NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/05/fox_news_banner_on_nancy_pelosi_100_hours_to_turn_america_into_san_francisco.php#more

Sean Hannity was full of predictably peevish partisanship last night (1/4/07) on Hannity & Colmes as he made the ludicrous claim that the Democratic agenda of raising the minimum wage and combating global warming “because they have spent way too much time watching Al Gore’s new DVD” was out of step with America. But two FOX News banners were unusually biased, even by FOX News standards.

Well that's just lovely, I predict Fox is going to get much nastier now with a Democrat Majority in the House.

I love the footer in that first pic--100 Hours to Turn US Into San Francisco. If only that would happen! I lived in San Francisco for two years and would love it if we could make the country as a whole a lot more like that city.

No surprise here. Absolutely no talk about the sweeping ethics reform, or re-instituting "pay as you go". Faux news needs to shrivel up and die. The only thing that Clinton did as president that I hate was de-regulating the airwaves to the point that allowed this "news" network to rear its ugly, pus-filled head.

I love the footer in that first pic--100 Hours to Turn US Into San Francisco. If only that would happen! I lived in San Francisco for two years and would love it if we could make the country as a whole a lot more like that city.

Oh no! 100 hours to turn the whole US into..... a part of the US!


The horror! The horror!!!


lmfao!

Hmm....

San Francisco or Berlin. *ponders*

...


Hmm...


After careful consideration, I'd have to say I prefer San Francisco. :)

Oh no! 100 hours to turn the whole US into..... a part of the US!


The horror! The horror!!!


lmfao!

IIRC, the phrase "San Fransisco Democrats" was used during an election in the Reagan years by the GOP, it was an attempt to make them seem disconnected with mainland America, only caring about their own city and their own tiny minority.

"When the Soviets walked out of disarmament talks, the San Fransisco Democrats blamed the U.S. But then again, the San Fransisco Democrats always blame America first."

So now Fox is parroting GOP propaganda, fair and balanced, eh?

Apparently, Faux News is afraid that by 2008 Congress will look like this...


http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/323/hippiescg2.png (http://imageshack.us)


Or that this will be our new National Anthem

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/190528/jimi_hendrix_purple_haze

Apparently, Faux News is afraid that by 2008 Congress will look like this...


http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/323/hippiescg2.png (http://imageshack.us)


Or that this will be our new National Anthem

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/190528/jimi_hendrix_purple_haze

Is there a downside to this? :)

Apparently, Faux News is afraid that by 2008 Congress will look like this...
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/323/hippiescg2.png

No, no. This is what they are afraid of:

http://images.worldofstock.com/slides/PAD1396.jpg

Which will lead to:

http://gay-gop.cf.huffingtonpost.com/Arlen-Bill-Orrin-Pride.jpg

Is there a downside to this? :)

Hell, no. I like the idea. In fact that's eactly what my NS nation is.

No, no. This is what they are afraid of:

http://images.worldofstock.com/slides/PAD1396.jpg

Which will lead to:

http://gay-gop.cf.huffingtonpost.com/Arlen-Bill-Orrin-Pride.jpg

Is there a downside to this? :)


:D

Is there a downside to this? :)

:D

Well, it's not very vegan.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/05/fox_news_banner_on_nancy_pelosi_100_hours_to_turn_america_into_san_francisco.php#more



Well that's just lovely, I predict Fox is going to get much nastier now with a Democrat Majority in the House.

Remember kids,

This is what happens when you put to much stock in commentators who have no clue what they are talking about. You will wind up like the people who wrote this article and the poster as well as the person they are tallking about. :rolleyes:

IIRC, the phrase "San Fransisco Democrats" was used during an election in the Reagan years by the GOP, it was an attempt to make them seem disconnected with mainland America, only caring about their own city and their own tiny minority.

"When the Soviets walked out of disarmament talks, the San Fransisco Democrats blamed the U.S. But then again, the San Fransisco Democrats always blame America first."

So now Fox is parroting GOP propaganda, fair and balanced, eh?

As Fass has already alluded, it's really just a way of saying "gay" without saying "gay." They're using "San Francisco Democrat/liberal" as a way to scare bible belt homophobe base members. And it's not even really subtle.

Remember kids,

This is what happens when you put to much stock in commentators who have no clue what they are talking about. You will wind up like the people who wrote this article and the poster as well as the person they are tallking about. :rolleyes:
Now, are you talking about Hannity or about the Newshounds person? Because it seems to me like the Newshounds person has a legitimate point to make--s/he's using Fox screenshots after all, not photoshopping them or anything.

Well, it's not very vegan.

There's no such thing as vegan. :p

Remember kids,

This is what happens when you put to much stock in commentators who have no clue what they are talking about. You will wind up like the people who wrote this article and the poster as well as the person they are tallking about. :rolleyes:

Care to point out what you think I have no clue about?

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/GOP.speeches.past/84.kirkpatrick.shtml

As Fass has already alluded, it's really just a way of saying "gay" without saying "gay." They're using "San Francisco Democrat/liberal" as a way to scare bible belt homophobe base members. And it's not even really subtle.
Bible belt homophobes don't really do subtle--their subtlety sensors have been stunted from so many years of having the Bible shout "Bad! Nasty!" at them.

There's no such thing as vegan. :p

Man meat doesn't count, LG.

Am I the only one who think that that new speaker is kind of hot considering she's a mother of five?

I bet you this is Pelosi's file photo on Fox.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2493/divine.jpg
She looks so divine.

Am I the only one who think that that new speaker is kind of hot considering she's a mother of five?

And a granny too, multiple times over.

Now, are you talking about Hannity or about the Newshounds person? Because it seems to me like the Newshounds person has a legitimate point to make--s/he's using Fox screenshots after all, not photoshopping them or anything.

And anyone who knows hannity knows he is just a commentator. He has points too but in this case, I think he is off his rocker. Heck, I do not even watch nor listen to him because I think he is nuts most of the time.

And yes, she is from San Francisco so she could be called a San Francisco Speaker. I do not think she'll turn the country into San Fran though as a Presidential Veto can end anything and there is not sufficient votes to override it.

Am I the only one who think that that new speaker is kind of hot considering she's a mother of five?

She looks better than Laura Bush, which isn't very hard, or Ann Coulter, which isn't really fair since he's not a woman.

Care to point out what you think I have no clue about?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/GOP.speeches.past/84.kirkpatrick.shtml

The fact that you are using commentaries and other people's opinion to demean one side shows you do not know that much about how the news media operates. Everything is commentary these days hence why I do not trust the press all that much.

And using commentary to try to prove a point is also meaningless to me.

She looks better than Laura Bush, which isn't very hard, or Ann Coulter, which isn't really fair since he's not a woman.

If you lived in Texas with Mr. Bush, you'd look like that too.

Do you have any laws in the US that says that the media must be objective? News programs anyway.

Man meat doesn't count, LG.

That's okay. My wife is an omnivore. :D

That's okay. My wife is an omnivore. :D

Hmm, I would have thought she spat...

Do you have any laws in the US that says that the media must be objective? News programs anyway.

Not anymore. We used to have a "fairness doctine" which the Regan admin did away with. Then the final nail was Clinton, under repo perssure, de-regulated whatever was left, leaving us with the parody that is the american television media.

The fact that you are using commentaries and other people's opinion to demean one side shows you do not know that much about how the news media operates. Everything is commentary these days hence why I do not trust the press all that much.
Hannity is part of that other side, thats kind of why I used his opinion to demean rather than Anderson Cooper's or Scarborough's. Hannity was hired and is payed by Fox for his commentary, if they disapproved of it, Hannity would not be there.

And using commentary to try to prove a point is also meaningless to me.
Then ignore the commentary.

Not anymore. We used to have a "fairness doctine" which the Regan admin did away with. Then the final nail was Clinton, under repo perssure, de-regulated whatever was left, leaving us with the parody that is the american television media.

In Sweden, political commersials aren't even aloud on television, not even before an election.

Hmm, I would have thought she spat...

Nope. :)


((P.S., if I suddenly vanish without a trace never to be seen again, it's because my wife saw this, killed me and buried me behind the tool shed.))

In Sweden, political commersials aren't even aloud on television, not even before an election.

Nonsense. They are allowed, and you must have lived under a rock to have missed them last September - for instance the Moderates' spoof ad showing reels of socialist demonstrations with the text "they've been demonstrating for almost a century - it's time someone listened".

Do you have any laws in the US that says that the media must be objective? News programs anyway.

No for we have this thing called freedom of the Press.

Nope. :)

((P.S., if I suddenly vanish without a trace never to be seen again, it's because my wife saw this, killed me and buried me behind the tool shed.))

Both would be good on her.

Hannity is part of that other side, thats kind of why I used his opinion to demean rather than Anderson Cooper's or Scarborough's. Hannity was hired and is payed by Fox for his commentary, if they disapproved of it, Hannity would not be there.

That is not 100% true. They also pay Colmbs who broadcasts for the otherside of the equation. Let us not forget that perhaps one of the best balanced shows on FNC is Bret Hume.

I do not care if Hannity is on the right or not. The point is, no one should dehumanize anyone because of ideology. That does nothing for the political spectrum as it has been shown throughout the years.

That is not 100% true. They also pay Colmbs who broadcasts for the otherside of the equation. Let us not forget that perhaps one of the best balanced shows on FNC is Bret Hume.

I do not care if Hannity is on the right or not. The point is, no one should dehumanize anyone because of ideology. That does nothing for the political spectrum as it has been shown throughout the years.

Don't you mean "comlbs"?

Nonsense. They are allowed, and you must have lived under a rock to have missed them last September - for instance the Moderates' spoof ad showing reels of socialist demonstrations with the text "they've been demonstrating for almost a century - it's time someone listened".

They aren't aloud. That was one single commersial and it wasn't even that common. I watch TV very much and only saw it once. It was probably on a channel that sends from abroad to.

In Sweden, political commersials aren't even aloud on television, not even before an election.I think that would be a good idea.

I do not care if Hannity is on the right or not. The point is, no one should dehumanize anyone because of ideology. That does nothing for the political spectrum as it has been shown throughout the years.

I'm not dehumanizing them, I'm trying to demonstrate that the show is bias and is smearing the new Speaker of the House in an uncalled for fashion.

Meh! If Hannity had the balls to have her on, she would shred him.

I'm not dehumanizing them, I'm trying to demonstrate that the show is bias and is smearing the new Speaker of the House in an uncalled for fashion.

ONE PERSON on Fox News (as far as this story is concerned anyway) is doing so. And anyone who knows hannity knows he picks on everything.

Am I the only one who think that that new speaker is kind of hot considering she's a mother of five?
She is definitely a SHILF.

Meh! If Hannity had the balls to have her on, she would shred him.

I bet it would be like watching the show where he had Jon Stewart. Jon kinda made Hannity look like a big stupid idiot, not that he needed help.

She is definitely a SHILF.

:confused: straw?

They aren't aloud.

Yes, they are allowed.

Förresten, "aloud" ~ "högt (ljudande)", "allowed" = "tillåten".

That was one single commersial and it wasn't even that common. I watch TV very much and only saw it once.

So, how could you see it if it's not allowed? Think before you type, please, and get your facts straight.

It was probably on a channel that sends from abroad to.

I saw it several times on my local channel, which airs from Sweden. For you see, the law states "i sändningar för vilka villkor om opartiskhet gäller får det inte förekomma meddelanden som sänds på uppdrag av någon annan och som syftar till att vinna stöd för politiska eller religiösa åsikter eller åsikter i intressefrågor på arbetsmarknaden." This requirement of "unbiasedness" only applies to public service TV (SVT) and TV4. The other channels are not affected, even if they air from Sweden, and they have aired political ads.

:confused: straw?Speaker of the House I'd Like to F@$#.

ONE PERSON on Fox News (as far as this story is concerned anyway) is doing so. And anyone who knows hannity knows he picks on everything.

On the July 21 broadcast of his radio show, FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly previewed his coverage of the upcoming Democratic National Convention, calling Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) "no good" and urging voters in South Dakota to "vote for the other guy." He also called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "a nut" and "a fanatic" and insulted various other prominent Democrats.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230007
To no one's surprise Bill O'Reilly has already started smearing and making personal attacks.(something that he whines about endlessly when its done to him)


On the October 15 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume baselessly smeared House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), stating that she "is not a popular figure or respected figure nationally." Continuing, Hume asserted that "her behavior will be more visible than ever, more conspicuous than ever" and "I suspect that" having Pelosi as speaker of the House of Representatives "would not be terrifically positive" for "the possibility of Hillary Clinton being nominated or even elected in 2008."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005

Brit Hume's claims were indeed baseless but at least not at the level of O'Reilly's or Hannity's attacks.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=aswvR35fPV0

Fox and Friends being ever so patronizing, and concentrating specifically on Pelosi.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230007


http://mediamatters.org/items/200610150005

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aswvR35fPV0

So you are quoting something from Mediamatters which is a liberal, mind you liberal, media watchdog group against Bill O'Reilly who did not say this on the FNC but on his very own radio show. Mind you, he does have his own show seperate from his post as a commentator on the Fox News Channel. Well done on not differentiating between the two.

As to Bret Hume, please point out where he might be inaccurate.

I love the footer in that first pic--100 Hours to Turn US Into San Francisco. If only that would happen! I lived in San Francisco for two years and would love it if we could make the country as a whole a lot more like that city.

Ah yes, San Fran-freako!!
Where deviancy, unbridaled sexuality, homelessness, sadism, drug addictions, hostility towards the US and the military, and do what you want when you want mentality reigns supreme.

All we can hope for is for the Big One to hit finally and sink that Soddom and Ghomorrah into the sea.

Ah yes, San Fran-freako!!
Where deviancy, unbridaled sexuality, homelessness, sadism, drug addictions, hostility towards the US and the military, and do what you want when you want mentality reigns supreme.

All we can hope for is for the Big One to hit finally and sink that Soddom and Ghomorrah into the sea.

:headbang:

And its people like this on the right that really piss me off more than Hannity does.

Yes, they are allowed.

Förresten, "aloud" = "högljutt", "allowed" = "tillåten".



So, how could you see it if it's not allowed? Think before you type, please, and get your facts straight.



I saw it several on my local channel, which airs from Sweden. For you see, the law states "i sändningar för vilka villkor om opartiskhet gäller får det inte förekomma meddelanden som sänds på uppdrag av någon annan och som syftar till att vinna stöd för politiska eller religiösa åsikter eller åsikter i intressefrågor på arbetsmarknaden." This requirement of "unbiasedness" only applies to public service TV (SVT) and TV4. The other channels are not affected, even if they air from Sweden, and they have aired political ads.

That was the only one and it was very uncommon because not many partys like to waste a lot of money on political ads on channels that very few watch. I only saw one commersial and it was on channel 8 which almost nobody watches. Besides, I think viasat sends from abroad but I'm not sure.
It's not allowed on public service and that's were all the political disscussions take place. Therefore political commersials are almoust non existant in Sweden compared to other countries.

Both would be good on her.

But then who would open the really tight jars? :(

Ah yes, San Fran-freako!!
Where deviancy, unbridaled sexuality, homelessness, sadism, drug addictions, hostility towards the US and the military, and do what you want when you want mentality reigns supreme.

All we can hope for is for the Big One to hit finally and sink that Soddom and Ghomorrah into the sea.

Look maw Im on dah innernet!

:headbang:

And its people like this on the right that really piss me off more than Hannity does.

I suppose you like having to spend more taxes on social programs to help keep homeless homeless and call it a lifestyle? Or de-clawing the Police Department to near impotency so that they cant do their job efectivly? And people wonder why crimes increased in SF? you people make me laugh. Drugs, sex, prostitution, and welfare! I'd rather not see that as the norm in the US.

Look maw Im on dah innernet!

look maw, I can make love to a man and a woman. give me my gay marrage!

Ah yes, San Fran-freako!!
Where deviancy, unbridaled sexuality, homelessness, sadism, drug addictions, hostility towards the US and the military, and do what you want when you want mentality reigns supreme.

Brilliant, isn't it? :D

Drugs, sex, prostitution, and welfare! I'd rather not see that as the norm in the US.

Except for congressmen.

:D

Except for congressmen.

:D

did you know that the top four millionare congressmen are:
Democrats?!! gasP!!

That is not 100% true. They also pay Colmbs who broadcasts for the otherside of the equation. Let us not forget that perhaps one of the best balanced shows on FNC is Bret Hume.
Two points: to call Colmes a counterpoint to Hannity is a joke, and a not particularly funny one. And to call Hume's show one of the best balanced on FNC is to damn it with faint praise, since all that means--to you alone, apparently--is that it's less of a Bush circle jerk than the rest of the shows. But a Bush circle jerk is unquestionably is.

look maw, I can make love to a man and a woman. give me my gay marrage!

Sweetie, I think somebody needs to explain to you that "gay" usually means either a man or a woman (depending on your own sex), not a man and a woman.

Don't worry though; when your first boyfriend bends you over and makes you a man you'll soon get the idea.

did you know that the top four millionare congressmen are:
Democrats?!! gasP!!

Good. If they're already well off, that makes them harder to buy. :)

So you are quoting something from Mediamatters which is a liberal, mind you liberal, media watchdog group against Bill O'Reilly who did not say this on the FNC but on his very own radio show.
I'm aware of that, but the fact that they are directly quoting O'Reilly makes source validity irrelevant to me. Also, the fact that Bill did not say it on the O'Reilly Factor does not change the fact that O'Reilly is bias against Pelosi.

As to Bret Hume, please point out where he might be inaccurate.
CNN poll found that 35 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Pelosi, 29 Percent having a negative view of Pelosi.

I suppose you like having to spend more taxes on social programs to help keep homeless homeless and call it a lifestyle? Or de-clawing the Police Department to near impotency so that they cant do their job efectivly? And people wonder why crimes increased in SF? you people make me laugh. Drugs, sex, prostitution, and welfare! I'd rather not see that as the norm in the US.

And you think I'm a lefty? You know? I got on one poster for demeaning someone of the opposite ideology now I'm going to get on you. Its posts and rhetoric like this that makes me sick of politics. Its people like you that assists in widening the devide between all ideologies. It does nothing for politics and it just makes things worse. Its people like you that drive the moderates out of politics leaving us with the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.

Sweetie, I think somebody needs to explain to you that "gay" usually means either a man or a woman (depending on your own sex), not a man and a woman.

Don't worry though; when your first boyfriend bends you over and makes you a man you'll soon get the idea.

ooo nice one.
gay means man + man or woman + woman.
man+man and woman also mean Bi-sexual. which is also part of being gay. ie swinging with a man and and woman if you are a man or woman. best of both worlds.
So. i suppose you missed my point. quit the pot man. its messin with your brain!

And you think I'm a lefty? You know? I got on one poster for demeaning someone of the opposite ideology now I'm going to get on you. Its posts and rhetoric like this that makes me sick of politics. Its people like you that assists in widening the devide between all ideologies. It does nothing for politics and it just makes things worse. Its people like you that drive the moderates out of politics leaving us with the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.

Preach it, brotha! :cool:

I'm aware of that, but the fact that they are directly quoting O'Reilly makes source validity irrelevant to me. Also, the fact that Bill did not say it on the O'Reilly Factor does not change the fact that O'Reilly is bias against Pelosi.

He may have a bias but since it was said away from Fox News, it cannot be used in this thread as it is dealing with Fox News.

CNN poll found that 35 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Pelosi, 29 Percent having a negative view of Pelosi.

Which leaves about 36% in the middle. Also, may I see a link to this poll please.

And you think I'm a lefty? You know? I got on one poster for demeaning someone of the opposite ideology now I'm going to get on you. Its posts and rhetoric like this that makes me sick of politics. Its people like you that assists in widening the devide between all ideologies. It does nothing for politics and it just makes things worse. Its people like you that drive the moderates out of politics leaving us with the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.

i never called you a lefty did I?

I just merily pointed out what goes on in San francisco. Its just that you cant handle that fact!

ooo nice one.
gay means man + man or woman + woman.
man+man and woman also mean Bi-sexual. which is also part of being gay. ie swinging with a man and and woman if you are a man or woman. best of both worlds.
So. i suppose you missed my point. quit the pot man. its messin with your brain!

Honestly, I think you've missed your own point. By quite a margin.

i never called you a lefty did I?

You implied it.

I just merily pointed out what goes on in San francisco. Its just that you cant handle that fact!

Again, you are implying something. I know what goes on in San Fran for I have relatives in Northern California.

You implied it.



Again, you are implying something. I know what goes on in San Fran for I have relatives in Northern California.


am I wrong on the fact that the Police department can't do its job? did you know San Francisco hs the lowest conviction rates in the US? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/17/MNGPO2DL831.DTL Now why is that? Pepper Spray cant be used against criminals, as well as tazers.
LA has a lower crime rate compared to SF. now why is that? answer me that.
http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Los+Angeles&s2=CA

am I wrong on the fact that the Police department can't do its job? did you know San Francisco hs the lowest conviction rates in the US? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/17/MNGPO2DL831.DTL Now why is that? Pepper Spray cant be used against criminals, as well as tazers.
LA has a lower crime rate compared to SF. now why is that? answer me that.
http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Los+Angeles&s2=CA

And give me one good reason why I should answer a lunatic like you?

am I wrong on the fact that the Police department can't do its job? did you know San Francisco hs the lowest conviction rates in the US? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/17/MNGPO2DL831.DTL Now why is that? Pepper Spray cant be used against criminals, as well as tazers.
LA has a lower crime rate compared to SF. now why is that? answer me that.
http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Los+Angeles&s2=CA

If you'd even bothered to read the first article, you would see that the DA there prefers rehab over conviction for addicts and the like.

He mentions that it is indeed hard to convict people, but you cleverly ignored the fact that they rehabilitate more people than average.

EDIT: If you look at the crime statistics (who the hell compiled these anyway? There's no citations at all!) Violent crime is lower in San Fran (except murder, which is .2...whatever scale they're using higher) and robbery is higher in San Fran. This couldn't relate to San Fran being a richer city?

And give me one good reason why I should answer a lunatic like you?

oh, so now that I give you some insite and facts as to how retarded SF is, I am the lunatic? You say SF is great and we should all be like it, prove it.

If you'd even bothered to read the first article, you would see that the DA there prefers rehab over conviction for addicts and the like.

He mentions that it is indeed hard to convict people, but you cleverly ignored the fact that they rehabilitate more people than average.

And yet, SF still has a higher crime rate per 100,000 people than LA and New York.
wow, that rehab is really working well there!

I don't see what the big deal is about Fox News, I enjoy watching it as is they really do give fair and balanced news, although, admittingly, they might show some biasness everynow and then. But in actuality, thats no different from all the other media. People bitch and complain about Fox and say all these things but when it comes to the leftest media, people just shrug it off as some sort of conspiracy agaist liberals.

As for Pelosi, i do not like her myself, especially after looking at some of the bills and laws that she supports. Her being the Speaker of the House gives her a lot of power that i do not feel comfortable with her having.

And before anybody tries to flame me for this, please don't but San Francisco is a very Liberal City and i myself am more of a centrist but i still do not agree with many of her views.

oh, so now that I give you some insite and facts as to how retarded SF is, I am the lunatic? You say SF is great and we should all be like it, prove it.

Where the hell did I say that SF was a great city?

He may have a bias but since it was said away from Fox News, it cannot be used in this thread as it is dealing with Fox News.

Fine, I'll try to find something he said on The Factor that is a smear against Pelosi.

Which leaves about 36% in the middle. Also, may I see a link to this poll please.

Depends on how you define popular, I think he implied that she was disliked in the Congress, which would be very false.

Now this is strange, the poll they sourced is an even 22 percent split between favorable and unfavorable, perhaps it changed, I can't see them making such a blatant lie and then linking to the source that reveals it. Either the poll changed, or the people that sourced it are the worst bullshitters in the world.

http://www.pollingreport.com/P-Z.htm#Pelosi

I don't see what the big deal is about Fox News, I enjoy watching it as is they really do give fair and balanced news, although, admittingly, they might show some biasness everynow and then. But in actuality, thats no different from all the other media. People bitch and complain about Fox and say all these things but when it comes to the leftest media, people just shrug it off as some sort of conspiracy agaist liberals.

And people wonder why I do not trust watchdog groups, watch cable news, etc anymore. Its all ideology. If it disagrees with you, its evil. If it agrees with you, its the greatest thing since crackerjacks.

As for Pelosi, i do not like her myself, especially after looking at some of the bills and laws that she supports. Her being the Speaker of the House gives her a lot of power that i do not feel comfortable with her having.

Not to mention, she is third in line for the Presidency as of now.

And before anybody tries to flame me for this, please don't but San Francisco is a very Liberal City and i myself am more of a centrist but i still do not agree with many of her views.

Thank you for your opinion and your honest post.

Where the hell did I say that SF was a great city?

sorry it wasnt you.
it was Nadkor.

but you did automatically jump on me for merily stating that Frisco is pretty messed up. And unfortunately it is the liberal capitol of the US, so pretty much goes to show how well they really are.

Fine, I'll try to find something he said on The Factor that is a smear against Pelosi.

Thanks :)

Depends on how you define popular, I think he implied that she was disliked in the Congress, which would be very false.

That would indeed be true for if there was, she would not have been minority leader nor speaker of the house.

Now this is strange, the poll they sourced is an even 22 percent split between favorable and unfavorable, perhaps it changed, I can't see them making such a blatant lie and then linking to the source that reveals it.

http://www.pollingreport.com/P-Z.htm#Pelosi

interesting indeed. Thanks :)

That was the only one and it was very uncommon because not many partys like to waste a lot of money on political ads on channels that very few watch.

Again, nonsense. There were several other ads, both by the Moderates and the other parties, and they were not rare at all.

I only saw one commersial and it was on channel 8 which almost nobody watches. Besides, I think viasat sends from abroad but I'm not sure. It's not allowed on public service and that's were all the political disscussions take place. Therefore political commersials are almoust non existant in Sweden compared to other countries.

Face it, you were pulling things out of your ass. Political ads are allowed in Sweden and are part of political strategy.

I don't see what the big deal is about Fox News, I enjoy watching it as is they really do give fair and balanced news, although, admittingly, they might show some biasness everynow and then. But in actuality, thats no different from all the other media. People bitch and complain about Fox and say all these things but when it comes to the leftest media, people just shrug it off as some sort of conspiracy agaist liberals.
I don't think many of the news outlets are bias, as in CNN or the BBC. However, a lot of people on here ignore any liberal bias media, such as Keith Olbermann or MSNBC.

As for Pelosi, i do not like her myself, especially after looking at some of the bills and laws that she supports. Her being the Speaker of the House gives her a lot of power that i do not feel comfortable with her having.

I'm not 100% in line with her either, however I think this slandering is way out of line.

And yet, SF still has a higher crime rate per 100,000 people than LA and New York.
wow, that rehab is really working well there!

The website linked shows no sources, just statistics. Where did they get them? Are there circumstances outside what we see that affect the statistical analysis?

Even a basic statistics course will show you how sensitive studies are. Fuck, they proved statistically that ice cream sales are directly correlated to instances of rape in a given area.

I don't see what the big deal is about Fox News, I enjoy watching it as is they really do give fair and balanced news

Bwahahahahaha!

Face it, you were pulling things out of your ass. Political ads are allowed in Sweden and are part of political strategy.

I should have written on public service, okay? Get over it and move on with your life.

I should have written on public service, okay?

No, what you should have written is: "I had no idea what the law says, so I shall now go on to make shit up."

Get over it and move on with your life.

Learn to admit when you are wrong, or when you are making things up. Especially when you're caught at it.

The website linked shows no sources, just statistics. Where did they get them? Are there circumstances outside what we see that affect the statistical analysis?

Even a basic statistics course will show you how sensitive studies are. Fuck, they proved statistically that ice cream sales are directly correlated to instances of rape in a given area.

Based on the final 2005 FBI Crime Statistics

The website linked shows no sources, just statistics. Where did they get them? Are there circumstances outside what we see that affect the statistical analysis?

Even a basic statistics course will show you how sensitive studies are. Fuck, they proved statistically that ice cream sales are directly correlated to instances of rape in a given area.

guess the FBI is full of crap then, right?

News Hound is a joke anyhow

One thing I would like to point out here:

I'm not against a conservative bias media outlet, what bugs me about fox is that they portray themselves as moderate, unbias, and speakers for the vast majority of America; and portray other media outlets as leftist and liberal bias. What they are trying to do is shift the center way to the right, in order to portray moderates and people who lean to the left as extremely left. This is at best disinformation, and at worst propaganda.

If Fox were to simply drop the pretense and call themselves what they are: conservative, I really wouldn't care.

And people wonder why I do not trust watchdog groups, watch cable news, etc anymore. Its all ideology. If it disagrees with you, its evil. If it agrees with you, its the greatest thing since crackerjacks.



Not to mention, she is third in line for the Presidency as of now.



Thank you for your opinion and your honest post.

I want to thank you for not jumping all over me as i have found many here do because of my views, as they tend to be more to the right then others.

As of now, i think our country is to divided, i mean we have liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, lefts, rights, and everything between and above these. I know we are all entitled to our opinions and that it is through sharing these opinions that things get done. But it seems as if all sides just keep arguing over who is right and thing is no one is. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer, life isn't nearly that simple, if it was, do you think there would be this big mess in Iraq. I think that its time for our nation as a whole to put aside all these differences to try and to come together as one for the good of everyone. I know this may never happen but our ideas/beliefs are all we have.

*sorry if this seems weird but i just got finished watching HOTEL RWANDA, this was one of the few movies that brought tears to my eyes as i watched it. Its a very good movies and i'd avise anyone to go and see it. :)

Nope, but that doesn't mean the statistics aren't pointing to something else. Maybe more people live within the boundaries of San Francisco than in either New York's city limits, which would increase the rates of crimes committed there.

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Detroit&s2=MI

Can you explain that statistic, given that I'm fairly certain Detroit's cops use guns and convict people?

guess the FBI is full of crap then, right?

Pretty Much.

No, what you should have written is: "I had no idea what the law says, so I shall now go on to make shit up."



Learn to admit when you are wrong, or when you are making things up. Especially when you're caught at it.

Well I admit that I was wrong about private channels and should have written Public Service but why do you care so much? Big deal. I didn't make anything up I just didn't wrote public service. It seems like it affected you very much anyway. Move on.

Nope, but that doesn't mean the statistics aren't pointing to something else. Maybe more people live within the boundaries of San Francisco than in either New York's city limits, which would increase the rates of crimes committed there.

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Detroit&s2=MI

Can you explain that statistic, given that I'm fairly certain Detroit's cops use guns and convict people?

have you even been to Detroit?
heck I live in Chicago and we got a crappy crime rate too.
but Detroit is its own special case. Poverty, gangs, drugs.
out of control there. Last I checked there arent very many
ghettos in SF.

I don't think many of the news outlets are bias, as in CNN or the BBC. However, a lot of people on here ignore any liberal bias media, such as Keith Olbermann or MSNBC.


I'm not 100% in line with her either, however I think this slandering is way out of line.

Once again, not to start anything but i think i saw something somewhere, where they said the BBC does have a liberal bias

here is a link if it helps of one source

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We%20are%20biased,%20admit%20the%20stars%20of%20BBC%20News/article.do

The only thing that Clinton did as president that I hate was de-regulating the airwaves to the point that allowed this "news" network to rear its ugly, pus-filled head.
So NAFTA, welfare gutting, same-sex marriage ban and the various bombing campaigns were all good by you?

[Clinton] has signed a bill providing for federal funds to be distributed to "faith-based" charitable organizations.

He has expanded the number of federal crimes for which the death penalty can be given to a total of sixty.

He has signed a bill outlawing gay marriages and has taken out ads on Christian radio stations touting his opposition to any form of legal same-sex couplings.

In a short span of time, he has been able to kick ten million people off welfare-that's ten million out of fourteen million total recipients.

He has promised states "bonus funds" if they can reduce their welfare numbers further, and made it easier to get these funds by not requiring the states to help the ex-welfare recipients find jobs.

He has introduced a plan that would bar any assistance to teenage parents if they drop out of school or leave their parents' home.

Though he is careful not to draw attention to it, he supports many of the old provisions of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America," including lowering the capital gains tax.

In spite of calls from Republican governors like George Ryan of Illinois to support a moratorium on capital punishment, he rejected all efforts to slow down the number of executions even after it was revealed that there are dozens of people on death row who are innocent.

He has released funds for local communities to hire over a hundred thousand new police officers and supports laws that put people behind bars for life after committing three crimes-even if those crimes were shoplifting or not paying for a pizza.

There are now more people in America without health insurance than when he took office.

He has signed orders prohibiting any form of health care to poor people who are in the United States illegally.

He supports a ban on late-term abortions and promised to sign the first bill to cross his desk that includes an exemption only if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

He has signed an order prohibiting any U.S. funds going to any country to be used in helping women secure an abortion.

He signed a one-year gag order that prohibits using any federal funds in foreign countries where birth control agencies mention abortion as an option to pregnant women.

He has refused to sign the international Land Mine Ban Treaty already signed by 137 nations-but not by Iraq, Libya, North Korea, or the United States.

He has scuttled the Kyoto Protocol by insisting that "sinks" (e.g., farmlands and forests) be counted toward the U.S. percentage of emissions reductions, thus making a mockery of the whole treaty (which was written primarily to reduce the carbon dioxide pollution from cars and factories).

He has accelerated drilling for gas and oil on federal lands at a pace that matches, and in some areas exceeds, the production level during the Reagan administration.

He has approved the sale of one California oil field in the largest privatization deal in American history, and he opened the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (something even Reagan wasn't able to do).

And he became the first President since Richard Nixon not to force the auto manufacturers to improve their mileage per gallon-which would have saved millions of barrels of oil each day.

Yes, you'd have to agree, considering all of his above accomplishments, that Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican Presidents we've ever had.
Not that I'm a Moore-ite, but this is a convenient list of Clinton's policies that can be shown to any of the many people who think that he was a liberal US president.

I love the footer in that first pic--100 Hours to Turn US Into San Francisco. If only that would happen! I lived in San Francisco for two years and would love it if we could make the country as a whole a lot more like that city.
I think that would require unacceptable amounts of flooding.

Bible belt homophobes don't really do subtle--their subtlety sensors have been stunted from so many years of having the Bible shout "Bad! Nasty!" at them.
The Bible shouts "Bad! Nasty!" at people? I'd like to see that!

Based on the final 2005 FBI Crime Statistics

Care to post the actual stats from there then to bolster your point?

Care to post the actual stats from there then to bolster your point?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_06.html#s

I want to thank you for not jumping all over me as i have found many here do because of my views, as they tend to be more to the right then others.

I try and not judge people based on Ideology. There are several professors I admire at the University I attend and I know most of them are left of center. I admire them because they try to keep it out of the classroom. On here, people will bash others just because of Ideology and if they know that you are a right winger, you immediately get ignored or have your post slammed as right wing propaganda. Samething happens to those on the left. They get slammed for it too by those on the right. Those of us with moderate views, get caught in the middle for agreeing with one side on one issue and the other side on another. You will run into decent folks here willing to engage in friendly debate and those are refreshing moments.

As of now, i think our country is to divided, i mean we have liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, lefts, rights, and everything between and above these.

Agreed. We are to divided and hooked up on labels. That is what's wrong with American Politics. If my party did not come up with it, then I'm against it because I hate the other side. That is all we hear from Congress pretty much these days.

I know we are all entitled to our opinions and that it is through sharing these opinions that things get done. But it seems as if all sides just keep arguing over who is right and thing is no one is.

*hands you a cookie*

Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer, life isn't nearly that simple, if it was, do you think there would be this big mess in Iraq. I think that its time for our nation as a whole to put aside all these differences to try and to come together as one for the good of everyone. I know this may never happen but our ideas/beliefs are all we have.

I like you :D

Once again, not to start anything but i think i saw something somewhere, where they said the BBC does have a liberal bias

here is a link if it helps of one source

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We%20are%20biased,%20admit%20the%20stars%20of%20BBC%20News/article.do (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We%20are%20biased,%20admit%20the%20stars%20of%20BBC%20News/article.do)

Maybe its because I don't pay attention to their opinion or commentary parts, but I've never seen it. I tend to just watch them report the news.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_06.html#s

I'll wait for the 2006 data.

Well I admit that I was wrong about private channels and should have written Public Service but why do you care so much? Big deal. I didn't make anything up I just didn't wrote public service.

What you wrote was: "In Sweden, political commersials aren't even aloud on television, not even before an election."

When I pointed what sort of nonsense that was, you again said:

"They aren't aloud."

I don't buy your "I meant to write this and that" because it is clear that you didn't mean to write anything other than the patent untruths that were exposed.

It seems like it affected you very much anyway. Move on.

The only one it has affected is you, because even now you refuse to admit you made shit up.

I'll wait for the 2006 data.

hey, its the most up to date.
But I guess that if its one year old info, it is completely irrelevent.

Those of us with moderate views, get caught in the middle for agreeing with one side on one issue and the other side on another.
You'll have to help me because I'm struggling to remember when you agreed with leftists on any important issue.

Agreed. We are to divided and hooked up on labels. That is what's wrong with American Politics.
America doesn't look that divided - there are only two camps. In most of Europe there are several per country.

I try and not judge people based on Ideology. There are several professors I admire at the University I attend and I know most of them are left of center. I admire them because they try to keep it out of the classroom. On here, people will bash others just because of Ideology and if they know that you are a right winger, you immediately get ignored or have your post slammed as right wing propaganda. Samething happens to those on the left. They get slammed for it too by those on the right. Those of us with moderate views, get caught in the middle for agreeing with one side on one issue and the other side on another. You will run into decent folks here willing to engage in friendly debate and those are refreshing moments.



Agreed. We are to divided and hooked up on labels. That is what's wrong with American Politics. If my party did not come up with it, then I'm against it because I hate the other side. That is all we hear from Congress pretty much these days.



*hands you a cookie*



I like you :D


You know what, I think i like you too :D
Its truely a pleasure to meet one as sensible as you.
oh and i saved you half of the cookie
*hands you the other half*
don't worry, i didn't bit from it. :)

have you even been to Detroit?
heck I live in Chicago and we got a crappy crime rate too.
but Detroit is its own special case. Poverty, gangs, drugs.
out of control there. Last I checked there arent very many
ghettos in SF.

No, I've never been to Detroit, but you're making erroneous claims. San Francisco, I'm sure, has ghettoes just like every other major city in the US.

Can you explain why Detroit's crime rate is so much higher than San Francisco's, despite only having a population of only 200,000 more people?

You can't claim Detroit is a special case because it follows the things that you seem to care about: they have guns and prosecute lots of criminals, no?

You'll have to help me because I'm struggling to remember when you agreed with leftists on any important issue.


America doesn't look that divided - there are only two camps. In most of Europe there are several per country.

Just cuz you don't see the other groups dosen't mean that we don't have them. America has socialist, nazis, anarchist, totalitarians, and just about every other kind of political group. The only thing is we have turned away from many of their ideas because we seem to think that they don't suit us. Remember all these little groups are like broken chips or cracks on a piece of fine china or something. You may still be able to use the plate, but for how long before a bigger crack emerges. we have to try and figure away to mend these cracks and by that i mean to work together for the purpose of our nation

No, I've never been to Detroit, but you're making erroneous claims. San Francisco, I'm sure, has ghettoes just like every other major city in the US.

Can you explain why Detroit's crime rate is so much higher than San Francisco's, despite only having a population of only 200,000 more people?

You can't claim Detroit is a special case because it follows the things that you seem to care about: they have guns and prosecute lots of criminals, no?

well, aparently Detroit is usually on top of America's most dangerous city list. Also, urban decay, police downsizing, gangs, ghettos, extreme poverty, major welfare, big time segregation (as it does have a large African American population), and the Detroit PD had to undergo a major overhaul under the direction of the FBI to get their act together.
Detroit is a shithole, compared to SF. I've been to SF and I can say, if they had ghettos, I wouldnt have noticed. I live in Chicago, and I know what the ghettos are. Places where you wouldnt even be safe driving through at noon! I've been through Detroit. It was like going through one long Cabrini Green. Detroit is like what Cabrini green was here. I won't go into the specifics, but comparing Detroit to SF is like comparing Bahgdad to London.

What you wrote was: "In Sweden, political commersials aren't even aloud on television, not even before an election."

When I pointed what sort of nonsense that was, you again said:

"They aren't aloud."

I don't buy your "I meant to write this and that" because it is clear that you didn't mean to write anything other than the patent untruths that were exposed.



The only one it has affected is you, because even now you refuse to admit you made shit up.

What's up with your attitude?

It isn't allowed on public service and TV4(which includes the three waaaay biggest channels in Sweden for those of you who care). I really dont have an interest in wrighting untrust on purpose but it isn't allowed on public service and TV4 so you can hardly say I made shit up when it turns out I was right to a certain point. You say you saw it on some local channel and just because you saw it it doesn't make it common. You are waisting your time debating an non issue since we've already made it clear that it is allowed on non public service channels. But it certainly isn't as common as you say.

And once again, what's up with your attitude?

well, aparently Detroit is usually on top of America's most dangerous city list. Also, urban decay, police downsizing, gangs, ghettos, extreme poverty, major welfare, big time segregation (as it does have a large African American population), and the Detroit PD had to undergo a major overhaul under the direction of the FBI to get their act together.
Detroit is a shithole, compared to SF. I've been to SF and I can say, if they had ghettos, I wouldnt have noticed. I live in Chicago, and I know what the ghettos are. Places where you wouldnt even be safe driving through at noon! I've been through Detroit. It was like going through one long Cabrini Green. Detroit is like what Cabrini green was here. I won't go into the specifics, but comparing Detroit to SF is like comparing Bahgdad to London.

So, because Detroit sucks it's totally different from San Francisco in every way? You're not making very convincing arguments.

So, because Detroit sucks it's totally different from San Francisco in every way? You're not making very convincing arguments.

Ok, I'll break it down so you can understand it.
Major poverty. Segregation. Welfare. Gangs. Drugs. Arson. weak police force. So why does crime happen? I have given you the biggest reasons above, so now add it all up. What happens when people are living in shit conditions all their life? like in a ghetto. Have you ever been to ghetto? A real one? You have never seen poverty and crime go hand in hand like in the ghetto. that was one reason why in Chicago they are knocking down the ghettos in an effort to clean up the place. all the gang activity centered in the ghettos has now spread around the south side of Chicago. It doesnt take rocket science to figure out why crime is so high in Detroit. However, SF is in no shape like Detroit.

Ok, I'll break it down so you can understand it.
Major poverty. Segregation. Welfare. Gangs. Drugs. Arson. weak police force. So why does crime happen? I have given you the biggest reasons above, so now add it all up. What happens when people are living in shit conditions all their life? like in a ghetto. Have you ever been to ghetto? A real one? You have never seen poverty and crime go hand in hand like in the ghetto. that was one reason why in Chicago they are knocking down the ghettos in an effort to clean up the place. all the gang activity centered in the ghettos has now spread around the south side of Chicago. It doesnt take rocket science to figure out why crime is so high in Detroit. However, SF is in no shape like Detroit.

Yes, actually I live in a bad part of Chattanooga. I'm saying that, even given your reasons, the statistics to a trained eye are pointing to a problem other than "San Francisco is immoral". The theft rate there is really high, could that be because it has a major tourist industry?

Now, explain to me why these three cities in Tennessee all have higher or similar crime rates compared to San Francisco,

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Memphis&s2=TN

Similar populations but major differences in levels of crimes.
http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Nashville&s2=TN

Less people in Nashville, yet seemingly larger amounts of crime in almost all categories.

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Chattanooga&s2=TN

The town I live in, Chattanooga, has nowhere near the same population as San Francisco and yet it boasts but it boasts higher crime rates in all but two areas.

Let's check some other places in the US...

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Washington&s2=DC

The capital of the United States, Washington DC. Again, more crime in all areas but two, and less people live there.

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Miami&s2=FL

Miami, higher crime rates in all areas but two, and with half the population.

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=San+Francisco&s1=CA&c2=Salt+Lake+City&s2=UT

Wow! Even Salt Lake City has higher crime rates in almost all categories than San Francisco!

So, now that I look at all these figures, I guess you're right. San Francisco is a haven for crime and evil-doers.

Blue gets owned by stats.

No, I've never been to Detroit, but you're making erroneous claims. San Francisco, I'm sure, has ghettoes just like every other major city in the US.

Can you explain why Detroit's crime rate is so much higher than San Francisco's, despite only having a population of only 200,000 more people?

You can't claim Detroit is a special case because it follows the things that you seem to care about: they have guns and prosecute lots of criminals, no?San Francisco does have its bad neighborhoods--I wouldn't go into Hunter's Point or Visitacion Valley at night by myself, and there are gangs in the Mission--but the real "ghettoes" are across the Bay in Oakland and south of the City in South San Francisco and Daly City.

But all things considered, I still think it's one of the premier cities in the US. I never felt in any particular danger when I lived there, even when I was riding the bus at three in the morning, and the social services and government bureaucracy are the most efficient I've ever seen.

What's up with your attitude?

I get annoyed with people who when they are caught up in untruths refuse to admit they were making it up.

It isn't allowed on public service and TV4(which includes the three waaaay biggest channels in Sweden for those of you who care). I really dont have an interest in wrighting untrust on purpose but it isn't allowed on public service and TV4 so you can hardly say I made shit up when it turns out I was right to a certain point. You say you saw it on some local channel and just because you saw it it doesn't make it common. You are waisting your time debating an non issue since we've already made it clear that it is allowed on non public service channels. But it certainly isn't as common as you say.

See, still no admission of "I made it up that political ads aren't allowed in Sweden". Not to mention this idea of yours that political ads being banned from public service is in any way unique to Sweden.

look maw, I can make love to a man and a woman. give me my gay marrage!

Look maw, I found this old photo of you! Hey? Dad kind of looks like your brother!

Look maw, I found this old photo of you! Hey? Dad kind of looks like your brother!

now Forest,
its not nice to make fun of your family like that!
;)

I get annoyed with people who when they are caught up in untruths refuse to admit they were making it up.



See, still no admission of "I made it up that political ads aren't allowed in Sweden". Not to mention this idea of yours that political ads being banned from public service is in any way unique to Sweden.

You know, I get really mad when people accuse me of making up stuff when I don't. I also get annoyed when people hook up on small things that noone cares about. But I get really pissed of when people don't see simple connections between facts and things I say. Political ads are banned in the three mayor channels and you still think I make things up. Don't you see a connection??? They are banned in the three waaaay largest channels where almoust all the political debates take place. They are allowed on private channels although not very common which I've already said.

If you want to debate this non issue further you can send me a private message or something. This is a thread about FOX and San Franciscoa.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/05/fox_news_banner_on_nancy_pelosi_100_hours_to_turn_america_into_san_francisco.php#more



Well that's just lovely, I predict Fox is going to get much nastier now with a Democrat Majority in the House.

Uhm....I dont mean too burst your bubble or anything, but erm- Sean Hannity is an outspoken conservative, thats really the point of his show Hannity and Colmes...Since he did the smearing, im inclined too think that Sean Hannity predicts this, not so much the Fox News corporation...

Watch the channel, before you predict a networks actions based on idiotic generalisms. Otherwise i'd say these shows (with the new democratic majority) are going too soon run out of material too smear the administration. =/

-Daily Show
-Colbert Report
-MSNBC

Some may be more true than others, along with some being comedic based...but that doesnt suffice as a cover for something not too short of slander at times. =/

Uhm....I dont mean too burst your bubble or anything, but erm- Sean Hannity is an outspoken conservative, thats really the point of his show Hannity and Colmes...Since he did the smearing, im inclined too think that Sean Hannity predicts this, not so much the Fox News corporation...

Watch the channel, before you predict a networks actions based on idiotic generalisms. Otherwise i'd say these shows (with the new democratic majority) are going too soon run out of material too smear the administration. =/

-Daily Show
-Colbert Report
-MSNBC

Some may be more true than others, along with some being comedic based...but that doesnt suffice as a cover for something not too short of slander at times. =/

Well, the Daily Show in particular has never been shy about taking potshots at the Dems in the past, when it's been noteworthy. Stewart is a media critic more than anything else, and his show has hit Repubs harder because they've been in the news more. Expect the Dems to get more play in the new season.

As for Colbert, well, he's doing a right-wing blowhard parody, so don't expect much to change.

But as for MSNBC, outside of Olbermann--who is a commentator, only not stupid (as opposed to say, Hannity)--they're not very liberal. Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman, Matthews is schizophrenic, and then there's Tucker Carlson. Hardly a liberal bias in the place as far as commentators are concerned.

But even if they were liberally biased, they must be doing something right as far as viewers are concerned--they were the only cable news network to gain viewers last year. Fox and CNN both lost audience share.

But even if they were liberally biased, they must be doing something right as far as viewers are concerned--they were the only cable news network to gain viewers last year. Fox and CNN both lost audience share.

Proof please.

Proof please.

Here you go (http://nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/msnbc-2007131502-msnbcwasonlycable.html). And please spare me any shit about the source--if NBC released this and it was false, the other news outlets would be blasting them out of the water about it.
SECAUCUS, NJ - January 3, 2007 - MSNBC was the only cable news
network to increase viewership in both total viewers and the key 25-54
demographic in 2006. The network was up 8% in total viewers (263,000)
and 12% in the 25-54 demographic (111,000), according to Nielsen Media
Research data. In total viewers CNN (-7%), Fox News Channel (-14%) and
Headline News (-7%) were all down in 2006. The trend continued in
primetime, with MSNBC posting a 6% gain in total viewers (385,000) and
an 8% increase in the demo (159,000). CNN lost 12% of its primetime
audience, Fox News Channel was down 20% and Headline News dipped 4% for
the year in primetime.

Even more impressive was MSNBC's fourth quarter performance. The
network posted gains of 22% in total viewers (303,000) and 41% in the
demo (131,000) for the quarter. In primetime, MSNBC was up 28% in total
viewers (467,000) and 34% in the demo (191,000).

In addition, each of MSNBC's primetime programs increased viewership for
the year. "Hardball with Chris Matthews" posted a 4% increase (410,000)
at 7 p.m. ET, while CNN (-4%) and Fox News Channel (-13%) were both
down. At 8 p.m. ET, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" scored MSNBC's
highest full-year ratings ever for the time period, gaining an
impressive 24% for the year (479,000), while CNN (-16%) and Fox News
Channel (-15%) both posted double-digit declines. In the fourth
quarter, "Countdown" was up an incredible 60% in total viewers (656,000)
and 67% in the demo (252,000). At 9 p.m. ET, where the network has
telecast "Scarborough Country" since April, viewership has increased 5%
for the year (387,000). This growth was propelled by a 28% increase in
the fourth quarter (487,000). CNN (-14%) and Fox News Channel (-19%)
both lost viewers for the year at 9 p.m. ET. The "doc block" also
posted impressive gains at 10 and 11 pm ET. For fourth quarter, MSNBC
was up 15% in total viewers (385,000) and 34% in the demo (169,000) at
10 p.m. ET and 66% in total viewers (378,000) and 92% in the demo
(192,000) at 11 p.m. ET.

Thanks Nazz for the info.

Well, the Daily Show in particular has never been shy about taking potshots at the Dems in the past, when it's been noteworthy. Stewart is a media critic more than anything else, and his show has hit Repubs harder because they've been in the news more. Expect the Dems to get more play in the new season.

As for Colbert, well, he's doing a right-wing blowhard parody, so don't expect much to change.

But as for MSNBC, outside of Olbermann--who is a commentator, only not stupid (as opposed to say, Hannity)--they're not very liberal. Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman, Matthews is schizophrenic, and then there's Tucker Carlson. Hardly a liberal bias in the place as far as commentators are concerned.

But even if they were liberally biased, they must be doing something right as far as viewers are concerned--they were the only cable news network to gain viewers last year. Fox and CNN both lost audience share.


Well I was really refering too the Daily Show's past 6 years. Yes, they are fairly shy about striking democrats. and have mostly liberal, or center-left guests.

Tell me about it. Colbert gets really old, really fast.

Well alledging fox of being a conservative puppet is just as riddiculous. Greta Van Sustern is one of the most neutral casters I have ever seen, O'Reily is very conservative, but will go after Republicans when they differ from his spiritual-traditionalist doctrine, Alan Colmes is poure liberal, Hannity is a smart man (opposed too what you may thin, I see him differntly) but is a full time conservative, while everyone else is pretty neutral.

Really? Hmm, MSNBC is still the lowest watched though, correct? I always though Fox was the biggest, then CNN, then MSNBC, then your local bar drunkard whose slurred conversation has rambled into political matters for some reason.

Uhm....I dont mean too burst your bubble or anything, but erm- Sean Hannity is an outspoken conservative, thats really the point of his show Hannity and Colmes...Since he did the smearing, im inclined too think that Sean Hannity predicts this, not so much the Fox News corporation...

Watch the channel, before you predict a networks actions based on idiotic generalisms. Otherwise i'd say these shows (with the new democratic majority) are going too soon run out of material too smear the administration. =/

-Daily Show
-Colbert Report
-MSNBC

Some may be more true than others, along with some being comedic based...but that doesnt suffice as a cover for something not too short of slander at times. =/


ISn't it odd how The Daily show is now in it's 11th year of broadcasting given this odd notion that it only can find materiel during a Republican presidency?


Wonder how he kept that show going during five Clinton years without GW to poke fun at,...... damn, that would be impossible!!!!!


:rolleyes:

ISn't it odd how The Daily show is now in it's 11th year of broadcasting given this odd notion that it only can find materiel during a Republican presidency?


Wonder how he kept that show going during five Clinton years without GW to poke fun at,...... damn, that would be impossible!!!!!


:rolleyes:

Ya, its also an unsolvable mystery as too why the show only became insanely popular when Stweart hopped on and began the Conservative bashing... What makes it so hip and cool? :rolleyes:

Ya, its also an unsolvable mystery as too why the show only became insanely popular when Stweart hopped on and began the Conservative bashing... What makes it so hip and cool? :rolleyes:

Oh, it could also have something to do with a) the fact that Comedy Central has a larger audience in general thanks to the success of their other shows, b) that Stewart is hysterically funny outside of any institutional bias, and c) that what Stewart mostly bashes is the ineptness of the news media, and that they provide him with insane amounts of material.

His political humor up till now can be summed up thusly:
Republicans are in power and are incompetent.
Democrats aren't in power because they're incompetent.

See a pattern? It's incompetence he pokes fun at, and he's an equal opportunity poker. Hell, a few months ago he lambasted left-wing darling Cindy Sheehan for her embrace of Hugo Chavez, noting that she made Shawn Hannity look reasonable by comparison. So believe that Stewart is a left-wing shill if you want--he knows better than anyone else that now that the Democrats are in power, if he doesn't go after them, he'll lose his cachet, and with it, his audience. See, liberals love to laugh at conservatives, but we really love to laugh at ourselves. Conservatives can't say the same as a general rule.

Oh, it could also have something to do with a) the fact that Comedy Central has a larger audience in general thanks to the success of their other shows, b) that Stewart is hysterically funny outside of any institutional bias, and c) that what Stewart mostly bashes is the ineptness of the news media, and that they provide him with insane amounts of material.

His political humor up till now can be summed up thusly:
Republicans are in power and are incompetent.
Democrats aren't in power because they're incompetent.

See a pattern? It's incompetence he pokes fun at, and he's an equal opportunity poker. Hell, a few months ago he lambasted left-wing darling Cindy Sheehan for her embrace of Hugo Chavez, noting that she made Shawn Hannity look reasonable by comparison. So believe that Stewart is a left-wing shill if you want--he knows better than anyone else that now that the Democrats are in power, if he doesn't go after them, he'll lose his cachet, and with it, his audience. See, liberals love to laugh at conservatives, but we really love to laugh at ourselves. Conservatives can't say the same as a general rule.

Right, I dont your saying the reason people watch the Daily Show is based on a larger comedy central audience, and that people waiting too watch South Park, decide too watch the Daily Show too pass the time?

Uhm, can I have an example of Jon Stewart openly mocking the incompetence of the Democratic party? I've yet too see it...It;d be strange for me too see...

And ive noticed even with the Democrats controlling the new congress, i'll eagerly await comedic criticism, but im skeptical if this will come....of course the leadership will have too display blatant incompetence, but im sure Stewarts writing team will be fairly calm too attack these coming months. ;)

You know, I get really mad when people accuse me of making up stuff when I don't. I also get annoyed when people hook up on small things that noone cares about. But I get really pissed of when people don't see simple connections between facts and things I say. Political ads are banned in the three mayor channels and you still think I make things up. Don't you see a connection??? They are banned in the three waaaay largest channels where almoust all the political debates take place. They are allowed on private channels although not very common which I've already said.

If you want to debate this non issue further you can send me a private message or something. This is a thread about FOX and San Franciscoa.

Lashing out at me makes your statements no less made up.

Oh, it could also have something to do with a) the fact that Comedy Central has a larger audience in general thanks to the success of their other shows, b) that Stewart is hysterically funny outside of any institutional bias, and c) that what Stewart mostly bashes is the ineptness of the news media, and that they provide him with insane amounts of material.


This is all completely true.

This is all completely true.
That's not to say that Stewart isn't personally liberal--I'd guess that he's at least left of center, though probably not as liberal as I am--it's just that he's a comic first, and he's a successful one, and a major part of his act is poking fun at people in power. I remember back in the 90s that he took plenty of shots at Clinton--everyone did, because he was the guy.

Pelosi is a stupid broad. Whether or not whatever Fox news says about her is true, I'd like to see her gone.

Pelosi is a stupid broad. Whether or not whatever Fox news says about her is true, I'd like to see her gone.

Uhmmm... I'm going too shake your hand in memory of you, because your about too be torn apart by flamers. Semper fi.

Quite frankly, I'm more eager to see how The Colbert Report will react to everything the Democrats do, as unlike some here, I don't find Colbert old at all. He has a style that appeals to me. I know the Daily Show will lampoon the Dems all over the place; that's John Stewart's style. But the Colbert Report, year and a third old or not, still has some proving to do.

As for Pelosi, I'll wait and see before forming an opinion on her abilities as a Speaker of the House. She is the first female Speaker, though, so give her some credit for that.

Pelosi is a stupid broad. Whether or not whatever Fox news says about her is true, I'd like to see her gone.

Uhmmm... I'm going too shake your hand in memory of you, because your about too be torn apart by flamers. Semper fi.

Nah. Tearing Captain Pooby apart is too easy. There's no sport in it. It's like beating up an invalid. In a coma.

Quite frankly, I'm more eager to see how The Colbert Report will react to everything the Democrats do, as unlike some here, I don't find Colbert old at all. He has a style that appeals to me. I know the Daily Show will lampoon the Dems all over the place; that's John Stewart's style. But the Colbert Report, year and a third old or not, still has some proving to do.

As for Pelosi, I'll wait and see before forming an opinion on her abilities as a Speaker of the House. She is the first female Speaker, though, so give her some credit for that.

Ya well I find him overated... His blow hard conseravtive parody wears on me after some 50 episodes...

Like I said before, I just don't see John attacking the dems like he does the current administration... Only tell will tell I suppose.

I dont think many people can judge Pelosi seeing as 1/2 of America has never heard of her before. I have heared thats shes in the 10% "most liberal" in congress though, that should fair well in the field of "bi-partisan cooperation"

Nah. Tearing Captain Pooby apart is too easy. There's no sport in it. It's like beating up an invalid. In a coma.

Thats how you feel....What about the full time dicks, I- I mean "agressivly opinionated individuals" that prey on poor NSers like him?


Quick Pooby, too the chooper, ill hold em off with the .50 cal!

Nah. Tearing Captain Pooby apart is too easy. There's no sport in it. It's like beating up an invalid. In a coma.

With no arms or legs.

She should leak stuff to the press like 'Dems consider Federal binding legislation for full rights of homosexuals in the US' or something like that, just to see the Cons reactions. Funny stuff.

I dont think many people can judge Pelosi seeing as 1/2 of America has never heard of her before. I have heared thats shes in the 10% "most liberal" in congress though, that should fair well in the field of "bi-partisan cooperation"
That's not surprising, however--I'd be surprised if 50% of the country knows who Pelosi replaced, even though he was Speaker since 1998. And yes, I'd say she's among the 10% most liberal in congress, but she's also a deal maker--you don't get to that position without knowing how to charm people when necessary. That's why Gingrich was never successful as Speaker.

Ya well I find him overated... His blow hard conseravtive parody wears on me after some 50 episodes...

Like I said before, I just don't see John attacking the dems like he does the current administration... Only tell will tell I suppose.

I dont think many people can judge Pelosi seeing as 1/2 of America has never heard of her before. I have heared thats shes in the 10% "most liberal" in congress though, that should fair well in the field of "bi-partisan cooperation"
See, that's the thing. I know very little about Pelosi so I can't really say anything about her. Hence why I'm waiting before judging. Some people simply can't manage to do that though, which is sad, in my mind.

And time will tell on the Daily Show bit. Trust Nazz and me: Jonny will lampoon the Dems. And if he doesn't, I will give you twenty dollars via Paypal.

That's not surprising, however--I'd be surprised if 50% of the country knows who Pelosi replaced, even though he was Speaker since 1998. And yes, I'd say she's among the 10% most liberal in congress, but she's also a deal maker--you don't get to that position without knowing how to charm people when necessary. That's why Gingrich was never successful as Speaker.

Charming the Dems who voted her into the position that is. ;)

Sure Hastert got his hands muddy a few times, but all high ranking cons seem too be that way nowadays... And I doubt the validity of many allegations.

oh teh noes!! somebody doesn't like pelosi and isn;t afraid to say it! OH TEH NOES! This Hannity freak must be jailed.:rolleyes:

See, that's the thing. I know very little about Pelosi so I can't really say anything about her. Hence why I'm waiting before judging. Some people simply can't manage to do that though, which is sad, in my mind.

And time will tell on the Daily Show bit. Trust Nazz and me: Jonny will lampoon the Dems. And if he doesn't, I will give you twenty dollars via Paypal.

Sounds good. :D

oh teh noes!! somebody doesn't like pelosi and isn;t afraid to say it! OH TEH NOES! This Hannity freak must be jailed.:rolleyes:

Or better yet shot! As well as all those christian wackos!

Or better yet shot! As well as all those christian wackos!


And people wonder why I am not down with Liberals. Posts like that make me sick, shoot anybody who is NOT a Liberal.:rolleyes:

And people wonder why I am not down with Liberals. Posts like that make me sick, shoot anybody who is NOT a Liberal.:rolleyes:

I think you missed the sarcasm.

I think you missed the sarcasm.


Sarcasm is always missed if not put next to a smilie.



:rolleyes: ;) :p Those work well.

Sarcasm is always missed if not put next to a smilie.



:rolleyes: ;) :p Those work well.

Or if you read more than just the post you're responding to--or didn't momma teach you about context?

I bet you this is Pelosi's file photo on Fox.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/2493/divine.jpg
She looks so divine.
naw..that's just Bill Reilly when he's not at work.

naw..that's just Bill Reilly when he's not at work.

Hey hey hey, ya'll leave Mr O'reilly alone, he may be a conservative, something ya'll hate, but i think he's cool and carries a valid point more then most news anchors.

but yeah, i think that was pelosi in the that pic.

yeah my computer really sucks so uh, could somebody please delete like my last five post. uh thanks and sorry about that. :)

yeah my computer really sucks so uh, could somebody please delete like my last five post. uh thanks and sorry about that. :)

There's a thing called an edit button that you can use to delete your posts.

yeah but it dosent seem to let me do that

Yay, it did work, thanks

Personally, this Pelosi wasnt much known about before she ran for the House Majority, now that she is out in the open, she shows herself to be a bigger threat to us all....

And people wonder why I am not down with Liberals. Posts like that make me sick, shoot anybody who is NOT a Liberal.:rolleyes:

I thank god you caught the jist of that, or i'd be in deep s*it...

Yay, it did work, thanks

No problemo. Always willing to help out a fellow poster.

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/05/fox_news_banner_on_nancy_pelosi_100_hours_to_turn_america_into_san_francisco.php#more



Well that's just lovely, I predict Fox is going to get much nastier now with a Democrat Majority in the House.

Like the mainstream media wasn't or isn't pretty hard on President Bush and other republicans, right? :rolleyes:

Like the mainstream media wasn't or isn't pretty hard on President Bush and other republicans, right? :rolleyes:

I do like the threat title. It tries to paint all of Fox News in a bad light when in reality it is only Hannity that is actually doing it.

I do like the threat title. It tries to paint all of Fox News in a bad light when in reality it is only Hannity that is actually doing it.

are you saying that a network is not responsible for the people they hire?

or for the content they air?

are you saying that a network is not responsible for the people they hire?

or for the content they air?

Are you saying that commentary is news and that it should be taken as factual? Anyone who knows hannity knows he's a commentator. He may have some points just like everyone else but at the sametime, he's not to be taken seriously. That goes for most, if not all, commentators. And the reason why I do not watch much cable news these days.

Are you saying that commentary is news and that it should be taken as factual? Anyone who knows hannity knows he's a commentator. He may have some points just like everyone else but at the sametime, he's not to be taken seriously. That goes for most, if not all, commentators. And the reason why I do not watch much cable news these days.

considering that hannity and colmes tries to play itself off as a non-partisan show (that's why they have colmes, right? right?), I should expect more.

but I don't.

Like the mainstream media wasn't or isn't pretty hard on President Bush and other republicans, right? :rolleyes:

Considering the huge number of stories that went underreported over the last five years, the mainstream media indeed was not very hard on President Bush or other Republicans. If they'd even done a fraction of the job they could have or should have done, Bush would have had a primary challenger in 2004--forget actually being re-elected.

Considering the huge number of stories that went underreported over the last five years, the mainstream media indeed was not very hard on President Bush or other Republicans. If they'd even done a fraction of the job they could have or should have done, Bush would have had a primary challenger in 2004--forget actually being re-elected.

And both parties would have been severly damaged. Neither side's hands are clean.

And both parties would have been severly damaged. Neither side's hands are clean.Looked at over the long term, you'd be right, but not in the period from about 2000-2006. Republicans had all the power and consolidated it, which meant the Democrats were largely scandal-free, not because of any innate superiority, but because they had no power worth being bribed for. Had the news media done anything approaching a decent job in that period--or at any period in the last twenty-five years--we'd have a hell of a lot cleaner government than we do, and we'd all be better off for it, regardless of party control.

Looked at over the long term, you'd be right, but not in the period from about 2000-2006. Republicans had all the power and consolidated it, which meant the Democrats were largely scandal-free, not because of any innate superiority, but because they had no power worth being bribed for. Had the news media done anything approaching a decent job in that period--or at any period in the last twenty-five years--we'd have a hell of a lot cleaner government than we do, and we'd all be better off for it, regardless of party control.

This is a rare moment Naz when I agree with nearly everything you just said.

This is a rare moment Naz when I agree with nearly everything you just said.

Didn't hurt too bad, I hope. ;)