50 Signs You Watch Too Much Fox News

Lol! Most of those have been totally debunked. If they hadn't, most of those people wouldn't still be in office.

 

You switch to the 50 liberal brainwashing channels?

 

Even the Democrats in Congress admitted the banking/housing scandal was cause by.... DEMOCRATS.... some of you lefties must still be on your 4/20 weed dose or something to believe the crap you type.

[video=youtube;IyqYY72PeRM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM[/video]

[video=youtube;cMnSp4qEXNM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM[/video]

DEMOCRATS OWN THE HOUSING AND FINANCIAL SCANDAL.... IF we are being honest.

- - - Updated - - -

Only a brainwashed Liberal would believe that, "most of those have been totally debunked".

The statement reeks of lockstep brainwashing.

 

Sad to see so many right wing heads explode. But when you question their political bible it's bound to happen.

**Edited to remove insult**

 

It reels of selective information. Why didn't you include the parts later on in 05 where Barney Frank insisted on rental housing instead of home ownership when it was discovered banks were using Freddie and Fannie to play the slot machine with people's home loans? But no, Bush kept pushing for home ownership even though it was discovered that when the banks began using Freddie and Fannie for loans destined to fail, it wasn't until after the elections of 06, that in 07, Franks had any power to do anything about those bogus loans. By that time it was too late. That game about putting it all on Franks isn't going to work any more. Back in 03 when Franks made that speech, the country was ready for home ownership in the right way, even though Franks was more for rental housing. When Franks realized in 05 how these loans were being processed, he wanted the breaks put on them. But bush didn't; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5nBddKn4TQ

And as of today, George Bush has never disputed those claims by Frank. Aren't you just a little bit curious why?

 

Another Fox News thread? Who really spends this much time being concerned about what others watch?

 

people who hate the truth and points of view that differ from theirs.

 

that is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction without substance.

I watch fox regularly (for as long as i can stomach the manipulation, leading questions, false assumptions, misrepresentations of their fair and balanced approach) and I can tell you that the majority of those 50 points have been articulated and even promoted on Fox.

- - - Updated - - -

uhm, did you read the list? And you want to talk about truth?
That isn't truth it is a laundry list of successful FOX opinion making.

 

Actually, Fox has flogged just about every one of them at one time or another.

 

yup i read the list and it goes without saying that every other news source is the same way. you can ignore my point if you want or you can step out of fantasy land and stop pretending fox is the only news outlet to discuss their opinions.

 

Mod edit,,flounder...is this one of those posts which insults a group? Yes - yes it is. You're going to be very busy, because I'm going to report them all.

Funny OP, OP: since the reason for your thread is the thin-skinned reaction to worrying about people watching FOX. :snicker:

 

That wasn't the point I was responding too. I am well aware of the partisan nature of some if not most american media.

By the same token, you claim they were all lies, when they are almost all true. The opinions are lies and partisan nonsense, provided by an organization dedicated to creating political and social opinion amongst its demographic. They are by far the best at it.

 

Don't worry, the waaaambulance is on its way to fix that little booboo.

 

Remember to report all the posts that use the word "libs" in a derogatory fashion.

PS: Thanks for quoting my post because what you whined about is still visible.

 

I'd like to think that if it had been President Obama on 2001-09-11, that he would have read his morning CIA briefing, would have realized that a retaliatory strike on Bin Laden's camp (similar to those that Clinton did after previous Al Qaeda attacks) within hours of the attacks would be possible. Certainly no Vietnam-style war. No retreat from Al Qaeda to attack Iraq, that's for certain!

I don't know if a "Y2K" President Obama could have prevented the banking situation that had its way paved years in advance by the Reagan Doctrine. (Remember the S&L scandal, the Resolution Trust corporation--the largest government bureaucracy ever...until the DHS.) However without the GOP culprits in the President's cabinet, the $750,000,000,000 bailout / corporate welfare bill would not have come from the White House -- that's a key difference. And considering that the real Senator Obama at the time sponsored legislation to reduce the GOP's "big reward for wrongdoing", and the real President Obama signed it into law, it's fair to believe that a theoretical President Obama would have used the Veto Pen on the entire giveaway.

Unfortunately, a theoretical Candidate Obama would not have been POTUS in time to stop Alan Greenspan's sabotage of the US economy during the 2000 election year. But perhaps an earlier President Obama would have directed the DOJ to conduct a criminal investigation into Greenspan's blatantly partisan official misconduct. Once again it's all about keeping malicious GOP operatives from having the power to do things that harmed the United States.

As for the "female scandals" [sic], let's remember that there were no Clinton scandals. Every last one of the phony "scandals" was ginned up by GOP operatives, and Bill and Hillary Clinton were cleared of all allegations. That was an ongoing (long before Clinton ever ran for the Presidency) GOP smear campaign. When Kenneth Starr and ~$100,000,000 of taxpayers' dollars came into play this became a crime against the people of the United States -- that's the actual scandal. Since they got away with what amounts to an attempted coup d'etat against President Clinton...well...you can see that they're still committing the same crimes with the same impunity. Sadly it would have made no difference if President Obama's term of office was 2001-2009 or 2009-2017.

 

I agree, so I printed it out.

The list is 100% accurate.

 

What so many of those unfortunate people don't realize is that Fox is opinion, not news.

 

Which news channels aren't mixed with opinion?

 

The OP is full of awesome. So keeping that for later.

 

What so many other unfortunate people don't realize is that it's both. When a news story breaks, they report the facts without bias. Then they've usually have a righty and a lefty on to debate the issue at hand. And during the evening hours they'll have analysts (yes, right leaning) who will offer their own opinion and again have people from both sides talk about it. In all honesty, the righty almost always gets more uninterrupted time to speak his/her mind than the lefty does. But mostly both sides get to have their say. Is it as fair and balanced as they say? No. Is it as unfair and unbalanced as many on this thread have implied? No. Just like every other news outlet in existence. Get over it.

 

When was the TEA Party ever blamed for it?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/wolf-blitzer-did-not-blame-the-tea-party-for-boston-explosio?s=mobile
Perhaps getting your news from somewhere else other then twitter might be a good idea.

 

Again, it's not news, it's opinion.

 

Accurate or not, it's still useless sycophantic spank material.

enjoy, but go easy on sourdough.

 

I personally have no problem with Fox being opinion. Just be honest about it like MSNBC.

 

Again, it's both.