Ragarding the upcoming First Presidential Debate for
Republicans,which is being Hosted by MSNBC and
Moderated by - Hardball - hack ... Chris Matthews,at
The majestic 100 acre Ronald Reagan Library in Calif.
With the backdrop being Air Force ONE,and it's Host in first
row,none other than Nancy Reagan : WHY ?
Why is MSNBC { THE Most Anti-Republican Media outlet on Earth }
and Why Chris Matthews,who has done everything in his weekly
purview to Convict such White House foe as Rove,Rummy,Rice
and most importantly Cheney { Chris purposedly pronounces his name
in a funny manner }!.
Chris finally let on as to why he's the Moderator.
He said Tonight on - Hardball - {which I seldom miss } that
Nancy personally insisted HE be the Moderator.
That's basically all he said.Then it struck me.
And of course,that meant MSNBC,Also.
Why Matthews ?
That's the Puzzler.
There IS a reason.

Sorry to disturb you with facts but...

Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough both supported Bush in 2004.

Sorry to disturb you with facts but...

Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough both supported Bush in 2004.

I don't believe i've ever heard Matthews openly state who he voted
for.He just doesn't Go There.Why...I dunno.
Joe is pretty open,but then also seldom admits his voting record.
So,basically I think yer full of shit.
You like to prod and goad people by asserting faux fact.
I will say this.
The answer to yer statement lies in the Fact that during one of the
Conventions {'04}where Scarborough and Matthews and someone else
had big differences over what a certain southern dem said by
calling out Matthews on National TV.

So,basically I think yer full of shit.


Back Atcha Fool.

Back Atcha Fool.

Irony Is > Republicans allowing and embracing MSNBC and
Politico.Com while Democrats are totally scaredy kat
about appearing on Fox news.

Sorry to disturb you with facts but...

Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough both supported Bush in 2004.

:lolhit:

Irony Is > Republicans allowing and embracing MSNBC and
Politico.Com while Democrats are totally scaredy kat
about appearing on Fox news.

Republicans "Allow" MSNBC?!?

MSNBC is still a mainstream news outlet where as Fox is a partisan propaganda outlet that has alienated everyone except the most hardcore, extreme rightwingers.

Fox viewers are the most misinformed people out there.

Republicans "Allow" MSNBC?!?

MSNBC is still a mainstream news outlet where as Fox is a partisan propaganda outlet that has alienated everyone except the most hardcore, extreme rightwingers.

Fox viewers are the most misinformed people out there.

Well at least you didn't over react :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=dharmabum]Republicans "Allow" MSNBC?!?

Yes,Allow by all means.Miss Nancy Reagan was the Host and it
was her call,as to what Media Venue wood provide coverage.
Which goes back to my original query.
WHY ?
You must not be nearly as savvy as you think.!

[QUOTE=dharmabum]
Which goes back to my original query.
WHY ?

I already answered that. Because MSNBC is mainstream. Fox is not.
The Republicans obviously chose MSNBC because they want more than just hard line rightwingers to watch.

Fox isnt mainstream? define Mainstream then.

Fox isnt mainstream? define Mainstream then.

appealing to more than a small segment of society.

excuse me, but last I heard Fox had more viewrs then all the others

Last I heard Fox's ratings have been in free fall for over a year.

Last I heard Fox's ratings have been in free fall for over a year.

Cable News Ratings for May 2, 2007
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 860,000 viewers
CNN – 463,000 viewers
MSNBC – 256,000 viewers
CNBC – 228,000 viewers
HLN – 220,000 viewers

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/category/ratings

[QUOTE=Foolsworth]

I already answered that. Because MSNBC is mainstream. Fox is not.
The Republicans obviously chose MSNBC because they want more than just hard line rightwingers to watch.

Yer s'not eben in duh ballpark,thar Bub.
I can cede this is like pulling horseshoes.
THE REASON that MSNBC and Chris Matthews got the gig to
be sole televiser of the First Republican Debate was
Nancy Reagan was rewarding MSNBC for employing her one Son,
Namely Ron,who has been on MSNBC's payroll as commentator/analyst
and appears regularly on - Hardball - and - Scarborough Country -.
It's that simple.
It has nothing to do with how Mainstream MSNBC IS.
Because that is laughably ridiculous.
Ron is also a spitting image of his mom.
His face looks almost identical.
Ron is a Big pain-in-the-ass Liberal Pansy.
He's probably Gay,as well.
He acts gay.He also loves to usurp his point of view about
Politics,that would probably cause his Pops,to do sommersaults in
his grave.

Bashing Ronald Reagan... that's relevent... :rolleyes:

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/category/ratings




Well, if a blog says so it must be true.

Fox News Ratings in Free Fall. (http://colin.gnn.tv/blogs/13469/FOX_Ratings_In_Free_Fall_O_Reilly_Leads_The_Way_Do wn)

Fox News Ratings down 24%. (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=397&num=8294)

say what you will, the facts remain, FOX has like 4 time the audiance of MSNBC, and according to you, mainstream is defined by the size of the segmant that tunes in, so by your definition, MSNBC is not as mainstrem as FOX. go ahead and keep spinning kid.

Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough both supported Bush in 2004.

Chris Matthews is a know Democrat sympathizer. "Moderator Chris Matthews, the long-time Democratic operative-turned journalist..." http://newsbusters.org/node/12513

Look at some of the silly questions he and others on the questioning panel asked.

Mitt Romney was asked what he most disliked about America.

Rudy Giulianni was asked what he learned or regretted about his dealings with African/American while he was Mayor, implying that he somehow dealt unfairly with them.

Mike Huckabee was asked if he thought Global Warming existed.

Tom Tancredo was asked if he would work to protect women's right.

Chris Matthews asked Jim Gilmore if Karl Rove was his friend.

Matthews also asked a candidate if he thought it would be goof for Bill Clinton to be back living in the White House.

The Democrats were afraid to appear at a debate in which FOX News was included. The Republicans should have refused to appear in this Democrat run circus.

The Democrats were afraid to appear at a debate in which FOX News was included.

Actually the Democrats simply don't want to legitimize Fox's blatent partisan bias.

They are right for doing so. Fox would do their best to make them all look bad.
They are better off finding a less biased host for a debate.

Actually the Democrats simply don't want to legitimize Fox's blatent partisan bias.

They are right for doing so. Fox would do their best to make them all look bad.
They are better off finding a less biased host for a debate.

Do you think the Republicans should have legitimized CNBC's blatent partisan bias?

Chris Matthews and his fellow questioners behaved as if they were Democrat operatives. They did their best to make the candidates look bad.

Would the Republican candidates have been better off finding a less biased host for a debate?

Do you think the Republicans should have legitimized CNBC's blatent partisan bias?

Compared to Fox, CNBC does not have a bias.

Yeah, and compared to a stone you're not uninformed.

Actually the Democrats simply don't want to legitimize Fox's blatent partisan bias.

They are right for doing so. Fox would do their best to make them all look bad.
They are better off finding a less biased host for a debate.

as pointed out earlier, FOX has the largest audiance of all the channels combined practically. The Dems would not alienate and insult all of those people by saying they are morons for watching news that is so over the top biased they wont even appear on the channel. get real.

as pointed out earlier, FOX has the largest audiance of all the channels combined practically.

Not even close.

Irony Is > Republicans allowing and embracing MSNBC and
Politico.Com while Democrats are totally scaredy kat
about appearing on Fox news.

I guess you missed the interview with Clinton.

Not even close.

what are you stupid? I said practically. Stop with the tired old liberal tactic of pointing out one thing you can disagree with so as to completely ignore the rest of the post. face it, you said FOX wasn't mainstream. You defined mainstream as having the most viewers. FOX has the most viewers. FOX is by your own definition more mainstream then ALMOST all the rest put together. end of story.

Stop with the tired old liberal tactic of pointing out one thing you can disagree with so as to completely ignore the rest of the post. .

I point out where you are wrong and you hate that.

Get over it.

LOL, you need to get over the fact I just owned tour ass in this thread and all you can do is claim vicotry on a totally unrelated point.

dharma did just get owned.. and he's running away from it...

too much ego... it's okay to be wrong, everyone's human!

Stop with the tired old liberal tactic of pointing out one thing you can disagree with so as to completely ignore the rest of the post.I'm wondering why you think this is a 'liberal' tactic. I hear OD make this complaint all the time (although whenever he complains it is called 'whining').

LOL, you need to get over the fact I just owned tour ass in this thread.

You keep on believing that delusion if it makes you feel better.

dharma did just get owned..

Is that what you call it when Trav posts a lie that his own numbers prove to be a lie, such as:

"FOX has the largest audiance of all the channels combined"

I guess the definition of "owned" has changed a lot since yesterday.
According to Decka, Trav has "owned" me every time he tells a blatent lie.

Is that what you call it when Trav posts a lie that his own numbers prove to be a lie, such as:

"FOX has the largest audiance of all the channels combined"

I guess the definition of "owned" has changed a lot since yesterday.
According to Decka, Trav has "owned" me every time he tells a blatent lie.

again you take a portion of my statement out to prove your point. I seem to remember the word "practically" at the end of the sentance, which you left off. This is the second time you have done this to me. you are a coward, a hypocrite and a liar.

re read post # 25 if your memory fails you.

Trav, as usual I have to wade through the sea of B.S. that are your posts to find relevent nuggets worth responding to.

If you are offended by that then I suggest you stop replying to me and go about your merry way.

relevant nuggets? taking the part of someone's sentence that fits your argument is obtaining relevant nuggets? At least try to take whole sentences next time. you stoop so low as to take parts of SENTENCES for crying out loud. You better hope you never make a statement like "he said I was a Nazi" because I will be all over the part that says "I was a nazi" and use it against you. Because that's basically what you did to me, twice now. You dissected my statements so they were useful to you. And what is worse is that you did it in an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that by your own definition FOX is more mainstream then the stations you claimed were mainstream. Pathetic. Stop digging man.

"I was a nazi"

I knew it!!!
:lolhit:

Trav, Fox is not mainstream. They have a lot of viewers for a single network, but your claim that they have more viewers then everyone else combined is a load of B.S. "practically" or not. Your own numbers showed that, assuming they were true.

You need to lighten up Trav. You are gonna hurt yourself.

Fox News Admits Bias!
Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak its name.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 12:40 PM ET
Sound the klaxons! Corporate Message breakdown at Fox News! This is not a drill. Repeat: This is not a drill. Assume battle stations! Fire in the hole! A-woo-ga! A-woo-ga!

The usually disciplined foot soldiers at Fox News have long maintained that their news organization is not biased in favor of conservatism. This charade is so important to Fox News that the company has actually sought to trademark the phrase "fair and balanced" (which is a bit like Richard Nixon trademarking the phrase "not a crook"). No fair-minded person actually believes that Fox News is unbiased, so pretending that it is calls for steely corporate resolve. On occasion, this vigilance pays off. Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans." Getting one of this country's most prestigious newspapers to state that up is down and black is white is no small public-relations victory, and if we can't admire Fox News' candor, we can at least marvel at its ability to remain on message. Or rather, we could admire it, before Scott Norvell went and shot his big mouth off.

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)

I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to compare Norvell's op-ed to the Vatican's belated admission, after 359 years, that Galileo had it right when he said the earth revolved around the sun. Now how about a prime time seppuku by Fox News chief Roger Ailes? Failing that, maybe ABC News could lend Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer for Ailes' weepy confession. Hey, there, funny face, where's the broken-winged sparrow underneath that tough-guy exterior? Fox News has little to lose in terms of credibility—sensible viewers discounted Fox News for conservative bias years ago—and everything to gain in terms of heightened visibility. Say it with me, Roger: "Eppur si muove!" Doesn't that feel good?

back to top

warrior,

When you copy and paste from (what is presumably) a blog it is customary to provide a link to your source.

warrior,

When you copy and paste from (what is presumably) a blog it is customary to provide a link to your source.

Why even bother to go to the trouble of being thorough,honest
and forthright.
When it's plain as the nose on Mr.Magoo's face,that Dimocrats
JUST Lie,lie,lie and manipulate until the Cows come home.
We've entered an Era,where Truthfullness and Lies,are being
manipulated and multiplying faster than a bowl of sunken rice.

Just when you thought partisan hackery couldn't get any more ridiculous... along comes foolsworth.

Just when you thought partisan hackery couldn't get any more ridiculous... along comes foolsworth.

Damn Man,yer more pesky Horny sticky gitchy Goomey than
That Macy Klown,in the throes of a serial act.
You really need a hobby.
Maybe Needlepoint,w/o any pointed objects.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me, Fool. :)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall01/Weil/bias.htm