Fox News produces and airs Obama attack ad

[TonyR]

At least they're not hiding who they work for any more! (video posted below in post #7)

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/fox-news-obama-attack-ad-from-fox-and-friends.html


The bajillion dollars Republican super-PACs plan to spend to take down Barack Obama does not include compensating Fox News for its services, but maybe it should. On Fox and Friends this morning, the cable news network debuted a four-minute, um, documentary looking back on the last four years of "hope and change." Cue foreboding music! Break out the apocalyptic video filters! Prepare for mayhem.

The result is a clip that could make Karl Rove cackle, in which moneybags representing the national debt crash down from above, innocent children scrounge for pennies, and the president forces everyone to pay with food stamps.

Even the conservative blog Hot Air isn't sure what to make of it: "Should a news organization produce and publish attack ads like this?" writes Ed Morrissey today. Media Matters wonders if the clip violates News Corp.'s policy on contributing corporate services or products to political candidates and cites the company's own rule: "Always keep in mind that 'contribution' is defined broadly, and does not necessarily mean money."

Fox seems to have already pulled the video, but not before it made its way to YouTube, complete with an intro from the proud anchors. The fair and balanced part probably comes tomorrow — we can't wait to see what they come up with for Mitt Romney!

[Smiling Assassin27]

I'm curious why you didn't seem to give a crap when msnbc cranked out an anti-Romney piece. Oh, that's right...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F_NEDc-Eaas" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

At least they're not hiding who they work for any more! I can't embed the video from work but you can see it at the link below.


The bajillion dollars Republican super-PACs plan to spend to take down Barack Obama does not include compensating Fox News for its services, but maybe it should. On Fox and Friends this morning, the cable news network debuted a four-minute, um, documentary looking back on the last four years of "hope and change." Cue foreboding music! Break out the apocalyptic video filters! Prepare for mayhem.

The result is a clip that could make Karl Rove cackle, in which moneybags representing the national debt crash down from above, innocent children scrounge for pennies, and the president forces everyone to pay with food stamps.

Even the conservative blog Hot Air isn't sure what to make of it: "Should a news organization produce and publish attack ads like this?" writes Ed Morrissey today. Media Matters wonders if the clip violates News Corp.'s policy on contributing corporate services or products to political candidates and cites the company's own rule: "Always keep in mind that 'contribution' is defined broadly, and does not necessarily mean money."

Fox seems to have already pulled the video, but not before it made its way to YouTube, complete with an intro from the proud anchors. The fair and balanced part probably comes tomorrow — we can't wait to see what they come up with for Mitt Romney!

Link?

[tnedator]

While the leftist media (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC) have done similar stuff, not to mention ABC's Obama infomercial, I still was surprised when I saw this Obama piece run on Fox & Friends earlier in the week.

While it's completely accurate, and people should know about it, the general feeling of the piece is what you would expect from a campaign ad.

I think Fox needs to leave that level of partisanship to the leftist media.

[tnedator]

Link?

I know it was on the Foxnews site the other day. I didn't see it there, but I watched the video on Fox and Friends, told a friend at work, who then watched it on the website.

[barryr]

While the leftist media (CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC) have done similar stuff, not to mention ABC's Obama infomercial, I still was surprised when I saw this Obama piece run on Fox & Friends earlier in the week.

While it's completely accurate, and people should know about it, the general feeling of the piece is what you would expect from a campaign ad.

I think Fox needs to leave that level of partisanship to the leftist media.

Problem is that is just what the liberals want you to feel like. They want you to feel guilty and to feel obligated to play "by the rules" while they constantly violate those same rules themselves.

[TonyR]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zi15OtKquD0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TonyR]

I'm curious why you didn't seem to give a crap when msnbc cranked out an anti-Romney piece. Oh, that's right...


Did msnbc actually produce this?

[tnedator]

Problem is that is just what the liberals want you to feel like. They want you to feel guilty and to feel obligated to play "by the rules" while they constantly violate those same rules themselves.

Conservatives should hold themselves to higher standards. Just because the President and liberals not only lie, but herald it on TV as good 'political strategy' doesn't mean that conservatives should give up honor and doing what's right, just to win.

[barryr]

Conservatives should hold themselves to higher standards. Just because the President and liberals not only lie, but herald it on TV as good 'political strategy' doesn't mean that conservatives should give up honor and doing what's right, just to win.

Of course that is how you get Obama in 2008 and could get him in 2012 as well. But feel good you didn't act liberals? Ok.

[cutthemdown]

Newsflash the media is not journalism anymore. Fox is heavy handed politically to repubs. But that doesn't mean they don't do good sports, weather, local news. It's just all the major media outlets have agendas that lean one way or the other.

Still Fox has some egg on this one because they weren't supposed to do it on fox and friends.

[spdirty]

Whine all you want, you will never get me to stop watching Fox News.

http://s2.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jill_dobson.jpg

http://s3.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/julie_banderas.jpg

http://s3.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/martha_maccallum.jpg

http://s4.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/heather_nauert.jpg

http://s1.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/megyn_kelly.jpg


http://s4.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jane_skinner.jpg

and my new favorite.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/150282.jpeg

[DBruleU]

Whine all you want, you will never get me to stop watching Fox News.

http://s2.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jill_dobson.jpg

http://s3.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/julie_banderas.jpg

http://s3.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/martha_maccallum.jpg

http://s4.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/heather_nauert.jpg

http://s1.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/megyn_kelly.jpg


http://s4.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jane_skinner.jpg

and my new favorite.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/150282.jpeg

This.

Conservative women compared to liberal women...yeah, not even close.

[peacepipe]

Whine all you want, you will never get me to stop watching Fox News.

http://s2.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jill_dobson.jpg

http://s3.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/julie_banderas.jpg

http://s3.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/martha_maccallum.jpg

http://s4.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/heather_nauert.jpg

http://s1.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/megyn_kelly.jpg


http://s4.nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jane_skinner.jpg

and my new favorite.

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/150282.jpeg

this proving looks are only skin deep. as long as they keep their lips wrapped around "the bald avenger",I can deal with them.

[alkemical]

"I like my propoganda because it makes me think about sex"

Awesome...

[barryr]

This.

Conservative women compared to liberal women...yeah, not even close.

It's a good thing most liberal women have such great intelligence to fall back on instead :~ohyah!:

[alkemical]

So I take it you self termed "conservatives" didn't have sex until married, right?

[spdirty]

Here's some jerk off material for you liberals.

http://www.dailymakeover.com/appImages/galleryImages/all_womens_looks/Joy_Behar+Feb_11_2009.jpg

http://hisvorpal.wordpress.com/files/2008/12/rachel-maddow-olbermann.jpg

http://www.maletphoto.com/Politics/Broadcast-News/IMG7856-2/813703093_Qf5WA-L.jpg

[barryr]

So I take it you self termed "conservatives" didn't have sex until married, right?

And I take it you give half your money to those in need.

[alkemical]

And I take it you give half your money to those in need.

So, is that a no?

I'm asking a serious & honest question.

[barryr]

So, is that a no?

I'm asking a serious & honest question.

So anyone that considers himself a conservative has to maintain high morals(in reality, impossible) from birth until they day they die? It is easy for liberals since they don't believe morality is that important. But if living a clean, free life and never doing anything wrong in their personal lives is what a conservative is supposed to be, then where are the liberals who are giving away half their incomes to the needy since that is what they profess everyone else to do? Why do so many liberals like to call people "gay" in a demeaning way, but turning around and stating it is conservatives who hate gay people, but the liberals around here are the ones stating being gay must be wrong if that is how you demean people. There is far more issues too that can be used, so see, we can play this game all day.

[Drek]

This.

Conservative women compared to liberal women...yeah, not even close.

Wait, I thought all of Hollywood was a liberal propaganda machine. How does this selective dissonance work?

[alkemical]

So anyone that considers himself a conservative has to maintain high morals(in reality, impossible) from birth until they day they die? It is easy for liberals since they don't believe morality is that important. But if living a clean, free life and never doing anything wrong in their personal lives is what a conservative is supposed to be, then where are the liberals who are giving away half their incomes to the needy since that is what they profess everyone else to do? Why do so many liberals like to call people "gay" in a demeaning way, but turning around and stating it is conservatives who hate gay people, but the liberals around here are the ones stating being gay must be wrong if that is how you demean people. There is far more issues too that can be used, so see, we can play this game all day.

again, it doesn't answer my question. I don't care about your projected insecurities in which you hypocitically judge others with.

I just thought only 'real hippie chicks' put out.

[Requiem]

Pretty low standards if you think any of those women are remotely attractive.

[tnedator]

again, it doesn't answer my question. I don't care about your projected insecurities in which you hypocitically judge others with.

I just thought only 'real hippie chicks' put out.

As you are very well aware, not every conservative is "Tim Tebow" level religious. Some are very conservative when it comes to some social issues other to other social issues. Many are very conservative primarily with fiscal issues.

Just like not every liberal believes drugs should be legalized, gender based abortions (or any other kind) should be encouraged, and socialism is the best path for this country.

The problem with too many people, and it appears you fall into the group, is that they use VERY broad stereotypes and labels when talking about those in the other end of the political spectrum.

[barryr]

again, it doesn't answer my question. I don't care about your projected insecurities in which you hypocitically judge others with.

I just thought only 'real hippie chicks' put out.

Conservatives don't have to be able to recite the bible to be a conservative. Liberals are the last ones who should be talking about hypocrites. There is no subject invented yet liberals can't contradict themselves.

[spdirty]

Pretty low standards if you think any of those women are remotely attractive.

Yeah you, Blart, and sirhcyennek81 don't think the Fox News women are attractive. I get it.

[barryr]

Yeah you, Blart, and sirhcyennek81 don't think the Fox News women are attractive. I get it.

LOL, or they must not be a match to his blow up dolls :~ohyah!:

[Requiem]

Yeah you, Blart, and sirhcyennek81 don't think the Fox News women are attractive. I get it.

No, you really don't. You just tried to get a gay bash in there because you thought you were being funny. For me, I'm not into people who put on fifty pounds of make-up and lack the self-esteem to feel the need to be materialists and cave to societal pressures. Plus, I am not attracted to blondes. Not my cup of tea.

Here's a babe with some make-up on who smashes all those you posted:

http://iphonetoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Asian-Babe-1213-f.jpg

Boom.

[Requiem]

LOL, or they must not be a match to his blow up dolls :~ohyah!:

While you settle for the Terri Schaivo's of the world. Wait, I doubt you have been with a chick in two decades.

[peacepipe]

As you are very well aware, not every conservative is "Tim Tebow" level religious. Some are very conservative when it comes to some social issues other to other social issues. Many are very conservative primarily with fiscal issues.

Just like not every liberal believes drugs should be legalized, gender based abortions (or any other kind) should be encouraged, and socialism is the best path for this country.

The problem with too many people, and it appears you fall into the group, is that they use VERY broad stereotypes and labels when talking about those in the other end of the political spectrum.

:~ohyah!:your earlier post putting a broad stoke on the media. the"if it isn't promoting conservative ideals,it must be leftist" attitude on media really is a great example of using broad strokes.

[Requiem]

Generalizations are the penchant of the right-wingers on the board. Get used to it PeacePipe. Excuse me while I go take pennies to the bank!

[spdirty]

No, you really don't. You just tried to get a gay bash in there because you thought you were being funny. For me, I'm not into people who put on fifty pounds of make-up and lack the self-esteem to feel the need to be materialists and cave to societal pressures. Plus, I am not attracted to blondes. Not my cup of tea.

Here's a babe with some make-up on who smashes all those you posted:

http://iphonetoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Asian-Babe-1213-f.jpg

Boom.

First off, how in the hell was that a gay bash? Some folks find attractive women attractive, others don't. You don't find smokin hot women even remotely attractive. To me, that puts you in another category. Or you are way way waaaaaaay too damn picky. Hell I'm even partial to asians too but hot is hot. Here. I'll try again. With my 3 favorites. Jenna Lee, Megyn Kelly, and Julie Banderas.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_te_-NCYOffc/TTR42rYUvmI/AAAAAAAAD5w/xIhWUSiYp4w/s1600/jenna-lee-3.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_F-2ybd60FlE/SOBBqKksZ4I/AAAAAAAAFEM/220ddRj2j48/s400/jenna%2Blee%2B6.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/221509/MEGYN-KELLY-GQ.jpg

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/files/original/megynkelly32.jpg

http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/julie-banderas-redeye.jpg

http://www.thehotjoints.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/JulieBanderasHot.jpg

[tnedator]

:~ohyah!:your earlier post putting a broad stoke on the media. the"if it isn't promoting conservative ideals,it must be leftist" attitude on media really is a great example of using broad strokes.

I guess you don't know what a quote is, since you presented a statement as a quote from me, which I never said.

Try again, PP.

[alkemical]

As you are very well aware, not every conservative is "Tim Tebow" level religious. Some are very conservative when it comes to some social issues other to other social issues. Many are very conservative primarily with fiscal issues.

Just like not every liberal believes drugs should be legalized, gender based abortions (or any other kind) should be encouraged, and socialism is the best path for this country.

The problem with too many people, and it appears you fall into the group, is that they use VERY broad stereotypes and labels when talking about those in the other end of the political spectrum.

I know..trust me i know. What i'm trying to get to the root of, is the cognitive dissonance that people project onto issues. Often times, most people aren't even aware how myopic thier stance is due to where they've painted themselves in.

Most people here are only interested in being "right", and expousing their prejudices.

Me, i'm just marking down which ones are the zombies...

[peacepipe]

I guess you don't know what a quote is, since you presented a statement as a quote from me, which I never said.

Try again, PP.excuse for calling you out for being a hypocrit. I wasn't quoting you,I was pointing out your blatant hypocrocy.

[Requiem]

First off, how in the hell was that a gay bash? Some folks find attractive women attractive, others don't. You don't find smokin hot women even remotely attractive. To me, that puts you in another category. Or you are way way waaaaaaay too damn picky. Hell I'm even partial to asians too but hot is hot. Here. I'll try again. With my 3 favorites. Jenna Lee, Megyn Kelly, and Julie Banderas.

You knew what you were doing when you lumped me (straight) in with Blart and Sir. (Good guys, regardless of their sexual preference.) So maybe it wasn't a bash on gays, but you were trying to underhand me. And yes, I have high standards and am picky. I do not find those women you are posting to be attractive at all, well Banderas is pretty cute (the dark hair is FTW). I banged down one blonde before because she loved football, played co-ed softball and had D knockers.

Other than that, I'm into non-whites or super nerdy smart girls that can carry on an intelligent conversation. Not glitter faced turds who care more about their cell phones and what kind of shoes to wear than having life goals and aspirations. Call me old fashioned!

So, just because I am not interested in a couple of blondes from FOX NEWS does not mean I'm a homo, which is exactly what you were implying. You don't need to try and play stupid, but good try.

[barryr]

While you settle for the Terri Schaivo's of the world. Wait, I doubt you have been with a chick in two decades.

So you not only make fun of gay people, but now the disabled is worthy of your jokes. That is so tolerant of you :~ohyah!:

[cutthemdown]

Wow this is going to it's 3rd page soon. Liberals really don't have any good storylines to push right now do they? Walker is probably going to win the recall in Wisconsin, NC/FL/OH are slipping away from Obama, and even Bill Clinton likes Romney.

[barryr]

Wow this is going to it's 3rd page soon. Liberals really don't have any good storylines to push right now do they? Walker is probably going to win the recall in Wisconsin, NC/FL/OH are slipping away from Obama, and even Bill Clinton likes Romney.

The Walker recall was a big story around here not too long ago and with the election just next week, no talk about it, especially from the liberals who wanted him gone since he didn't back the unions? It couldn't be because polls are showing Walker winning and his lead even getting bigger every day? Nah :~ohyah!: The liberals will just either pretend it didn't happen, it suddenly isn't as important despite them making a big deal about it before, or will claim minorities weren't allowed to vote. It will be the same song and dance.

[Requiem]

So you not only make fun of gay people, but now the disabled is worthy of your jokes. That is so tolerant of you :~ohyah!:

I didn't make fun of gay people at all, unless you think me saying "I'm not a homo" was a bash on gays.

And my reference to Terri wasn't a bash on her, it was a bash on you in the realm of being able to get a woman that wasn't in a PVS or couldn't say no to you.

Terri actually looked pretty good before she became a vegetable.

[Requiem]

The Walker recall was a big story around here not too long ago and with the election just next week, no talk about it, especially from the liberals who wanted him gone since he didn't back the unions? It couldn't be because polls are showing Walker winning and his lead even getting bigger every day? Nah :~ohyah!: The liberals will just either pretend it didn't happen, it suddenly isn't as important despite them making a big deal about it before, or will claim minorities weren't allowed to vote. It will be the same song and dance.

Walker's lack of support for unions is just one of many reasons why he is being re-called. Might want to be informed on Wisconsin politics if you want to actually discuss them legitimately, but that isn't your cup of tea, so keep the generalizations and spin going.

[peacepipe]

http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/scott-walker-going-be-indicted-so

According to lawyers familiar with a Milwaukee criminal corruption probe, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is now a "target" for prosecution.

The legal sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Walker faces "serious legal challenges," including a "possible indictment" regardless of the gubernatorial recall election results on Tuesday.

The investigation began in 2010 when Walker served as Milwaukee County executive.

Six people have been charged, with accusations ranging from campaigning for Walker on government time to embezzlement. 13 other Walker associates have been given immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony in the case.

This week, Governor Walker acknolwedged he has now transferred $160,000 from his campaign accounts to a legal defense fund. Mr. Walker confirmed the money is strictly for his own defense and not for any current or former staff.

Lawyers for Governor Walker recently appeared at the Milwaukee courthouse but refused to say why they were there. The lawyers have also refused to comment on the Governor's status in the investigation.

On Tuesday, Wisconsin voters will go to the polls in the state's recall election. Fifteen months ago, Walker set off huge protests at the Capitol when he took aim at unions representing state government workers and passed a law ending many of their rights to collective bargaining.

[peacepipe]

looks like one way or another walker may be getting the boot.

[Requiem]

Walker leading in the polls isn't necessarily a vote in his favor as well. A lot of people in Wisconsin (and people in most re-calls) become apathetic about the process because it actually has caused more harm to the state than helped it. Nothing is getting done there right now because it is an absolute side-show. Most polls are within the margin of error, so it will be interesting to see how things go on Tuesday.

Bottom line is that dude is a crook and ****ed over so many people in that state, that I would be seriously surprised if he makes it. My family who came back from Wisconsin this past week simply cannot believe how that guy has gotten away with all the stuff he has done. I can't either. Dude is a turd.

[tnedator]

excuse for calling you out for being a hypocrit. I wasn't quoting you,I was pointing out your blatant hypocrocy.

I fully understand what you were trying to do, you just failed miserably.

[Spider]

Did msnbc actually produce this?

Lmao you really dont expect an honest answer do you ?.......lmao after years of dealing with pedophile bedwetters on line ,one thing i have learned there is reality then there is thier world..Just like with tned and his board .....ok to call the left names but your ass gets banned as soon as you fight back .....really a cowards board .... Bedwetting sissys

[tnedator]

Lmao you really dont expect an honest answer do you ?.......lmao after years of dealing with pedophile bedwetters on line ,one thing i have learned there is reality then there is thier world..Just like with tned and his board .....ok to call the left names but your ass gets banned as soon as you fight back .....really a cowards board .... Bedwetting sissys

Spider, I thought you were a better man than to lie through your teeth. Guess I was wrong.

[NUB]

I don't see how the video is any different from what one finds in an average Fox News program.

[tnedator]

I don't see how the video is any different from what one finds in an average Fox News program.

Unlike you, I watch a lot of Foxnews, and it is FAR different than an average Fox program. That could have been a campaign ad for Romney. While most, but not all, of their commentators and reports are conservative or conservative leaning, they typically give some degree of equal time by having a conservative and liberal point of view, typically with a debate of some sorts between two Dem/Republican strategist types. This, even if it was all factual, was presented in a campaign ad format, which is what I would expect from MSNBC, but am not used to seeing on Fox.

[spdirty]

You knew what you were doing when you lumped me (straight) in with Blart and Sir. (Good guys, regardless of their sexual preference.) So maybe it wasn't a bash on gays, but you were trying to underhand me. And yes, I have high standards and am picky. I do not find those women you are posting to be attractive at all, well Banderas is pretty cute (the dark hair is FTW). I banged down one blonde before because she loved football, played co-ed softball and had D knockers.

Other than that, I'm into non-whites or super nerdy smart girls that can carry on an intelligent conversation. Not glitter faced turds who care more about their cell phones and what kind of shoes to wear than having life goals and aspirations. Call me old fashioned!

So, just because I am not interested in a couple of blondes from FOX NEWS does not mean I'm a homo, which is exactly what you were implying. You don't need to try and play stupid, but good try.

I'm betting Megyn Kelly and Julie Banderas could verbally and intellectually rip you a new a-hole. And the cute little thing you posted.

I understand where you're coming from on the part of wanting an intellectual conversation from a woman. Or even to have a woman that will stimulate your mind. I get that.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tZ93liKuj_4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lGc6AvM-4Sg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And I know, I know, its just your preference, but the comment you made about being into non whites. Just, some advice. Its retarded to think like that. In fact it kind of upsets me. Because you are simply limiting yourself. Limiting your options. And then you end up settling. Settling for a woman that simply fits your criteria of who is suitable for you to date. She might not make you happy, but By God she fits that idiotic criteria you've set up. I don't know, its not the nerdy girls comment, but the non white comment I don't like. Because its limiting yourself. Limiting your own options of what you can have.

Just a little story, why I hate that mentality. My sister thought like that for 7 years and still thinks like that. She will only date black men. I really don't care why, don't want to know why. But she's now on her 6th black live in boyfriend. The previous 5 have all been complete scumbags. Beat her, scammed her, cheated on her, all that ****. The 6th, I liked him when I met him, but he has shown some red flags. And its not gonna last. But she is perpetually unhappy, and constantly supporting them, and what I really hate is that my niece is caught right in the middle of her bull****. Now when this one leaves, in a month she'll start dating another black man and here we go again. I've gone around and around with her. Screamed at her to stop limiting her options. And she won't. And because of that it'll be a damn miracle if she ever finds a good man that will treat her right. Because IMO, she doesn't deserve it. Because she limits her options.

The only criteria you should have in dating a woman is whether or not you think she could make you happy. If you ever talk to a white blonde and you have chemistry with her, don't shut it off because of her hair and skin color. Its just stupid man. JMO. Take it for what its worth.

[NUB]

Unlike you, I watch a lot of Foxnews, and it is FAR different than an average Fox program. That could have been a campaign ad for Romney. While most, but not all, of their commentators and reports are conservative or conservative leaning, they typically give some degree of equal time by having a conservative and liberal point of view, typically with a debate of some sorts between two Dem/Republican strategist types. This, even if it was all factual, was presented in a campaign ad format, which is what I would expect from MSNBC, but am not used to seeing on Fox.

You don't know how much I watch, there are no debates on American television, and Fox News lists most of its programming as entertainment. While you are shocked that this video ever aired, there it is. It aired. That is no accident. As for its contents... please. The idea that you think a four minute clip can convey what has happened to this country over the years says everything there is to know about your kind of mentality. Just cork it because I don't care. You're off on some other planet as far as I'm concerned, enjoy your news.

Oh and a person can be attracted to whatever or whomever they want. If some guy's sister likes deadbeat boyfriends then she likes deadbeat boyfriends. If some guy likes Asians, then he likes Asians. Screw off telling other people who they should date. It ain't your damn business.

[tnedator]

You don't know how much I watch, there are no debates on American television, and Fox News lists most of its programming as entertainment. While you are shocked that this video ever aired, there it is. It aired. That is no accident. As for its contents... please. The idea that you think a four minute clip can convey what has happened to this country over the years says everything there is to know about your kind of mentality. Just cork it because I don't care. You're off on some other planet as far as I'm concerned, enjoy your news.


I guess reading comprehension isn't a strong point of yours.

I didn't say the the four minute video clip conveyed what happened to the country over years. In fact, I even said that it was wrong for Fox to air it "even if it was all factual." I didn't say it was all factual or it was everything that happened over the years or anything of the sort, I said even if it was true, it was wrong to run it.

As to your love life, nobody cares what color girls or guys you get hot over.

[NUB]

This, even if it was all factual In fact, I even said that it was wrong for Fox to air it "even if it was all factual." I didn't say it was all factual or it was everything that happened over the years or anything of the sort, I said even if it was true, it was wrong to run it.

This is the most bewilderingly stupid paragraph I have read in at least a month.

I underlined the two portions that are wildly different that you insanely believe to be the same. I didn't underline you saying "even if it was all factual", "I didn't say it was all factual" in the spacing of a single period because that is mindblowing enough for one pass. Maybe it's not my comprehension that is the problem, and I don't believe it is since I've been trained in many forms of debate, but your incoherent writing or maybe penchant for screwing your own words around. If you write like a five year-old people are not going to assume the same things as you. Mind readers we are not, though I know exactly what you meant, but you don't want to stand by your words. I get it. No, seriously, I get it, I've seen it a hundred times, I know what you are doing. Have fun.

[tnedator]

This is the most bewilderingly stupid paragraph I have read in at least a month.

I underlined the two portions that are wildly different that you insanely believe to be the same. I didn't underline you saying "even if it was all factual", "I didn't say it was all factual" in the spacing of a single period because that is mindblowing enough for one pass. Maybe it's not my comprehension that is the problem, and I don't believe it is since I've been trained in many forms of debate, but your incoherent writing or maybe penchant for screwing your own words around. If you write like a five year-old people are not going to assume the same things as you. Mind readers we are not, though I know exactly what you meant, but you don't want to stand by your words. I get it. No, seriously, I get it, I've seen it a hundred times, I know what you are doing. Have fun.

Maybe if you didn't ready everything with your far left loony-ism, you wouldn't struggle with your reading comprehension.

My first quote was, "This, even if it was all factual, was presented in a campaign ad format, which is what I would expect from MSNBC, but am not used to seeing on Fox."

Hence, I was clearly stating that airing the ad in that format on a news station was wrong, EVEN if it happened to be factual material. I didn't say it was factual. I didn't say it summed up the years of the Obama administration (as you claimed in a post, which prompted my followup), I said "even if it was factual" that it was wrong to air that piece on a news station, because it looked more like a campaign ad for President Obama's opponent.

After you tried to twist my statement, I repeated that I was not saying that what was in the ad was "factual" or a summary of the Obama years, but instead that even if it was "factual" that it shouldn't have been aired.

Your behavior in here sums up the problem with the far left youth of today. Even when I am criticizing the very network that you so often have criticized, your twisted psyche is trying to read between the lines and find an attack on President Obama, liberals or possibly some type of back handed support for Fox news.

[Requiem]

I'm betting Megyn Kelly and Julie Banderas could verbally and intellectually rip you a new a-hole. And the cute little thing you posted.

Kelly has an impressive resume for sure and is a smart person. I don't know much about Banderas past history and education level. I am sure it would be a good debate.

I understand where you're coming from on the part of wanting an intellectual conversation from a woman. Or even to have a woman that will stimulate your mind. I get that.

Nice.

And I know, I know, its just your preference, but the comment you made about being into non whites. Just, some advice. Its retarded to think like that. In fact it kind of upsets me. Because you are simply limiting yourself. Limiting your options. And then you end up settling. Settling for a woman that simply fits your criteria of who is suitable for you to date. She might not make you happy, but By God she fits that idiotic criteria you've set up. I don't know, its not the nerdy girls comment, but the non white comment I don't like. Because its limiting yourself. Limiting your own options of what you can have.

Just a little story, why I hate that mentality. My sister thought like that for 7 years and still thinks like that. She will only date black men. I really don't care why, don't want to know why. But she's now on her 6th black live in boyfriend. The previous 5 have all been complete scumbags. Beat her, scammed her, cheated on her, all that ****. The 6th, I liked him when I met him, but he has shown some red flags. And its not gonna last. But she is perpetually unhappy, and constantly supporting them, and what I really hate is that my niece is caught right in the middle of her bull****. Now when this one leaves, in a month she'll start dating another black man and here we go again. I've gone around and around with her. Screamed at her to stop limiting her options. And she won't. And because of that it'll be a damn miracle if she ever finds a good man that will treat her right. Because IMO, she doesn't deserve it. Because she limits her options.

The only criteria you should have in dating a woman is whether or not you think she could make you happy. If you ever talk to a white blonde and you have chemistry with her, don't shut it off because of her hair and skin color. Its just stupid man. JMO. Take it for what its worth.

I know I was being myopic and quite ridiculous and I do thank you for the story and advice. Like I brought up in another thread, a blondie is in the cards for me this coming weekend at the lake. Should be a really good time. I have known her for a few years, but it was more like a "Oh hey, see you at a party type thing." Will be interesting to see where things lead, but I'm open to whatever. She plans on being a teacher so that is a pretty cool thing in my eyes.

[spdirty]

I know I was being myopic and quite ridiculous and I do thank you for the story and advice. Like I brought up in another thread, a blondie is in the cards for me this coming weekend at the lake. Should be a really good time. I have known her for a few years, but it was more like a "Oh hey, see you at a party type thing." Will be interesting to see where things lead, but I'm open to whatever. She plans on being a teacher so that is a pretty cool thing in my eyes.

Good. I hope you have a good time with her. I'm sorry though, I shouldn't have been so abrasive in how I said what I said. It's just that I know back in the day I had the same mentality in the fact that I would only date Asian women. And it took quite a while before i realized how stupid that criteria was. I think many people get stuck in that trap of only wanting to date a certain race or not wanting to date a race. Or a certain hair color comes into play. I really don't think its racism by any means. Its just a dumb way of choosing a mate.

You know, I'm a white guy, I remember I had my heart broken a couple times by a couple white women. Man I was wholeheartedly against dating white women. Hell no, not for me. Well, I ended up marrying an asian gal, **** went bad, we divorced, and I got a wake up call in what kind of woman I shouldve been looking for. I then went on dates with a black gal and 2 white gals, as well as a few others. The 3 I mentioned were all just a lot of fun to spend time around. Needless to say, I remarried my first wife for several reasons and we are learning how to love each other. That was the biggest problem first go round. Among other things. But just that experience was a hell of an eye opener to me. And 1 thing I know, especially since todays society is now accepting of interracial dating/marriage, is just don't limit your options. Sorry again for being abrasive. And I sincerely hope that, once you decide to settle down, that you find a woman that makes you happy.

[TonyR]

Who is the truthiest of them all?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/politifact-politifact-who-is-the-truthiest-of-them-all.html

[TonyR]

Dem ads 2:1 positive, GOP ads 2:1 negative.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-03/actually-obama-is-running-a-positive-campaign

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/battleground-states-its-already-campaign-season

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/obamas-positive-campaign.html

[El Minion]

Who is the truthiest of them all?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/politifact-politifact-who-is-the-truthiest-of-them-all.html

If we continue having a misinformed and purposely lied to electorate, you get people relatively manipulated into asking the wrong questions and believing in the wrong issues. The useful idiots:

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee379/gizmobrown/TeaBaggers-1.jpg

Can liberals cure stupidity? (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/05/can_liberals_cure_stupidity/)
One of the greatest obstacles to progressive causes is how ignorant Americans are about them
By Thomas Schaller

Last summer at a community fundraiser, I was conversing with a man who began to carp about runaway federal government spending. His was a reasonable complaint: Relative to the gross domestic product, both federal spending (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/government-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-2/) and the national debt (http://digitaljournal.com/image/91792) are near historically high levels. When I asked him what types of spending ought to be cut, he mentioned foreign aid. “What share of federal spending do you think goes to foreign aid?” I countered, knowing that the correct answer is just under 1 percent (http://one.org/blog/2011/02/18/foreign-aid-where-is-all-the-money-going/). “Forty-eight percent,” he hazarded as my jaw dropped.

Fast-forward to last week’s Gallup poll revealing that, when asked to estimate the share of their fellow Americans who are gay, 35 percent of respondents answered 25 percent and another 43 percent answered between 10 percent and 25 percent. As the Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta points out (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/), although the Kinsey Report’s most broadly inclusive definition put the figure as high as 10 percent, contemporary studies peg it closer 2 percent. In short, nearly fourth-fifths of the country believes homosexuality is more prevalent – and possibly five times more prevalent — than it in fact is.

The uncomfortable truth is that across a range of issues, many with important policy implications, Americans are simply misinformed, and often wildly so. Presuming citizens form their opinions based upon what they know about society and government, how in the world can even the most earnest politicians respond properly to preferences expressed by such a highly misinformed public?

Now consider the recent Gallup results in terms of their policy or political implications. Some Americans surely object to homosexuality based on religious or moral grounds, and would continue to do so regardless of their perceived size of the gay population. For the rest of America, however, misperceptions could cut either way: On one hand, the overestimates may help same-sex equality advocates because Americans realize that many of their co-workers, neighbors, clients and acquaintances are gay; on the other hand, the resistance to extend rights to any minority groups may grow in some proportion with the perceived size of that group. (Backlash against illegal immigrants, for example, seems to have grown with the rising numbers of immigrants.)

But on most other political questions, a confused public makes life difficult for liberal policymakers. The public grossly misunderstands who owns how much in America and who gets what from the U.S. government in ways that make liberal policy prescriptions harder to sell. Americans drastically underestimate (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph) wealth inequality in the country, undermining the case for raising higher-bracket income, inheritance or capital gains tax rates. Like the budgetary-challenged man I met last summer, Americans likewise tend to believe the U.S. government spends more (http://www.good.is/post/americans-are-horribly-misinformed-about-how-much-we-spend-on-foreign-aid/) than it actually does on items like foreign aid and welfare to the poor, and less on defense.

Such findings explain the paradoxical public preference for shrinking government spending even though, according to a YouGov/Economist survey (http://today.yougov.com/news/2011/04/21/deficit-reduction-americans-want-cuts-what-cuts/) last year, a majority of Americans only advocated less spending for one of 14 items polled — that dastardly 1-percenter: foreign aid. And as I’ve written elsewhere (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/what-is-government-waste.html), even if the definition of “waste” is subjective, the persistent belief among Americans that half of all U.S. government spending is wasted is difficult to square with reality — especially when, as the YouGov/Economist results show, solid majorities of people want to maintain or even increase spending on Medicare, Medicaid and defense, which alone comprise half of all federal spending.

Meanwhile, to President Obama’s great chagrin and partially resulting from his own communication failures, Americans remain very confused (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/poll-47-disapprove-of-health-care-law/) about the provisions of the Affordable Care Act: what it does and doesn’t do, when certain provisions kick in, what the law will cost, and so on. Again, it’s hard to square the circle (http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/03/paradox-of-affordable-care-act-and.html) of a public evenly divided on the legislation overall despite the fact a plurality if not majority of polled respondents support (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/16/369554/gallup-the-affordable-care-act-isnt-popular-but-its-provisions-are/) every major provision of ACA except the very unpopular individual mandate. Unless the mandate is so damning in the public’s mind that it ruins an otherwise acceptable bill, one of two things must be true: Either Americans oppose this law despite supporting all but one of its provisions, or they are just so completely in the dark about it they oppose it as a matter of reflex. (If the latter, the burden falls on the Obama administration and other proponents to explain and clarify what the legislation does and doesn’t do.)

As for the 2003 Iraq invasion, the most significant security policy decision since Vietnam? Long after the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf) and as late as 2007, more than 40 percent (http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Information-Misinformation-and-Missed-Information-Greg-Garrett-08-04-2011.html) of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, as did a startling 85 percent of military members fighting on the ground in Iraq. The consequences of that ignorance — 5,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, and a long-term cost to the U.S. treasury in the trillions — will continue to be felt for decades.

Despite an earnest Google search, I failed to find any comparable examples of political or societal ignorance that favor the left. Perhaps Americans, particularly those who are living in non-border states, underestimate the size of the illegal immigrant population, deflating conservative warnings about the impact they have on the American economy and public security. Momentarily channeling my inner George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/montana-attempts-to-buck-the-supreme-court-on-citizens-united/2012/05/30/gJQA4DCi2U_story.html), following the very unpopular (http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2012/01/two-years-after-citizens-united-voters-fed-up-with-money-in-politics/) Citizens United Supreme Court ruling perhaps citizens harbor exaggerated views of how much money corporations spend, overall or per capita, on political campaigns.

Even if misinformation does not uniformly advantage the right, ignorance has a clear ideological tilt. As the American Prospect’s Paul Waldman has argued (http://prospect.org/article/their-own-facts-0), conservatives not only have a vested interest in creating or at least perpetuating falsehoods about government, but they doubly benefit from the fact that many Americans who at some point in their lives relied upon government programs believe they never did.

Given that the public believes they are less dependent on a government that is actually less wasteful than they believe it to be, and that what the public doesn’t know may or may not hurt them, this much is clear: Their ignorance surely makes political life much harder for liberals.

Continue Reading Close (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/05/can_liberals_cure_stupidity/singleton/)
Thomas F. Schaller is professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and the author of "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South." (http://www.amazon.com/Whistling-Past-Dixie-Democrats-Without/dp/0743290151/sr=8-1/qid=1163470464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5309314-5746262?ie=UTF8&s=books) Follow him @schaller67.

[Spider]

No we cant cure it .....to many cutthemdowns and barrys .....i would suggest removing warninn labels off of products and let nature take it course. and let people like these take their chances......But no one will do it

[TonyR]

If we continue having a misinformed and purposely lied to electorate, you get people relatively manipulated into asking the wrong questions and believing in the wrong issues.

Yup. I mean look at tnedator, perfect example. Smart guy but misinformed enough to actually think it's the Dems/libs who are the "bad guys" here when the GOP clearly leads the way with misinformation and propaganda. The Dems/libs have nothing that can compete with Fox News and right wing radio on this front.