I wish it were as simple as just me being nuts. Unfortunately the truth is stranger than fiction. Look you have to understand that I know how some of this sounds. Hell I am so skeptical these days of everything I hear. I just want to give people enough information to point them in the right direction. You have to understand how much info I hold back. None of this info is mine. Most of it comes from Colonels, Generals, and employees of Lockheed Martin. Hell I just recently met a man in Marietta that worked for Lockheed in their Skunkworks program. He told me things that just blew my mind. Like for instance he said that Lockheed provided advanced guidance systems back in the 80's to the Navy for an aircraft that was capable of space flight and was actually using a propulsion system based on a phased gravitational wave. He basically said that the craft operated using antigravity technology. This guy is pretty important as he had been working for Lockheed for about 30 years. Anyways not many people know this kind of stuff and skeptics will always call bs. Not sure exactly why.

I whole hearted believe that Fox News helped the Democrats re-take the House, Senate and White House and they'll continue to do so.

They're very gimmicky and would rather push borderline-shock stories than actual news.

If you take your average political moderate person and let them listen to Boortz, there's a good chance they'll say "You know, I understand this Conservative ideology now".

Let that same person watch Fox News for 2 hours and they'll think "wow, Conservatives are a bunch nutcases."

Also, Glen Beck has became out of control. He's an embarassment to Conservatism, but Fox News is gonna pimp him out for every dollar.

I know that the Dems and Progressives like to say that Republicans get their marching orders from Rush, but didn't I just hear Keith OldBlobberman just say, about two weeks ago, that Fox news wasn't a real News network and that made MSNBC the leading cable news network.

When will President Obama, Axelrod, Emmanuel and Gibbs realize that in order to reach the largest audience and change peoples mind, they need to go on the largest cable news network with the most moderates.

oh lord, here we go again...

the govt controls the weather...standing wave fronts...tesla death ray

tell me, if the govt has a facilty in australia that can control the weather, dont you think they'd make it rain? just a little?

You asked me to tell you ONE good thing about Obama?

Seriously? Just one?

He changed the face of America overnight.

But see, while I (and many, many others) view this as a good thing. You view it as weakness. As something other than good.

I could go on with the good things but, what's the point? You've chosen to see things differently. By your very words (Illegal) you show that there is no telling you about the good. Only feeding your need to bash.

Good luck with that.

I'll go you one better - Bush's one good thing - Iraq.

"Fox - "Today the majority Democrats rammed through X legislation and it will go to the Senate on Wednesday with an almost certain approval waiting. Some people say this could lead us further down the path of Socialism. Reporting from Capitol Hill is Blondie Von Bustyblouse. Blondie, what is the reaction from the floor of the House this morning? After a brief Dem-bashing, the anchor cuts to commercial, which just happens to be a commercial for Hannity: “The government is trying to take over your healthcare, but can it be stopped? Chuck Norris is on Hannity tonight, for a fair and balanced investigation, tonight at 6.”

Well your analysis is not exactly fair and balanced! Blondie? Kiss my grits!

The opinion guys come on in the afternoon, when everyone tunes in after work to watch "news." The reality of the situation is, you can’t get NEWS at 7:30 at night, you can only get opinion, and this is how/why opinion becomes news. The guys I'm talking about on flatbeds, yes, they were on Hannity and O'reilly and Beck and Greta, even Fox and Friends, but they were also on during the middle of the day, when the 'news' is on. Yes, those remotes were out there cheerleading. I know the difference between news and opinion, the fact is, the midday anchors interject their own opinions into the news (remember the griping on here about Shepard Smith last week when he opined on Healthcare? His is a -news- show), so the whole of the day becomes one opinion piece after another. That said, I do like their WH correspondent, Major Garrett, he's pretty objective and asks challenging questions.

Here is a clarification:

News - "Today, the House passed X legislation by a 287-146 with two absentees. Supporters of the bill claim that it will do such and such, while opponents are stating that it will cost this and that. A list of the voters and their votes can be found at our website. In other news, Michael Jackson’s death was ruled as a homicide today by a district judge. Now for a commercial break….

Fox - "Today the majority Democrats rammed through X legislation and it will go to the Senate on Wednesday with an almost certain approval waiting. Some people say this could lead us further down the path of Socialism. Reporting from Capitol Hill is Blondie Von Bustyblouse. Blondie, what is the reaction from the floor of the House this morning? After a brief Dem-bashing, the anchor cuts to commercial, which just happens to be a commercial for Hannity: “The government is trying to take over your healthcare, but can it be stopped? Chuck Norris is on Hannity tonight, for a fair and balanced investigation, tonight at 6.”


One is a statement of fact, while reporting different perspectives. The other is mentioning an event, then reporting on perspectives while phrasing the questions so as to drive the story in a certain direction.

Fox, boiled down, is sensationalism, and they are an outlet that exploits our unhealthy desire for the next scandal, fictitious or not. This is why each time there is a traffic jam that they report on, the first questions are ‘could this be terrorist-related?’ Seriously… I just would like facts, and Fox mixes them in so thoroughly with opinion, it is a challenge at times to distinguish the two.

IVAN...........no jokes.....

No harm done here. We know Obama is not really Presidential. The media just spends a lot to time and effort trying to make that happen.
Listen folks, watch and listen to all sources. Consider why some media outlets don't cover some stories and why some stories are repeated ad naseum. If you can sit there and think of at least 5-10 questions that should be asked to garner more information, and the questions aren't asked,,,then you should start to wonder about the NEWS reporting. IT has been obvious to most that the alphabet soup media outlets have NOT done honest reporting and have NOT offered balanced reports. Fox is not my favorite but it provides more insights and news ticklers that make you go "hmmmmm"? than the other media sources. Just like Boortz,,,he might not be a little off on the facts,,but he does make you go "I wonder". If he doesn't, somethings not working up there or or you are too rabid a follower.

Ron Paul should be President that much is obvious. The reason he is not is because the people that he opposes runs the show. There was no possible way they were going to give Ron Paul a fair shake because he would have REAL solutions to fix the economy unlike the current and previous administrations that are dead set on destroying our nation.

Ivan.......when the SECURED thingy is used........do giant 'shroons grow?????

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802260.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

IVAN............you're keepin' secrets from me????? or was alkihall involved when you tol' me?????????????

Way to go SFC MAC! I greatly appreciate those links and your service.

Thanks C.

Of course they had WMD's...but that ain't why we are in Iraq. It isn't even for the oil exactly even though that is a tiny part of it. Honestly the truth of why we are in Iraq and why we are still there is too much for the average person to understand and quite frankly if someone were to tell you why you would not believe them. Hell your own mother or father could tell you and you would not believe them. The only reason why I know is that I have multiple sources that have confirmed it to be true and I know of similar locations in other places on the Earth that have already been "handled" so to speak. All I can tell you right now is that Sadaam got his hands on something very important. Important enough for the US government to turn its attention from Afghanistan. The reason why the focus has shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan is not because Iraq is any more safe now or whatever reason they want to cook up it is because they have found what they were looking for and have now secured it. God this is so difficult not coming right out with what it is. I promise though if it looks like the right time to disclose this information I will.

East Coast,

Again, I ask, and again you'll probably ignore the question, which is killing any credibility you might have had:

What viewpoints do Rush and Beck have that do not agree with conservative values. What is making them "extremists" that you, as a conserviative, do not agree with?

Focus!! Answer the question please!!

Fox lost credibility with me when, during the Republican Primary, Fox invited all the top Republican Candidates, less Ron Paul, to a debate. In his place, they brought in Fred Thompson, who was spooled up in their hype machine for the months leading up to his announcement of candidacy. He had something like 15,000 votes and NO momentum, and Ron Paul had millions of votes and a strong following. Fox decided to give Thompson a shot instead of Paul, and that demonstrated an absolute agenda – an agenda that supports the Republican party’s survival and not the actual diversity of ideas which needs to be present to further an intelligent national debate. They knew that putting Paul up there would lead more intelligent conservative and libertarian voters away from the eventual nominee, and that would give the Dems a greater chance of winning, and so they kept him out of the spotlight. All that did was destroy his credibility as a viable candidate for the office of President.

I dare any conservative out here to say they’d rather have McCain in office over Paul, or to say they’d rather have Obama in office over Paul. Please, let your voice be heard!

Fox News did all of America a disservice when they silenced the strongest voice in the Libertarian movement the night they hosted the Republican Primary debate.

I'll take a try at that.
Let's see – hey!, He can read speeches off of a teleprompter.

He's shown us absolute danger that is Statism.
Unfortunately, we're also going to learn the HARD WAY about the absolute FAILURE that is Statism.

He's shown that is it way more preferable to judge a person based on the content of their character rather that the color of their skin.
i.e. people foolishly voted for him based on the color of his skin rather than wisely voting against him based on his extreme lack of experience.
Again, unfortunately, we are all going to Pay for that lack of experience and lack of character.

Okay, I guess none of those things are actually Good things about Fauxbama.

I am an Iraq war veteran (twice over), former Intel Analyst, (in counter terrorism), and retired Army Sergeant First Class.

You're just another one of the ignorant fools who either didn't pay attention, or believes whatever Keith Olberrmann spews. Here are the facts:
1) Declassified NGIC report:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

2) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

3) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

4) Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/PolishChemMunitions070204.html

5) Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
The rest here:
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/no-lies-about-iraq/

Now, go back to editing your profile on the IVAW site.

I'm sorry, I kind-of have to agree with Axelrod - though that doesn’t mean i agree that it is prudent for the White House to single out a "news" station.

Fox has a definite right-leaning bias. A real news station would simply report facts... Period. No conjecture, no cheerleading, no "some people say" lead-in's. During the Tea Party protests, you didn’t see Fox remote reporters simply stating facts, showing the turnout... no, you saw them standing on flatbeds and shouting to the crowds, leading them in cheers, chants, stoking them up. That isn't journalism. Their entire prime-time lineup is Beck, Smith (a moderate), O'reilly, Hannity, and Greta (whose sole purpose is to follow the latest missing white girl case). When they do have a liberal come on, they only find the most unkempt, ugly, retarded persons they can find... like crypt keeper Alan Colmes. And who gave Steve Doocy a job? That dude is a complete idiot, along with all the other throwbacks on Fox and Friends. ...No liberal, centrist, or common-sense leaning at all on that show.

They focus on flashy graphics, sound effects, and the hottest female anchors on the planet (which gets spoiled when Malkin and Coulter get on... they are just angry, unattractive women). That is how they get ratings... would you rather look at Chris Matthews, or look all up Gretchen Carlson's legs? They make sure to include them in all her camera shots (after all, she was a Miss America winner, and that makes you Fox-worthy, just like Carrie Prejean, or Survivor cast member Elizabeth Hasselbeck).

CNN and MSNBC are certainly no better, but they don't BOAST about being fair and balanced when they aren't. They make no claims about seeing both sides of an issue fairly, and then go against those claims.

So, from this perspective, I agree with Axelrod. Going on Fox is about as friendly as going on Limbaugh. Fox has an agenda. They get ratings by either standing up for the underdog (Bush), or bashing the incompetent administration (Obama), but in neither case are they objective. You didn't see Bush making the rounds on every station, only on Fox. Why? Because he knew where his friends were. Obama’s just returning the favor, and Fox is eating sour grapes because they now aren’t in bed with the White House.

Yes, Fox’s NEWS news is pretty straight forward and fair, but that is simply the regurgitated reporting of the AP, BBC, and Bloomberg news sources that every cable news station reports. When it comes down to it, all their facts are basically the same, it is the commentary, specifically from dumb anchors, that separates Fox from the rest. The anchors focus on scare tactics and spend little time explaining or investigating, and more time asking questions that stoke insecurity and fear in their audience.

I can't let you get away with your argument that the war of the union over the confderate states was a civil war. Your definitions are sound, but your history isn't. The Confederacy was at that time a separate nation with a constitution, a currency, a president, and a congress. Those states had already seceded, so there was not one country involved in the war; there were two. White or not, nationalist or not. Now, based on your other statements, your viewpoints are clearly not even worth dignifying, but history is history. The "civil war" was not a civil war, no matter how much you hate Boortz (though here you are, posting on his website. hmm.)

It was a "collective" now, encompassing the entire Obama regime. Oops, now Jimmy D will have to use his dictionary.

He plays basketball like a nerdy white guy. That's kinda good, huh? Maybe it means he's smart?

For the last nine months, the anti-American, liberal democrats have been calling the American people "terrorists", "right-wing extremists", "racists", "brownshirts", "nazi's", and a "nation of cowards!".

The sad part is that when they went on the air, Fox News was a good source of news. The liberal bias was nonexistant, and they presented all points of view even having their own Crossfire type show (Hannity and Combs). Their motto "we report, you decide" was sincere.

Now unfortunatly they have sold out to the extremists, factual news reporting replaced with "opinion journalism" and extremist hosts (Beck and Hannity.

Don't get me wrong, we need good news coverage that will report the good and bad about both sides. Just seems like Fox has sold us out and making the job harder for true conservatives as FNC turns people against our candiates.

If you want to have an idea about things to come watch this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5tflIA4W9c

If Fox News is so insignificant, then why is the most powerful "man" in the world spending so much time attacking them?

So what exactly was your example supposed to prove?

"To be fair, media outlets often use press releases as bases for their stories, especially when reporting on breaking news. Most outlets, however, identify the information as being part of a release."

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to cite the original source of the information... which they did.

WEAK

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said

"Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."

Video of Dunn's remarks at the conference can be seen below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLR5jHlytRg&feature=player_embedded

I hate to break it to those of you who take Fox News or ANY of the main stream news as gospel because they all hide aspects of the truth to promote different corporate/political agendas.

if you want to see how this came about watch this movie.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/orwell-rolls-in-his-grave/3033937675

If you want to see real, unbiased journalism you must watch Katie....oh, I can't even type that with a straight face.

MATTISBEN...........check fo' rats, roaches and crabs.........and quit drinkin' the home made stuff......

that tingle was goin' down your leg.....check into depends.....removes alot of problems......

however if the information goes against the Republican party line in any way you can expect spin. This has unfortunately become the norm for the entire mainstream media. I hate to break it to those of you who take Fox News or ANY of the main stream news as gospel because they all hide aspects of the truth to promote different corporate/political agendas. Even people like Alex Jones and the REAL alternative media promote certain personal agendas. It gets extremely confusing from the Fox News side of things cause you have men like Glenn Beck that basically steals 99% of his material from Alex Jones and then attempts to put a "kosher" Republican spin on it and then proceeds to sell it as his own. If you are a fan of Glenn Beck you are AUTOMATICALLY a fan of Alex Jones because when you see Glenn Beck's mouth moving you know that Alex Jones said it first by default. The difference between the two is that Glenn Beck has to keep certain subjects closed whereas Alex Jones does not. The reason that Glenn Beck has to stay quiet is because if he talks about certain subjects like the FACT that 9/11 was an inside job Rupert Murdock and his gaggle of corporate fiends will swoop in and destroy Beck. Hell Beck has probably already signed his resignation notice in advance after he accidentally admited that the FEMA camps are indeed real and that they are for American citizens. He quickly changed his story after Murdock made the call. We are in troubling times right now because the people who control the media also know the truth that they cannot disclose. I cannot figure out if it is by their decision that information is withheld or if they are being threatened. I think it could be a little bit of both. Heavy stuff huh?

They'll be knocking off the so-called network programs soon if the alphabet soup brigade can't get their act together and actually start reporting stories that don't necessarily make Anita Dunn happy. Investigate everything coming out of Washington instead of taking it at face value. You know, be a watch dog for the people like media is supposed to be!!!

you mean i can't gargle with the dye? it makes me see all kinds of colors....

"Just so you understand, this is the network who sat around one morning and discussed Glenn Beck's idea that Obama was a racist."

Nothing wrong with discussing something on a news channel. Just because you don't like the subject doesn't make it un-newsworthy, Mr. Bias.

And by the way, Obama is a racist, without question. Let's put it in your liberal point of view: If a white man attended Klan rallies every week for 20 years, but claimed that he went, but didn't really agree with what they were saying, you'd rightfully cry "bunk!"

But with Obama doing the exact equivalent with his church, I can literally visualize you covering your eyes, going, "Nope nope I don't see that, it's not really there, nope Obama isn't racist at all!"

I can tell that you are fairly intelligent, especially for a liberal, but here your bias is affecting your view drastically.

when in fact, he's really a fascist. just like the republican party.
By tshirt-doctor.com

These days, one "ism" is pretty much the same as another, just varying degrees of left or right.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Fox_News_passes_off_GOP_press_0210.html

you can stop waiting :-)

the part you leave out is that your "combined" numbers are prime time viewership.

In other words, opinion programs, not strictly news.

and they're all dwarfed by network news numbers.

Fox news does dominate cable news - very true. But they do that by having very popular opinion shows during primetime.

But "popular" gets skewed a bit when you include the big three networks regular programming. Compared with network news numbers...or say, any primetime entertainment shows, cable news numbers in general are rather small.

I used the term "TV News Sources", not "Cable News Networks". This includes not only the usual cable news networks, but other sources too, including the broadcast networks. You can count the financial news networks too if you want, as well as some of the niche international news sources (including foreign language news services) that some cable and satellite services offer.

Anyway, the network news broadcasts on CBS, NBC, and ABC regularly attract a combined total of about 25 million viewers. Fox News' top program, the O'Reilly Factor, attracts a little over 3 million. (rather than my posting a bunch of long URLs to cite sources, just Google "TV news ratings").

So, yes, Fox News has a rabid fan club of loyalists, but in a nation of 300 million people, it is hardly the unstoppable force that some people claim it is. And if Fox News were as powerful as you think it is, why has the nation become bluer and bluer with each successive election since Fox went on air?

Nice try Axelrod but it is not good enough! The government take over of so many industries including the old media IS UNAmerican. Try to discredit your last critic to control every corner is actually Soviet. Hang tough FOX News the Bolsheviks want you gone!

Jimmy,
Do you have any intelligent remarks to make to these threads or are you just in a hurry to do your "drive by comments" so you can get back to your Dungeons & Dragons game in your mother's basement?

That news week "article" was one of the more humorously idiotic pieces I've read in some time. Did that author actually use the phrase 'fair mindedness of the rest of the media' with a straight face? LOL, what bunch of delusion and ridiculous nonsense.

The formula for liberal argument is to yell something long enough and loud enough for the opposition to tire of the silliness. Then declare yourself the winner. No need for facts or evidence (Jessie and Al -vs- Duke LaCrosse team). I've seen 3-4 year olds use the same tactic.

Chuck - great reference..."If I were the king of the forrreeest".

Jimmy D - Your arguments are as weak as Axelrod's 'stache.

liberal = hypocrite

2012 people. We need to render this maniac completely unable to do further damage. Vote VOTE VOTE VOTE. Let him sit there in his castle and make plans that will never happen.

I can't help but notice that you post on this site quite regularly if not daily. I find it rather amusing that you condemn viewers of Fox News saying, "those who watch the other news outlets actually have lives that are comprised of more than just sitting around hating people all day" all the while taking time from your day each day to make comments that you know most of the people here disagree with. Something about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here. I also appreciate that your comments seem to have no basis whatsoever. It seems to be a common theme amongst you and your likeness.

Cat's eye- Sorry, I have to interrupt my Fox News watching, hating people all day life to go to work. We can't all sit home on the couch getting handed government issued "assistance" all day. And please provide examples of Fox News promoting "hate". Don't even start with Glenn Beck....he is telling us the truth and one of few people on TV not drooling and peeing themselves over how much they worship Obama.

They should up your meds and take away the keyboard and for God's sake put your hospital gown back on!

I love the accusations of "Faux News". I'm going to give you a chance here. Tell me of an example, and that's an example you can back up with hard evidence and not something you read on MediaMatters, of where the news being reported on Fox is fake. I'm not talking about the opinion shows, I'm talking about the actual news. I'll wait.

Let's stipulate for the moment that almost all TV media outlets have a left wing bias. Well, if there are 8 left wing TV news sources, and 1 conservative TV news source, which one do you THINK would win the ratings?

The multitudes of "left wing" TV outlets are fighting for the same viewers; Fox, on the other hand, has very little competition for those in a certain position on the political spectrum.

Fox also benefits from the fact that so many of its viewers watch Fox 24/7 (unless they take a break to listen to Rush), while those who watch the other news outlets actually have lives that are comprised of more than just sitting around hating people all day.

How does it feel to be dumb enough to believe this is my real name? Obviously you havent seen me on in a while. And this is the reason why conservatives are seen as the biggest morons in trailer parks.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

You called Fox News "...the area of ideas."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Man, thank you. That was awesome.

Just so you understand, this is the network who sat around one morning and discussed Glenn Beck's idea that Obama was a racist.

Yes, area of ideas... if you're ideas happen to be craven and shallow and inspire the worst in all to the benefit of the GOP.

most folks decide not to call those ideas simply because it paints them with to plain a brush.

Notice how he mentions that he won't even try to defend his position on FOX. A cowardly move if I ever saw one. Kinda like Gore and his idea that the topic is already decided so no need for any debate on the issue EVER!

The writer is a fraud. Liberals cannot debate in the area of ideas.

Popularity contest? You mean like the last election? We get the best of all worlds with the Tin Man, the Straw Man, and the Cowardly Lion and you want to lecture us about how ratings are a popularity contest? Go watch your tivo American Idol Jimmy. And how does it feel being named after a slang term for a condom?

That's okay. Obama isn't a real president.

I am not sure if you are correct saying that Bush did not allow his folks on MSNBC. Let's assume you are right, the Bush white house never attacked MSNBC.

Yeah, that's right. A real news station offers infomercials for the messiah without rebuttal (ABC). A real news station backs fabricated evidence against their political opponents (CBS). A real news company hires and backs plagiarists (NYT). A real news outlet runs with internet lies without fact checking, but will fact check comedy spoofs. (CNN).

I severely doubt that you will find anywhere near the ethical problems and bias obfuscation on FNC as the other outlets. The WH is just upset that there happens to be someone out there that will actually question them rather than cheerlead like good little state propaganda puppets.

How are those viewership numbers over at MSBNC, CNN?

How are those book sales doing that promote the left's agenda? Rocking the NYT best seller list I suppose?

I watch the BBC all of the time. And I admit Fox news sucks with Whoraldo and Shep taking up airtime. Hannity is worthless and repetitive, O'Bloviator is full of himself.

But you know what? Fox news is the only cable news service asking the tough question, while Wolf Blitzer fact checks SNL skits for accuracy in case anyone may have had their opinion of his awesomeness dinged a bit.

News = Saying whatever the White House wants you to say.

Right Wing Agenda = Reporting anything other than what the White House wants you to say.

Yeah, that sounds about right!

Ooohhhh...way to get over on us! That chickensh@* MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and the rest of the networks try to pass off as 'legitimate news' just does not float, amigo. Ever try watching Chris Wallace? Ever heard of Juan Williams? Seen Shepard Smith report the news after 7 pm? No! You haven't and you won't because they don't give us enough differing opinions regarding what is news rather than report it as they want you to hear it( ala: the left)that we can decide for ourselves what we think is real and what is not. Does Fox jazz it up to make it sexier? Sure, why not? When you have intelligent, attractive women on your network, use it to your advantage. You're just pissed because Keith Olbermann doesn't answer your fan mail. You should stop sending him your underwear, dude.

Axelrod is a slimy political operative that has abolutely NO credibility with me. Besides, he looks like a very bad caracature of a 1950's insurance salesman.

Ahh, how predictable. The typical whiny response from the Republitards when someone finally calls them out. Anyone with an IQ over 50 has known from day 1 that Faux News is nothing more than the PR department for the republitard party. It's funny how they are afraid to even listen to real news organizations, not just the American networks, but foreign news organizations also. They have known far longer than than the U.S. what a con man Rupert Murdoch is.

The truth is, Faux News belongs in the back row alongside such bastions of journalism as The National Enquirer and Weekly World News. And the truth hurts, doesn't it?

I watch FOX for my news, and I'll be the first to admit that they do have a moderately conservative bias. However, it's much less pronounced than the extreme left-leaning bias shown by all the other cable news stations and networks. In short, while FOX is not perfect, they come closer to presenting the truth than anyone else.

I REALLY wish that there was a news organization that would simply present the facts, challenge BS on all sides when they smell it, and leave the decision-making up to me. I don't need a goofball from journalism school telling me how ta o think.

The Bush administration did not allow its people to appear on MSNBC . . . Former GOP-Congressman and now MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough acknowledged as much on his broadcast this morning.

if the WH pushes this idea, they could end up billing FNC for "donations in kind" to the repub party. It would be an end run around the fairness doctrine (or lack thereof).

It would be a stupid move on their part, but forgive me if I don't think that will stop them from considering/trying it.

is not really a man. So I guess I can whip his useless stalinist ass with self righteous reactionary populist impunity if he ever gets within arm's reach of me.

By the way I detest Fox news, I just wanted an excuse to express mean spirited domestic terrorism based hate of an administration figure. What an FN ferret faced M efer.

Coming from a shameless hack like Axeldork, that's pretty much all the Democrats can come up with. He's counting on people like 3mbw, who probably never actually watches Fox,to nod their heads in unison. I smell desperation from the Left. You know you can't win based on the merits of your arguements so you try to turn it around. I wonder how bad things have to get before they mass for a banzai charge? By the way 3, thank you for making my points for me with your lame rebuttal on Friday. Being wrong isn't so bad unless you are too blind to see it. And you, my dear, have designer blinders on.

Obama is not real president that loves his country. He seems to be filled with self hate as an American and takes every opportunity to show disrespect to America and Western values. Who needs freedom or liberty when we have his awesomeness? BTW - I'm still waiting for my free gas and Obama taking over my mortgage payment. WDF is wrong with them up in DC?