Print

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 27 2007, 08:19 AM)

I didn't put words in your mouth. You said msnbc is a bunch of ultra-liberals because of people like Olberman yet they also have conservative commentators. I think it is 'fair and balanced' if one network have both kind of commentators in the same network.

Oh well that would mean you think Fox is fair and balanced because they have Alan Colmes. They have several democratic strategists that are regulars. They have several democratic women who speak out on the environment regularly and yesterday they were discussing national healthcare. You really need to becomes educated before you comment. You just stuck your foot in your mouth. What the difference is, the way they report the actual news. Fox does not form conclusions with its reporting. It simply reports the facts. The other news agencies report conclusions. For instance, Fox's headlines would be "What to do in Iraq". ALL other stations would be "How to get out of Iraq", or "How to pull out". That little wording difference forms a conclusion in the viewers' mind. It not how news should be reported.

QUOTE

Insight Magazine is a Conservative Magazine run by Washington times. Their sources are just as reliable as Drudge or newsmax. Like what mike96sc2 said, it seems those guys didn't even bother to verify their sources before reporting is just plain irresponsible.

You're right. Any time they hear something from hillary Clinton they should question it's credibility. Here is the headline on Insight Magazine:

Hillary's team has questions about

Obama's Muslim background

If you have a problem with anyone, it's hillary's team. Everyone else simply reported what they heard from it. Stop trying to spin it the other way. It's too easy to show how wrong you are here.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 27 2007, 06:33 PM)

Oh well that would mean you think Fox is fair and balanced because they have Alan Colmes. They have several democratic strategists that are regulars. They have several democratic women who speak out on the environment regularly and yesterday they were discussing national healthcare. You really need to becomes educated before you comment. You just stuck your foot in your mouth. What the difference is, the way they report the actual news. Fox does not form conclusions with its reporting. It simply reports the facts. The other news agencies report conclusions. For instance, Fox's headlines would be "What to do in Iraq". ALL other stations would be "How to get out of Iraq", or "How to pull out". That little wording difference forms a conclusion in the viewers' mind. It not how news should be reported.

Yeah, but these democratic 'strategists' don't exactly have their own shows.  It is like watching the Apple Imac commericals and they are trying to convience to buy a PC.

If you don't know by now, 2/3 of the Americans disapprove how Bush Handled Iraq and several Republicans want a phased withdrawl.  Oh, wait, you're that 1/3 minority.  

QUOTE

You're right. Any time they hear something from hillary Clinton they should question it's credibility. Here is the headline on Insight Magazine:

Hillary's team has questions about

Obama's Muslim background

If you have a problem with anyone, it's hillary's team. Everyone else simply reported what they heard from it. Stop trying to spin it the other way. It's too easy to show how wrong you are here.

Oh yeah, like that conservative magazine has any proof besides that 'they heard it.'  The Hiliary camp already said that they did not start these false rumors.  Of course you would believe Insight magazine,  Because if it is right, why don't I see that headline in front of fox news?

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 27 2007, 12:20 PM)

Yeah, but these democratic 'strategists' don't exactly have their own shows. It is like watching the Apple Imac commericals and they are trying to convience to buy a PC.

If you don't know by now, 2/3 of the Americans disapprove how Bush Handled Iraq and several Republicans want a phased withdrawl. Oh, wait, you're that 1/3 minority.

If you watch, there are only 1 or 2 shows where the hosts take stances. O'reilly, and Hannity(but he's countered by Colmes). The rest are neutral but ask the panel questions. It's very fair. You wouldn't know because you don't watch.

QUOTE

Oh yeah, like that conservative magazine has any proof besides that 'they heard it.' The Hiliary camp already said that they did not start these false rumors. Of course you would believe Insight magazine, Because if it is right, why don't I see that headline in front of fox news?

When do you ever have proof other than what you heard? They reported what they heard and Fox reported what they heard. It's how news works. They never proclaimed it as true. Maybe they assumed it was but they cited their sources and raised the question of what it might mean. That's it. You have no argument here.

[BCfosheezy]

Just to put this to rest. The link pug_ster provided to Fox and Friend VIDEO is sufficient for you to see that Fox merely reported that Insight magazine had published an article on this clearly shows that they didn't erroneously report anything. It justifies Fox's reporting so the real issue is with Insight. Here are some links Insight has that will show you this is all just a spin job by liberals. It's all here in black and white.

 

I know that pug will not be convinced because the truth is not something he is open to. For anyone else that cares here are the links. Read for yourself. They debunk pug_ster's claims. At any rate, he isn't going to stop so i will quit replying to this thread. All one has to do is read the articles and watch the video and you know what's going on. Don't let this guy spin you

 

 

http://www.insightma...AECE0B1163DD85A

 

http://www.insightma...AD1B902FEFF4220

 

http://www.insightma...FFC9DC48BCB8E8C

 

 

[pug_ster]

I guess you didn't bother to read to the early abcnews article about Obama denied that he was a muslim when he was child and a spokesperson from Hiliary denied spreading those rumors.  So now we have to go back to the source on how this magazine got these facts in the first place and claim that it is true.  There's some flaw in your logic in thinking there.

[pug_ster]

The fact is that Insight magazine failed to validate their claim about Obama.  Of course a smallfry mazagine doesn't have to validate their claim.  The sad part is that these conservative talkshows like Limburgh and Fox & Friends run on these runors.  Good thing that Obama and Hillary shot down these these rumors and seem to tell us that these are swiftboating done by conservatives.

[Ween311]

I think you are confused by the term "neo-con."   The original neo-conservatives were the "new" conservatives.  Not the hard line traditional conservatives that you use the term to mean.   The true neo-cons are conservatives that are more sympathetic to the liberal views of the hard line democrats.  Look it up sometime.  You might stop trying to use it as an insult.