for success. The problem is that the only network that actively tries to appeal to the right with their opinion shows if Fox and there are at least twice as many conservatives as liberals in this country. That leaves CNN, MSNBC, and the other players fighting over a potential market that is roughly half the size that
that Fox targets. That is why Fox's success drives liberals so crazy. The math is pretty simple, but they cannot fathom why so many more people watch Fox instead of networks like CNN and MSNBC.

I think that there is still an unfilled market for a network that would focus on hard news, even if its reporting is repetitive, and avoids trying to entertain viewers - but none of the networks, including CNN, fills that need. CNN even has garbage shows on HLN, which I used to watch because it was repetitious but caught you up on the days news in just a few minutes without making you wait.

I agree that none of the networks report the wars enough. You probably disagree, but if a Republican were still president, daily casualty figures would still be getting reported but the coverage of the war would be very one-sided against the administration. How many Americans realize that more Americans have died in Afghanistan on Obama's watch than during the Bush years? I would wager that it is a small minority.

Just consider how much criticism Bush received for Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. Obama is personally deciding who gets hit with drone attacks and look at the sparse media coverage. The media would have been advocating Bush's impeachment if he had elected to target so many suspected terrorists with drone strikes instead of risking lives trying to capture them for interrogation. I don't disagree with targeting known terrorists with drones but the difference between coverage of the role that Obama and Bush have played in the wars is pretty amazing. Nothing demonstrates media bias any better.

We pretty much agree on your entire post, except the part about Fox anchors being the least biased. We're just going to disagree, because I'm conservative and in the same line of thinking as they are, and even I can see their clear disdain for the Democrat party and the President.

On everything else, we agree 100%. Especially on the fact that if Bush or any other Republican were President, the war would be in the news and our KIA would be mentioned, but it'd all be so much more negative than it is now when someone screws up and films themselves pissing on some bodies or something.

I agree with the part about the drone strikes too. If it were a Republican, it'd be called murder, lol. But that's just how it is I guess, and we're going to have to live with it. I agree with the President on it though, and I wish some wouldnt criticize him for it by saying we should capture them for intelligence instead of killing them. That'd be great, and our military would do that if they could, but most of these enemies are in countries that we can't just roll into with guns blazing, like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, ect. The usual shitholes. I wish those that say that had some type of military knowledge, common sense really, that told then how stupid that idea is. All it'd do is enflame the entire region, and make more enemies for us. Muslims hate for us to invade their land period, but hate it much, much more if we do it physically and without permission, which is how it would happen if we captured all these guys instead of killing them.

[TheRealThing]

We pretty much agree on your entire post, except the part about Fox anchors being the least biased. We're just going to disagree, because I'm conservative and in the same line of thinking as they are, and even I can see their clear disdain for the Democrat party and the President.

On everything else, we agree 100%. Especially on the fact that if Bush or any other Republican were President, the war would be in the news and our KIA would be mentioned, but it'd all be so much more negative than it is now when someone screws up and films themselves pissing on some bodies or something.

I agree with the part about the drone strikes too. If it were a Republican, it'd be called murder, lol. But that's just how it is I guess, and we're going to have to live with it. I agree with the President on it though, and I wish some wouldnt criticize him for it by saying we should capture them for intelligence instead of killing them. That'd be great, and our military would do that if they could, but most of these enemies are in countries that we can't just roll into with guns blazing, like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, ect. The usual shitholes. I wish those that say that had some type of military knowledge, common sense really, that told then how stupid that idea is. All it'd do is enflame the entire region, and make more enemies for us. Muslims hate for us to invade their land period, but hate it much, much more if we do it physically and without permission, which is how it would happen if we captured all these guys instead of killing them.

There isn't an anchor on the air that shoots straighter than Bill O'Reilly. In general the Fox anchors are more to the right, but they would have to be to get anywhere near the truth. The left is so off the wall because of the contempt they have for traditional American values. They're never going to quit making conservatives look bad and they're never going to quit trying to elevate those who agree with them as high as they possibly can. Nothing any more complex than that. BTW, the drone strikes are the one element of Obama's policy I agree with. Resprisal should be swift and sure everytime foreigners take an American life to make a political statement.

[Hoot Gibson]

Another example of the bias of CNN:

Walker survives recall election
Narrowly defeats Milwaukee mayor

The margin is likely to tighten some, but with more than 60 percent of the vote counted, the margin was 15 percent and this is how CNN framed its headline.

[TheRealThing]

Another example of the bias of CNN:

Walker survives recall election
Narrowly defeats Milwaukee mayor

The margin is likely to tighten some, but with more than 60 percent of the vote counted, the margin was 15 percent and this is how CNN framed its headline.

LOL, it's a total blood bath. Walker is up 17 points right now with 63% of the vote in. The left is getting drunk right now I promise you.

Walker stood up like a man and did what any honorable leader would do. His policies are ALL working, he will balance the Wisconsin state budget as promised and everybody will be the better for it. People are sick and tired of the hard left agenda and it will truly show this November.