Thoughts About the People on TV

[EPICVIEW]

also many times OReilly or Sean will say "we invited liberal X to come on and give his side of this, but they have declined to come on"...LIKE OBAMA, who won go on Fox.. LOL...he cant handle any question thats not lobbed and tee-d up..

I sw Howard Dean on MSNBC last night..he was ranting about Fox....these Liberals are so thin skinned..

[EPICVIEW]

This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html

Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?

any objective viewer could see his baited questions were nonsense..and she could hardly hear him in that crowd... Mathews is pure garbage, a bitter Obamanaut

It was far from being a baited question. If she went on his program and made a statement and is now in a position to make good on her statement then it's his right to ask her about it.

Was he being a dipshit for asking her is she's been hypnotized? Absolutely. Is he a partisan hack? Absolutely. Are you dancing around my question in the same manor that she danced around his? Absolutely.

I will watch again.. I never even heard the question till he was railing she wouldnt answer it..

[El Barto]

The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?

No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?

Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased.  If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything.  And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed.  Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable.  You should really learn to recognize things like this.

I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter.  And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.

[EPICVIEW]

The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?

No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?

Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased.  If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything.  And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed.  Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable.  You should really learn to recognize things like this.

I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter.  And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.

I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it

[PowerSlave]

The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?

No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?

Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased.  If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything.  And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed.  Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable.  You should really learn to recognize things like this.

I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter.  And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.

I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it

Not true, you need to watch the Ron Paul interviews again.

[Tick]

This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html

Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?

The point is guys like Bill O Reilly have a level of fairness and Bill will agree with a liberal point of view if it has merit. I have never ever seen Chris Mathews try to be fair. He is the most bias journalist out there.  
Does MSNBC try to pawn themselves off as balanced or do they just admit that don't have a shred of it?

[PowerSlave]

This is amazing.. Chris Mathews never fails to amaze with hostility and non objective BS...and he is a blatent liar

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/bachmann_to_msnbcs_matthews_that_thrill_isnt_tingly_anymore.html

Yes, he's an idiot but, should he have settled for the bullshit answer she was giving him?

The point is guys like Bill O Reilly have a level of fairness and Bill will agree with a liberal point of view if it has merit. I have never ever seen Chris Mathews try to be fair. He is the most bias journalist out there.  
Does MSNBC try to pawn themselves off as balanced or do they just admit that don't have a shred of it?

That's fine but, it still doesn't answer my question. She was obviously dodging his question. Should he have accepted her dodging the question?

It's his right to ask the question based on what she said previously on his show unless he was taking it out of context. I don't know if he was doing that but, if he was she should have called him on it if he was. Otherwise, she agreed to do an interview with someone that's obviously hostile towards her and a question like that should come as no surprise.

If she answered the question truthfully then she should be given a reasonable amount of time to answer it clearly.

The end result of the interview was equal to watching two retards drool on each other.

[El Barto]

The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?

No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?

Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased.  If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything.  And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed.  Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable.  You should really learn to recognize things like this.

I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter.  And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.

I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it

As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit, he does seem to have a sharp instinct for when somebody is fixing to cut him to shreds.  That's when he cuts them off, every single time.  He just won't allow cogent answers that go against his ideology. 

[j]

I dunno, O'Reilly always struck me as a pretty intelligent guy.  The problem is that he thinks so too, and it results in his ego and the yes-men at Fox reinforcing his preconceived opinions about everything.

But I have watched his show only a handful of times, and I can remember multiple instances where he's conceded a point, acknowledged the possibility that he's been mistaken, etc.  It's rare in a sea of abrupt cut-offs, talking over "guests", and general blowhardism, but it's more than you'll ever get out of Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity.

-J

[Tick]

I dunno, O'Reilly always struck me as a pretty intelligent guy.  The problem is that he thinks so too, and it results in his ego and the yes-men at Fox reinforcing his preconceived opinions about everything.

But I have watched his show only a handful of times, and I can remember multiple instances where he's conceded a point, acknowledged the possibility that he's been mistaken, etc.  It's rare in a sea of abrupt cut-offs, talking over "guests", and general blowhardism, but it's more than you'll ever get out of Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity.

-J

Good sound post, J.

[El Barto]

To be honest, I rarely watch his show, and for years Hard Copy was always on in the break room here, so that's largely where my opinion of his dipshitiness comes from.  However, when I have seen his FOX show,  I only seem to catch the "blowhardism" aspect, and never the contrition. 

[EPICVIEW]

The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?

No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?

Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased.  If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything.  And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed.  Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable.  You should really learn to recognize things like this.

I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter.  And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.

I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it

As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit, he does seem to have a sharp instinct for when somebody is fixing to cut him to shreds.  That's when he cuts them off, every single time.  He just won't allow cogent answers that go against his ideology.  

have you watched the show? he is willing to concede if he is wrong, at times I think he wants that, to be proven wrong. he is always a good sport, unless its Barney Frank or some crackpot terror sympathizer

[j]

Good sound post, J.

The Tick symbol?  What an honor!

To be honest, I rarely watch his show, and for years Hard Copy was always on in the break room here, so that's largely where my opinion of his dipshitiness comes from.  However, when I have seen his FOX show,  I only seem to catch the "blowhardism" aspect, and never the contrition. 

I didn't mean to overstate the frequency with which it happens.  But it does happen, and that's worth something IMO.

-J

[PlaysLikeMyung]

SS,
I read that Fair.org stuff, but still dont see how it says otherwise about Fox being fair?

It wasn't supposed to. He posted that in response to your "got any proof?" of his claims for The Center for Media and Public Affair

[PlaysLikeMyung]

The Forbes article said according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs that Fox was fair and balanced, while TCFMAPA receives donations from conservative sources. Fox is an obvious conservative base. Am I making things clear?

No... the point is that Fox gives equal time for alternative views.. much more then any other mainstream outlet... I did not see Fair say otherwise?

Offering time to the other side doesn't make one any less biased.  If you only throw nimrods out there for you to pick apart, you're hardly covering both sides of anything.  And there's the manner in which a discussion is directed.  Consider the O'Reilly style of letting guests only provide answers he likes and cutting them off if they venture into reasonable.  You should really learn to recognize things like this.

I'm just some guy from Dallas, but I guarantee you that if I had a forum such as there's, I could have 90% of my guests come from the opposite side of my political spectrum and make their side look like the biggest wankers this side of Jupiter.  And I certainly wouldn't characterize that as fair or impartial.

I see your point... but OReilly only gets jumpy if they are lying , he seems to jump in when he cant take it

As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit, he does seem to have a sharp instinct for when somebody is fixing to cut him to shreds.  That's when he cuts them off, every single time.  He just won't allow cogent answers that go against his ideology.  

have you watched the show? he is willing to concede if he is wrong, at times I think he wants that, to be proven wrong. he is always a good sport, unless its Barney Frank or some crackpot terror sympathizer

I would appreciate it if you would tone down your criticism of the 'other side'. You don't hear myself or Barto or anyone else saying 'those evil republicans' or 'crackpot tea partiers'

Keep it civil. You can be critical of the 'other side' all you want, but the harshness is uncalled for and unprofessional in these sorts of arguments.

[j]

have you watched the show? he is willing to concede if he is wrong, at times I think he wants that, to be proven wrong. he is always a good sport, unless its Barney Frank or some crackpot terror sympathizer

I would appreciate it if you would tone down your criticism of the 'other side'. You don't hear myself or Barto or anyone else saying 'those evil republicans' or 'crackpot tea partiers'

Keep it civil. You can be critical of the 'other side' all you want, but the harshness is uncalled for and unprofessional in these sorts of arguments.

Not to be an insurgent, but..a little overzealous with the moderating there I think, PLM.

We all say "harsh" things like that in every post.  Here are a few recent examples:

As much as I think that O'Reilly is a half-witted twit

Was he being a dipshit for asking her is she's been hypnotized? Absolutely. Is he a partisan hack? Absolutely.

I've watched Hannity's "Great American Panel." It sucks. Hannity is terrible. The worst, even.

Not to single these guys out: I do it in practically all of my posts too.  I think EPICVIEW's pretty damn mixed up, but you're calling him out on being out of line for THAT?

-J

[PlaysLikeMyung]

None of you do it every single post though. Otherwise I'd say it's a problem.

It's nothing though. I'm not warning anybody; it's just supposed to be an FYI

[El Barto]

Yeah, I was going to point out that I've referred to the 43rd POTUS as President Dumbass every day for the last 10 years.  Occasionally I'll throw in Chimpy just to mix things up a bit.  Dim-wit, dipshit, and ignorant buffoon also make regular occurrences.  

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Yeah, I was going to point out that I've referred to the 43rd POTUS as President Dumbass every day for the last 10 years.  Occasionally I'll throw in Chimpy just to mix things up a bit.  Dim-wit, dipshit, and ignorant buffoon also make regular occurrences.  

shit that actually slipped my mind. how on earth could i forget?

Disregard my stupid warning. I only noticed him doing it

[j]

Haha, no worries, and I wasn't trying to be an ass or anything.  I just know I post a lot worse than that on a regular basis.

Anyway, you should be reprimanding EPICVIEW for his opinions, not his delivery of them.

-J

[EPICVIEW]

Thanks J!!! I appreciate your objectivity!

Have a great day!

markets are up, I wonder how MSNBC will spin that,!

[Rina]

You guys are so ruthless. 

[Progmetty]

Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert are both very clever and interesting imo, Bill Maher is too far left but to say he's not smart or witty is down right hateful and weak.

I enjoy watching Bill Maher from time to time,  however, I'm under no illusion that his show constitutes news or journalism.  That's the trick.  The problem I have with a jackass like O'Reilly is that it seems like so many people think of his show as news.  Like Bill Maher, it's news-themed entertainment.  Maher is just intentionally funny. 

What did you think of Religulous?

I just had to google it to figure out WTF it is.

You should find a way to view it. I think you'll dig it.

I agree, it's funny, informative, clever and most of all fair.