YAP - FOX NEWS AKA Republican NEWS

[ShapeShifter]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

This poll shows that Kerry BETTER pick Edwards as the VP. I really would love to see Edwards get the VP slot. Kerry better not pick some nobody.

[Kghadial]

Foxnews has also updated its Bush approval rating on its site ....

DOWN TO 47% !!
Most of that is a drop in Independents


It seems to me that Fox has always had the biggest margins for Kerry/Edwards .    Other polls that ask about the whole ticket usually have  Bush fall a point when you say "Bush/Cheney" instead of just "Bush" and just "Kerry/Edwards" is one point better than just "Kerry" . But this Fox gives Kerry a four-point boost for picking Edwards.

Johnny Sunshine is very very powerful

[ElCidGOP]

Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

[dunn]

 They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS

You mean NBC and ABC?

[ShapeShifter]

Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

I see you have been watching TOO much Fox News.

Okay,

A. If Clarke is lieing, why don't they prosecute him for lieing under oath? They did it for Martha.

B. The Background check thing was a SPIN. If you are part of an admin, of course you are going to SPIN the negative and highlight the POSITIVE.

C. O'Reily is a JOKE.

D. CNN and MSNBC do present both of the sides and may lean towards a liberal audience BUT for the love of me, they do not make it as OBVIOUS as Fox NEWS. Just call it REPUBLICAN/PRO-BUSH/ NEWS.

[ShapeShifter]

Foxnews has also updated its Bush approval rating on its site ....

DOWN TO 47% !!
Most of that is a drop in Independents


It seems to me that Fox has always had the biggest margins for Kerry/Edwards .    Other polls that ask about the whole ticket usually have  Bush fall a point when you say "Bush/Cheney" instead of just "Bush" and just "Kerry/Edwards" is one point better than just "Kerry" . But this Fox gives Kerry a four-point boost for picking Edwards.

Johnny Sunshine is very very powerful

Wow, I did not notice the approval rating. Typical of Fox News not to highlight the negatives for Bush.

[Kghadial]

Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

Colmes, a flaming liberal? hahaha  
He might be flaming to you, but Colmes is known as one of the most moderate hosts around. Many  of the conservative guests on the show comment on how Colmes is their favorite liberal. Colmes himself has said that he is "moderate, quite moderate" . Count how many minutes Hannity speaks for on the show and then count how many Colmes does.  Its seriously tilted to Hannity.

O'Reilly and Hannity attack their guests. They cut mikes, they "hannatize", etc. So of course it looks like Larry King pitches soft balls.  Most of the rest of TV personalities actually like and respect their guests.

and BTW , the reason people sometimes call it "GOP news" is because they purport to be "fair and balanced", and also because the grand majority of their viewership is GOP

[ElCidGOP]

Clarke is a political animal whose best friend is the senior foreign policy advisor to Kerry.  That says it all.  His statements to the committee directly contradict the statements he made in August 2002.  You will have to write DOJ to ask about any prosecution.  I heard Clarke's voice on the tape recording of the August 2002 background briefing.  How is a recording of Clarke speaking spin?  It is a recording that has been ignored by every network but Fox.  Ignored, like it didn't exist.  

O'Reilly is not a joke, its your opinion.  

I meant ABS (bullsh**t) and NBS (bullsh**t).  









Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you have been watching TOO much Fox News.

Okay,

A. If Clarke is lieing, why don't they prosecute him for lieing under oath? They did it for Martha.

B. The Background check thing was a SPIN. If you are part of an admin, of course you are going to SPIN the negative and highlight the POSITIVE.

C. O'Reily is a JOKE.

D. CNN and MSNBC do present both of the sides and may lean towards a liberal audience BUT for the love of me, they do not make it as OBVIOUS as Fox NEWS. Just call it REPUBLICAN/PRO-BUSH/ NEWS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ben.]

Clarke is a political animal whose best friend is the senior foreign policy advisor to Kerry.  That says it all.  His statements to the committee directly contradict the statements he made in August 2002.  You will have to write DOJ to ask about any prosecution.  I heard Clarke's voice on the tape recording of the August 2002 background briefing.  How is a recording of Clarke speaking spin?  It is a recording that has been ignored by every network but Fox.  Ignored, like it didn't exist.  

O'Reilly is not a joke, its your opinion.  

I meant ABS (bullsh**t) and NBS (bullsh**t).  









Give me a break with your FOX News rip.  They are different than CNN, CBS, NBS and ABS but that doesn't make them GOP news.  They report both sides, did you ever watch a Fox News debate show?  Watch Hannity and Colmes (a flaming liberal) and then turn to Larry King Live.  King pitches soft balls.  

Look at Clarke.  A booking on O'Reilly is known to sell books, but Clarke did not book on O'Reilly.  Why?  Cause his ridiculous assertions and his lies would be ripped to shreds piece by piece.  The mainstream media actually refuses to report the facts concerning Clarke and his contradicting statements.  They ignore facts if those facts get in the way of their story.   They have conviniently ignored Clarkes background interview he gave in 2002.  They act like it doesn't exist.  

Say this or that about Fox News,  but they report both sides of an issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see you have been watching TOO much Fox News.

Okay,

A. If Clarke is lieing, why don't they prosecute him for lieing under oath? They did it for Martha.

B. The Background check thing was a SPIN. If you are part of an admin, of course you are going to SPIN the negative and highlight the POSITIVE.

C. O'Reily is a JOKE.

D. CNN and MSNBC do present both of the sides and may lean towards a liberal audience BUT for the love of me, they do not make it as OBVIOUS as Fox NEWS. Just call it REPUBLICAN/PRO-BUSH/ NEWS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To quote the "daily show" ... "I'm so glad they finally kicked that guy, out the administration before he could put in another thirty years of exemplary service to his country"...

The fact is Clark is a very solid source... yeah sure he made a comment supporting the Administration HE WAS A MEMBER OF back in 2003 but what do you expect... had he just come out and criticised them then he have been sacked then and there... its probably why he was sacked in the end because of his doubts about Bush Policy... these off the record comments are not being taken in context...  

[MarkDel]

Ben,

You say Richard Clarke is credible because his contradictory pro-Bush statements came while he was a member of the administration, thus it is understandable that his views would be different then. It's a matter of personal bias based on circumstance. But for that to make sense, isn't it also logical that his views as a "disgruntled former employee" would also be subject to personal bias based on circumstance?

The facts are as follows:

1. Clarke has made BLATANTLY CONTRADICTORY statements concerning the motivations and effectiveness of the Bush administration in recognizing and dealing with the terrorist threat. In logical terms, both "A" and "B" cannot be true.

2. If his first explanation was a lie and he's now telling the truth, then he's a despicable pr*ck because he violated the trust of the American people by getting up in front of the media and making claims that he knew not to be true.

3. If his second explanation was a lie and he was telling the truth back in 2002, then he's an opportunistic despicable pr*ck because he violated the trust of the American people by lying under oath in order to sell a few more books.

[Nation]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

[ShapeShifter]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

[ShapeShifter]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

It is OBVIOUS that the Republican focus is NOT on the substance of his allegations BUT rather on focusing to DISCREDIT him. Like I said, Republicans don't want to listen to anything that contradicts their view of their President.

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

It is OBVIOUS that the Republican focus is NOT on the substance of his allegations BUT rather on focusing to DISCREDIT him. Like I said, Republicans don't want to listen to anything that contradicts their view of their President.

Shapeshifter,

The credibility of ANY witness in a hearing or investigation is absolutely essential. This witness has made CONTRADICTORY statements, so the substance of his allegations, no matter how serious, must be called into question, this is how it works in the real world outside of your politcal ideology.

[Nation]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't read too much into this whole issue. I've heard the synopsis of what he's saying, and the replies from the White House.

If he did lie about something, that definitely takes away from his credibility, but he's been saying a lot of things, and all we've heard from the White House is, well, spin (that's what I'd expect from any administration). I don't think the Bush administration can really keep playing this off as some "disgruntled employee" sort of thing, they'll have to address the issue head on. If they don't, it becomes fodder for Kerry.

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't read too much into this whole issue. I've heard the synopsis of what he's saying, and the replies from the White House.

If he did lie about something, that definitely takes away from his credibility, but he's been saying a lot of things, and all we've heard from the White House is, well, spin (that's what I'd expect from any administration). I don't think the Bush administration can really keep playing this off as some "disgruntled employee" sort of thing, they'll have to address the issue head on. If they don't, it becomes fodder for Kerry.

Of this Nation,

If you haven't been following it, here's the problem with the guy's credibility. There are audiotapes and video of this guy saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE about Bush that he says in his book and in his testimony before the 9/11 panel. Less than two years ago, this guy was fellating Bush about how serious the administration was about terrorism BEFORE and after 9/11...and it's all on tape. Also, he claimed in his book that Condi Rice did not even know who Al Qaeda was until he told her, yet there are also tapes of her from 2000, before she took office, talking about Osama Bin Laden and the threat posed by Al Qaeda. The guy is obviously a liar or a loon.

[ShapeShifter]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

It is OBVIOUS that the Republican focus is NOT on the substance of his allegations BUT rather on focusing to DISCREDIT him. Like I said, Republicans don't want to listen to anything that contradicts their view of their President.

Shapeshifter,

The credibility of ANY witness in a hearing or investigation is absolutely essential. This witness has made CONTRADICTORY statements, so the substance of his allegations, no matter how serious, must be called into question, this is how it works in the real world outside of your politcal ideology.

I am sure, even if Clarke was found NOT to be lieing, It does not matter what he has to say. The point is Republicans only want to hear what they want to hear and spin spin spin. This issue is pointless. You are obviously PRO-Bush and I am obviously ANTI-Bush.

[Nation]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't read too much into this whole issue. I've heard the synopsis of what he's saying, and the replies from the White House.

If he did lie about something, that definitely takes away from his credibility, but he's been saying a lot of things, and all we've heard from the White House is, well, spin (that's what I'd expect from any administration). I don't think the Bush administration can really keep playing this off as some "disgruntled employee" sort of thing, they'll have to address the issue head on. If they don't, it becomes fodder for Kerry.

Of this Nation,

If you haven't been following it, here's the problem with the guy's credibility. There are audiotapes and video of this guy saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE about Bush that he says in his book and in his testimony before the 9/11 panel. Less than two years ago, this guy was fellating Bush about how serious the administration was about terrorism BEFORE and after 9/11...and it's all on tape. Also, he claimed in his book that Condi Rice did not even know who Al Qaeda was until he told her, yet there are also tapes of her from 2000, before she took office, talking about Osama Bin Laden and the threat posed by Al Qaeda. The guy is obviously a liar or a loon.

Only thing I can think of would be that he was trying to protect his job -- Bush has never been one for having dissenters of his ideas within his administration.

If he does have these blatant contradictory statements, it shouldn't be too hard for Bush to downplay them.

I'm guessing it will be what someone else said --- in a few months closer to the election, people will be saying "Clarke who?"

[MarkDel]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

It is OBVIOUS that the Republican focus is NOT on the substance of his allegations BUT rather on focusing to DISCREDIT him. Like I said, Republicans don't want to listen to anything that contradicts their view of their President.

Shapeshifter,

The credibility of ANY witness in a hearing or investigation is absolutely essential. This witness has made CONTRADICTORY statements, so the substance of his allegations, no matter how serious, must be called into question, this is how it works in the real world outside of your politcal ideology.

I am sure, even if Clarke was found NOT to be lieing, It does not matter what he has to say. The point is Republicans only want to hear what they want to hear and spin spin spin. This issue is pointless. You are obviously PRO-Bush and I am obviously ANTI-Bush.

Shapeshifter,

So let me get this straight...Clarke is lying, but you don't care because his message suits your political views? Nice attitude...

[ShapeShifter]

Mark, even if he is a prick, if what he's saying is true, wouldn't you say those are some pretty serious allegations that should be dealt with? This is a guy who's worked under more than one president, and I doubt his number one concern is to get rich. Maybe he just wants to inform Americans about this issue.

Of this Nation.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting a word I used on multiple occasions...LIE!!!

This guy LIED at some point, so why should we listen to anything he has to say???

Why should Republicans want to listen to ANYTHING???

Shapeshifter,

Another brilliant statement from you...did the guy lie at one point, yes or no? That's the real issue, and if you answer "no" then you're either not paying attention or you're simply too partisan to deal with reality.

It is OBVIOUS that the Republican focus is NOT on the substance of his allegations BUT rather on focusing to DISCREDIT him. Like I said, Republicans don't want to listen to anything that contradicts their view of their President.

Shapeshifter,

The credibility of ANY witness in a hearing or investigation is absolutely essential. This witness has made CONTRADICTORY statements, so the substance of his allegations, no matter how serious, must be called into question, this is how it works in the real world outside of your politcal ideology.

I am sure, even if Clarke was found NOT to be lieing, It does not matter what he has to say. The point is Republicans only want to hear what they want to hear and spin spin spin. This issue is pointless. You are obviously PRO-Bush and I am obviously ANTI-Bush.

Shapeshifter,

So let me get this straight...Clarke is lying, but you don't care because his message suits your political views? Nice attitude...

When did *I* said he was lying???

I stated that, If Clarke was proven NOT TO BE LIEING ...

Republicans WON'T care and look the other way ... and continue to try to discredit him.

I atleast admit to my bias perception. Your the one trying to pretend you are neutral. Just like FOX NEWS. They teach you republicans well.

[MarkDel]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

[ShapeShifter]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

"true facts" - yea sure, can you honestly believe there is such a thing. You can always find envidence to prove much about anything. Like I said, this is pointless. I don't believe Clarke was lieing to the 9-11 commission. Atleast, he took some blame for it. Nothing which Bush has done. Just keeps exploiting 9-11 for his re-election bid.

[MarkDel]

Political bias is an issue for both us, obviously, however contrary to what you Democrats like to think, there are some things in life that are "ojectively true facts" and this is one of those cases. In terms of Clarke's statements, "A" cannot equal "B"

"true facts" - yea sure, can you honestly believe there is such a thing. You can always find envidence to prove much about anything. Like I said, this is pointless. I don't believe Clarke was lieing to the 9-11 commission. Atleast, he took some blame for it. Nothing which Bush has done. Just keeps exploiting 9-11 for his re-election bid.

Shapeshifter,

Well, let's get philosophical and mathematical for a second...You do believe that certain things are "objectively true" in certain situations, right? Completely hypothetical now...is there such a thing as an objective fact, yes or no?