Fox News... Fair- AND Balanced! - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 03-06-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

It's amusing to watch Cali resort to ever more ridiculous hyperbole to try and defend his Messiah. I think he's starting to lose it.

Truth be told, no one including Limbaugh actually expects that Obama will take him up on his offer. His debate challenge is just gamesmanship--an attempt to one-up the opposition, if you will. We'll see if Emmanuel, Carville, and Begala can come up with a counter, but based on Gibbs, they may just fold and walk away.

Pretty funny.

In other words, you agree with me that Obama shouldn't debate Limbaugh and that Limbaugh is just pining for attention?

Phew- you are so disagreeable when agreeing with people.

Cali Coug · 03-06-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are the one that said; "Or does a discussion about Fox News require we also discuss Obama" Uhm, in this instance YES, a discussion about Fox News requires we also discuss Obama, because the article YOU linked to talks about Obama!

Unless of course logic does not apply here ... well then, I'll be happy to join you in the rabbit hole!

Did you get hit in the head with a hockey puck recently?

Tex · 03-06-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In other words, you agree with me that Obama shouldn't debate Limbaugh and that Limbaugh is just pining for attention?

Phew- you are so disagreeable when agreeing with people.

Um, no. Now you're just being a troll.

il Padrino Ute · 03-06-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Did you get hit in the head with a hockey puck recently?

You posted the link and bitched about Fox News. Did you think nobody would notice that the link was about how Fox News gets solid ratings by going after Obama?

Cali Coug · 03-06-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

You posted the link and bitched about Fox News. Did you think nobody would notice that the link was about how Fox News gets solid ratings by going after Obama?

Is this honestly this challenging to understand? You guys have a real issue with focusing on the topic. The article is about Fox News' chief saying he will attack Obama incessently, with my post then quipping about how Fox News is clearly not "Fair and Balanced" as they claim. OF COURSE I thought people would realize it is about ratings for them. Isn't that the point? That they are not "fair and balanced" but driven by ideology and/or ratings?

Tooblue, in yet another fit of confusion, then concludes that the topic is Obama being afraid of Fox News. Look- I understand the article says Obama's name, and that Obama is the focus of the attacks being directed by Fox News, but how you get from Topic A (Fox isn't fair and balanced because they openly pronounce a goal of attacking Obama) to Topic B (Obama is afraid of Fox News) and don't even realize that you are switching topics is either amusing or a cause for doubting your mental stability.

il Padrino Ute · 03-06-2009, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Is this honestly this challenging to understand? You guys have a real issue with focusing on the topic. The article is about Fox News' chief saying he will attack Obama incessently, with my post then quipping about how Fox News is clearly not "Fair and Balanced" as they claim. Tooblue, in yet another fit of confusion, then concludes that the topic is Obama being afraid of Fox News. Look- I understand the article says Obama's name, and that Obama is the focus of the attacks being directed by Fox News, but how you get from Topic A (Fox isn't fair and balanced because they openly pronounce a goal of attacking Obama) to Topic B (Obama is afraid of Fox News) and don't even realize that you are switching topics is either amusing or a cause for doubting your mental stability.

I acknowledged that the article was about Fox News hammering Obama. I like that is doing it in order to balance out the fellating of Obama by every other news source. You don't. So what?

SoCalCoug · 03-06-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot we were in absurdville where any person who doesn't accept a challenge from any person, no matter how stupid the challenge, is deemed afraid of the challenge and the challenger.

What're you, yellow?

tooblue · 03-06-2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Is this honestly this challenging to understand? You guys have a real issue with focusing on the topic. The article is about Fox News' chief saying he will attack Obama incessently, with my post then quipping about how Fox News is clearly not "Fair and Balanced" as they claim. OF COURSE I thought people would realize it is about ratings for them. Isn't that the point? That they are not "fair and balanced" but driven by ideology and/or ratings?

Tooblue, in yet another fit of confusion, then concludes that the topic is Obama being afraid of Fox News. Look- I understand the article says Obama's name, and that Obama is the focus of the attacks being directed by Fox News, but how you get from Topic A (Fox isn't fair and balanced because they openly pronounce a goal of attacking Obama) to Topic B (Obama is afraid of Fox News) and don't even realize that you are switching topics is either amusing or a cause for doubting your mental stability.

I must say you're likely a very good lawyer. But this isn't a court of law and your attempts to codify are futile. There is no change in topic. You posted about being fair AND balanced and my response is reasonable and on point:

"In a democratic society all sides must have a voice. What is Obama afraid of? If he is on morally, socially and politically higher ground then there is nothing to fear from the oppositional voices!"

It's a valid comment and a salient question. What does the head of the Democratic party or any Democrat (the association between the two is logical) have to fear from an oppositional voice? That's really what the article is talking about right -- oppositional voices that don't appear to be fair or balanced, especially in regards to Obama (or any Democrat -- the association between the two is logical).

You've intimated I'm crazy, stupid, absurd and have yet to answer any question I have posed. You then attempt to parse every discussion into neat and tidy prosecutable bits in order to further avoid answering my questions. Perhaps you feel we should all just shut up and listen to you? Oh well.

tooblue · 03-06-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

What're you, yellow?

Why engage when you can denigrate!

Tex · 03-06-2009, 06:52 PM

The word used in the article is "challenge" not "hammer." Pretty big difference. I think if you talked to David Gregory, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, over the last few years, they would all say they think it's their job to "challenge" the Bush administration.

Just because all the other media outlets are backing off their job doesn't mean Fox has to. What's all the hub-bub about?

03-06-2009, 06:52 PM	#20
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	The word used in the article is "challenge" not "hammer." Pretty big difference. I think if you talked to David Gregory, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, over the last few years, they would all say they think it's their job to "challenge" the Bush administration. Just because all the other media outlets are backing off their job doesn't mean Fox has to. What's all the hub-bub about? __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young