Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't.
Joel Send a noteboard - 27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM
If you just objected to biased news you would object the MSNBC and the NYT but all you really object to is there being an outlet for conservative views. Let me guess you hate talk radio but love The Daily Show and the Huffington Post. I know you have found enough "evidence" to support your bias but that really doesn't change anything.
So you stand by the argument that is the left’s turn to spend money we don’t have because it stimulates the economy. Where do you believe most of the money
I know it is fact you like to ignore but the war had around 80% support when it started and was being supported by most of major news outlets. It was losing and giving Iraq to Al Quaeda that the right opposed and that Many on Fox supported.
So you stand by the argument that is the left’s turn to spend money we don’t have because it stimulates the economy. Where do you believe most of the money
I know it is fact you like to ignore but the war had around 80% support when it started and was being supported by most of major news outlets. It was losing and giving Iraq to Al Quaeda that the right opposed and that Many on Fox supported.
Where do I believe most of the money? Slow down, use your words. ALL of them.
I frequently disagree WSJ articles folks post here, especially their editorial pages, but at least their editorials are clearly LABELED as such, and still usually consistent. Actually, I don't spend much time with any of those outlets. I occasionally read a NYT article if someone links it, but don't always agree; I usually watch links to the Daily Show people post here for pure entertainment (NOT news, though I do think they get things right more often than I'd like. ) I did look at Huffington Post earlier today, but that was because of Larrys thread on the MRE brownies.
I know the war had 80% support at the start; that's why the spineless Senate Dems let themselves be terrorized into voting for it. Prohibition had 80% support in the teens, too; didn't make it a good idea. Faux "News" openly and shamelessly backed the war whether it was popular or not because of who initiated it, and I expect better from a news source. Just as I don't expect them to do an about face on editorializes masquerading as news in support of wartime deficit spending the moment their partys out of power. News sources shouldn't HAVE parties. But then, for all the crap Rather got for calling FL for Gore in 2000, no one ever says anything about the Faux "News" political director later calling "undecided" FL for his cousin George Bush before anyone else did.
So now you KNOW what Fox would have done if the war had been unpopular. It is amazing that you can KNOW so much about Fox but remain ignorant of the bias of the rest of the news.
I don't KNOW what they would've done, I KNOW what they did do; it's not exactly a huge secret. Though that's an interesting tack to take: If the entire media, rather than just Fox, was so gung ho for the Iraq War from start to finish, how does that square with the whole "the media is manipulating public support for a war they oppose by choosing to report the negative stories"? Again, a little consistency would be nice, if only for the novelty.
I know what Fox would have done if the war had been unpopular because even after it became QUITE unpopular they continued to press the case for it. It's not a matter of hypothetical speculation, it's a matter of historical fact.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
US Debt Hits $13T - But Spending Spree in DC Continues.....
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
1098 Views
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
1098 Views
Look who finally remembered they oppose federal deficits.
- 26/05/2010 05:26:30 PM
700 Views
Silly Joel.....please find the posts where I supported GWB's deficit spending.
- 26/05/2010 05:35:13 PM
758 Views
hmmm
- 26/05/2010 05:40:49 PM
693 Views
That's different; spending trillions on the Iraq war is necessary national defense, just ask Fox.
- 26/05/2010 05:46:49 PM
908 Views
0.7 Trillion doesn't usually qualify as 'Trillions'
- 26/05/2010 06:16:15 PM
856 Views
I'm not willing to try parsing how much DoD spending was and wasn't Iraq just now.
- 26/05/2010 06:27:50 PM
811 Views
You can knock off the "Faux News" stuff, makes you sound like you've been hanging at Daily Kos
- 26/05/2010 07:06:16 PM
875 Views
A Fox News person was involved in writing the article so it sent him into a tissy fit
- 26/05/2010 10:56:35 PM
670 Views
Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years.
- 27/05/2010 03:30:08 PM
893 Views
This would sound better if you didn't say yourself the support was mostly fake
- 28/05/2010 01:05:44 PM
899 Views
I thought overthrowing Saddam was fine.....and it worked out very well.
- 26/05/2010 06:37:31 PM
674 Views
"They" plural.
- 26/05/2010 05:45:48 PM
931 Views
you are so full of crap
- 26/05/2010 05:59:47 PM
723 Views
Oh, they weren't silent; they were quite vocal in their endorsement of the Iraq war.
- 26/05/2010 06:03:51 PM
962 Views
more ranting doesn't support your argument
- 26/05/2010 06:17:22 PM
882 Views
I'll respond to the coherent part of that.
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
897 Views
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
897 Views
I wish ...
- 26/05/2010 06:57:30 PM
907 Views
Is the NYT any better pieces slandering McCain and his wife before an election?
- 26/05/2010 07:16:58 PM
742 Views
I don't know those articles specifically.
- 26/05/2010 08:27:44 PM
810 Views
So my repeated use of "M$" in moondogs thread only makes things worse? 
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
796 Views
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
796 Views
You mean you will repsond to part that you like and ignore the part you don't because of a typo
- 26/05/2010 07:18:03 PM
817 Views
I'll give Joel a little hand here...
- 26/05/2010 09:14:27 PM
905 Views
The second paragraph is very hard to follow unless you already have an idea what he's going to say.
- 27/05/2010 03:43:09 PM
838 Views
yes the good republicans spent a lot of money so democrats should spend even more argument
- 26/05/2010 05:52:57 PM
671 Views
Well, I'll certainly agree that if it's bad, it's bad whoever's doing it.
- 26/05/2010 06:00:20 PM
860 Views
you are attacking Fox News becuase you object to opposing views being expressed
- 26/05/2010 06:27:29 PM
868 Views
Not at all; I just expect a little consistency.
- 26/05/2010 06:40:07 PM
904 Views
then why not show some and admit that all the news agency were backing the war
- 26/05/2010 07:10:57 PM
884 Views
Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't.
- 27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM
858 Views
so the other media outlets get a pass because the supported losing a war they supported starting?
- 27/05/2010 06:39:21 PM
708 Views
We were heading in the wrong direction already, but Obama/Dems put the pedal to the floor...
- 26/05/2010 06:41:48 PM
667 Views
I don't mean to defend all of the spending that Obama and Congress have done since he's in power...
- 26/05/2010 09:29:38 PM
852 Views
They did push the pedal further down even if they didn't start it
- 26/05/2010 10:46:38 PM
900 Views
Here is the problem with this kind of reporting...
- 27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM
803 Views
The problem with that kind of logic is it is wrong
- 27/05/2010 02:19:37 PM
699 Views
Yes, that would be wrong.
- 27/05/2010 03:35:30 PM
721 Views
Based on Obama's budget, he will add more to the debt over the next 10 years.....
- 27/05/2010 04:10:45 PM
634 Views
At least we agree that you are wrong because that is what you said
- 27/05/2010 06:50:43 PM
671 Views
And where does the rest of the money come from?
- 27/05/2010 08:12:31 PM
796 Views
No, that's for the entire Department of Defense.
- 27/05/2010 08:25:28 PM
696 Views
using those numbers the war appears to be about half a drop in the bucket *NM*
- 27/05/2010 08:37:31 PM
363 Views
