Because rightwingers and all the poor schmucks deceived by them in this country don't know how to use an internet browser. Man, that's tons of people there.
David Asman is the host of Forbes on Fox and anchor of the 12-1:30 p.m. ET portion of Fox News Live. His question above, corrected as you note, at absolute worst, could mean that perhaps Mr. Asman is a convervative as he indicates ("...if we had the votes..."), but this doesn't seem to flavor the spirit of his question, so I guess you miss the big picture... The question itself is fair and balanced; "...then why did you need a compromise?" as it puts Sen. Lott on the hotseat to explain his motive in the Senate... Asman generally interviews liberals and conservatives on his largely business related Forbes on Fox show!
I think that any sane and reasonable person (which means that Karl and ITN are excluded from the group) who saw the documentary "Outfoxed" would agree that FNC is the most biased news organization in the western democracy. The way the manipulate the facts for their worldview, then use mouthpieces that would have fit right into Goebel's propaganda machine is frightening. Unfortunatly, the other news organizations had to decided whether to just ignore FNC or go their way and they decided to turn to the right. I don't believe that FNC's influence will be this high forever. To quote Brian Wilson, columnated ruins domino and as people slowly recognized that they have been conned big time by the right wing, then FNC will slip into irrelivence. Also, when that happens, it will be fun to see Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity try and find work again.
I have to disagree with you. The Simpsons actually were threatened by FNC with a lawsuit when they mocked the channel in an episode a couple of years ago and I think the show has always has bent more left than right. King of the Hill is more conservative, but it also is a show that calls BS on things that are BS.
Very true but the raging nutjobs like ITN and Karl want to see "liberal" outlets like CBS and the New York Times shut down.
I enjoy reading posts from people who have an open mind and are receptive to points of view other than their own.
A little advice for everyone, stop watching all the 24hr news channels because they're all crap. Take them off your program guide if you've got satellite or dig. cable.
You may be surprised to learn this, but when I express hope that Arsenal will slaughter Man United, I don't literally wish that Patrick Viera would brandish a gun and shoot them dead. Simply killing Christiano Ronaldo would be enough. I'm joking of course. We all know that Ronaldo would collapse and act as if he'd been shot before Viera even pulled the trigger.
As Mr. Jon Stewart stated from The Daily Show.... "Anyone who uses any references to Nazism loses all credibility"....
The (Democratic) governor of NC tailors his policies and media events to people who watch King of the Hill. He has pollsters do polls just of people who watch that show. No, I'm not joking. Really. I'm not.
OK, Bill, time once again for you to search my 3000+ posts and find just one place, just one post, where I say The NYT and CBS should be "shut down." Again, once again, for the umpteenth time on this lefty moonbat playpen of a politics board, we have conclusion-jumping of the lowest order. The lowest, and the dumbest. And you wonder why I think you are all morons??
Fox News has hot babes That's the only reason to watch And to use the great liberal argument, if you don't like it or you find it offensive, change the channel
Man, are you livin' in a fantasy land. First of all, Fox is here to stay, and its ratings are only going to get higher. Whether either you or I like it. Second of all, all you need to do is read, as I do EVERY SINGLE FvCING DAY, The New York Time, particularly its "News Analysis" pieces. You want bias? Man, you'd get it in spades. Third of all, if you actually spent some time trying to find out the facts, you would know, for example, that Bill O'Reilly has had Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich on, and Brit Hume has Juan Williams on his Special Report program, and that Hannity has a partner on his show that is on the other side of the political spectrum. But hey, why bother with reality? After all, you're a lefty moonbat who would much rather demonize and condescend and act really really stupid that actually think with clarity and precision.
Sorry, Q, but I dissagree. I think some people who are very reasonable may conclude that the documentary 'Outfoxed' was very biased. And I think that people who are reasonable may very well dissagree about which is the most biased news organization in a western democracy. To state that all reasonable people will agree about one particular news organization being the most biased is, well......unreasonable.
First off, you were the one who said you could "live with" Fox. Really, do you have a choice? The rhetoric you apply here suggests an arrogant presumptuousness. Yes, sirree...you'll let 'em slide. This just in: it's not up to YOU. Second, your inabilty to distinguish the fact that the WSJ news pages, particulary its investigative pieces, have a liberal slant reflects your obtuseness. It's the equivalent of Dan Rather (in his interview with O'Reilly, by the way) saying that he thinks most of the MSM is middle of the road, as opposed to liberal leftists. Completely ignorant of reality. This particular leaning of the WSJ has been known for years. Third, the NYT doesn't anger me...it's amusing. It's a kick to imagine Krugman's neck veins bulging as he tap tap taps on the keyboard. Fourth, where, if anyplace on this board, did I say that Fox was "high quality news?" Again, once again, the lefty moobat conclusion jumping sensibility takes hold of you like some sort of intellectual mind-snatcher. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? If only there were some brain antibiotic to rid you of this peculiar mental infection!