Pew Study: FOX NEWS is most FAIR AND BALANCED on TV
libcrus...@gmail.com
found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
BALANCED news on televsion.
With 22% and 25% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 40%
negative of both, Fox News comes out as the most FAIR AND BALANCED
news on television. The libs are caught in yet another lie!
With 10% and 43% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 73% and 14%
negative coverage of McCain and Obama, MSNBC comes out as the most
BIASED News on television.
Read it and weep libs - Fox is the fairest news out there and the rest
of the media is in Obama's pocket.
You lose... again:
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain
Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama
CNN has 13/61 pos/neg coverage of McCain
CNN has 36/39 pos/neg coverage of Obama
MSNBC has 10/73 pos/neg coverage of McCain
MSNBC has 43/14 pos/neg coverage of Obama
Media overall has 14/57 pos/neg coverage of McCain
Media overall has 36/29 pos/neg coverage of Obama
MSNBC Tone of McCain coverage -
Positive - 10%
Neutral - 17%
Negative - 73%
Fox News Tone of McCain coverage -
Positive - 22%
Neutral - 38%
Negative - 40%
CNN Tone of McCain coverage -
Positive - 13
Neutral - 26
Negative - 61
MSNBC Tone of Obama coverage -
Positive - 43%
Neutral - 43%
Negative - 14%
Fox News Tone of Obama coverage -
Positive - 25%
Neutral - 35%
Negative - 40%
CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
Positive - 36
Neutral - 25
Negative - 39
--------
The lib fool asked:
"Explain why Fox News have been found to have an almost 10:1 ratio of
conservative to liberal guests." - Snit (humiliated lib stooge gets
PWN3D!)
abe slaney
> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> BALANCED news on televsion.
>
> With 22% and 25% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 40%
> negative of both, Fox News comes out as the most FAIR AND BALANCED
> news on television. The libs are caught in yet another lie!
>
> With 10% and 43% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 73% and 14%
> negative coverage of McCain and Obama, MSNBC comes out as the most
> BIASED News on television.
>
> Read it and weep libs - Fox is the fairest news out there and the rest
> of the media is in Obama's pocket.
Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
libsr...@hotmail.com
>
> Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
> just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
> Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
What's wrong?
Shit-for-brains can't read stats?
Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
What? They didn't teach you math at Michael Moore University?
Libs - they ignore all the facts.
TigerLuck
> On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, abe slaney <abesla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
>> just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
>> Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
>
> What's wrong?
>
> Shit-for-brains can't read stats?
>
> Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
> McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
And, of course, you being all fair and balanced your own self, have some
links that back up that little factoid that otherwise smacks of have
been recently pulled out of your ass?
No?
You say you want me to do my *own* homework?
I thought so.
FAIL
>
> What? They didn't teach you math at Michael Moore University?
>
> Libs - they ignore all the facts.
>
--
ROCK THE VOTE AMERICA by JK CITIZEN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBrKceZXoeE
abe slaney
> On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, abe slaney <abesla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
> > just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
> > Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
>
> What's wrong?
>
> Shit-for-brains can't read stats?
>
> Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
> McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
And why should a campaign get positive coverage if they are not worthy
of it?
The McCain campaign is a disorganized, desperate, pandering disgrace
and has been rightfully reported as such by pretty much everybody
except Sean ("I yell loudest") Hannity and Bill ("Now hang on - I yell
louder!") O'Reilly. Sorry, I can't help you with your problem.
libsr...@hotmail.com
> libsrui...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, abe slaney <abesla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
> >> just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
> >> Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
>
> > What's wrong?
>
> > Shit-for-brains can't read stats?
>
> > Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
> > McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
>
> And, of course, you being all fair and balanced your own self, have some
> links that back up that little factoid that otherwise smacks of have
> been recently pulled out of your ass?
>
> No?
How about YES and it was in THE ORIGINAL POST!
LOL
Where do these retards come from?
*AGAIN* for the retard -
LINK -
http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
LINK is ABOVE!
HINT: Read the graphs
> You say you want me to do my *own* homework?
>
> I thought so.
>
> FAIL
BINGO!
The lib retard that can't do math or click on a link is a DEFINITE
FAIL!
Back to the Huffington Post for this mentally-challenged lib!
Jim
> On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, abe slaney <abesla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
>> just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
>> Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
>
> What's wrong?
>
> Shit-for-brains can't read stats?
>
> Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
> McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
Or does it mean they filter the news? Lay back on negative facts, or
perhaps puff up positive ones? "Fair and Balanced" shouldn't mean
tracking numbers of pro and con news statements. It should mean using
FAIR substantive facts.
>
> What? They didn't teach you math at Michael Moore University?
>
> Libs - they ignore all the facts.
>
Ya gonna give this a rest after the landslide?
Look, would a news network be "fair and balanced" if they gave Hitler
the same ratio positive to negative news as Ghandi? HECK NO. Some
people generate negative news, others generate positive news. It's the
freakin' nature of reporting substantive fact!
A "fair and balanced" network shouldn't have to count how many times
they give a positive or negative spin. They should just give the
factual news. Why should they bolster up a political candidate lacking
substantive positive news??? Or look for something bad to say for the
other guy, to "balance" the news?
That's NOT the network I'd watch. I actually prefer the style of PBS,
CBC or BBC. Mainstream US news is too glossy and trendy, geared towards
market share so that they can charge more for the advertising minute.
FauxNews=GenuineFake=OxyMoron
> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> BALANCED news on televsion.
Pew...isn't that a word that means "something smells rotten? lol
--
At the RNC incest is priority-one because that's how the GOP got started, all
the way back to the Virgin Birth ;)
https://www.cafepress.com/YbeLIEve
https://www.cafepress.com/FreeDumbOf
https://www.cafepress.com/FreeDumbFrom
Got Conscience?
libsr...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 31, 2:18 am, libsrui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, abe slaney <abesla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
> > > just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
> > > Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
>
> > What's wrong?
>
> > Shit-for-brains can't read stats?
>
> > Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
> > McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
>
> And why should a campaign get positive coverage if they are not worthy
> of it?
And who judges if they aren't worthy of it? You?
Nope...
> The McCain campaign is a disorganized, desperate, pandering disgrace
> and has been rightfully reported as such by pretty much everybody
> except Sean ("I yell loudest") Hannity and Bill ("Now hang on - I yell
> louder!") O'Reilly. Sorry, I can't help you with your problem.
Just tune in to MSNBC and be done with it and get all the slanted lib
news you want.
Me, I want to hear both sides...
libsr...@hotmail.com
> libsrui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
> > McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
>
> Or does it mean they filter the news? Lay back on negative facts, or
> perhaps puff up positive ones? "Fair and Balanced" shouldn't mean
> tracking numbers of pro and con news statements. It should mean using
> FAIR substantive facts.
It means they present both sides of the argument equally and let you
judge instead of them.
> > What? They didn't teach you math at Michael Moore University?
>
> > Libs - they ignore all the facts.
>
> Ya gonna give this a rest after the landslide?
>
> Look, would a news network be "fair and balanced" if they gave Hitler
> the same ratio positive to negative news as Ghandi? HECK NO.
It would mean they are in Ghandis pocket.
Who are the media to judge for us what is right and what is wrong.
> Some
> people generate negative news, others generate positive news. It's the
> freakin' nature of reporting substantive fact!
I agree, Obama has generated a lot more negative news and yet Fox has
kept it balanced while everyone else has not.
> A "fair and balanced" network shouldn't have to count how many times
> they give a positive or negative spin. They should just give the
> factual news.
And that's exactly what Fox does. The results came out and they
*happened* to be the network that didn't *dwell* on one candidate more
than the other. They were the closest to being fair to both sides.
Who wants to hear Keith Olberman say Bush is a criminal every day for
an hour?
> Why should they bolster up a political candidate lacking
> substantive positive news??? Or look for something bad to say for the
> other guy, to "balance" the news?
>
> That's NOT the network I'd watch. I actually prefer the style of PBS,
> CBC or BBC. Mainstream US news is too glossy and trendy, geared towards
> market share so that they can charge more for the advertising minute.
Translated:
"I want spoonfed news to me by Keith Olberman where all Republicans
are viewed negatively because I'm a liberal and I only see things from
Obama's side. It makes me feel good inside when the network is liberal
biased" - Jim
Sorry, you lose. Libs have charged for years that Fox wasn't fair and
only presented the conservative side. Now you change the rules when
you hear the opposite... it doesn't work that way.
DocDice
> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> BALANCED news on televsion.
Once again you are wrong. I understand that you post this rubbish in
order to escape your dull little life, however, each of us know that
CNN and Fox are the two most biased "news/entertainment" stations on
our airwaves. I suspect many of us are also aware that any "pew" poll
is also biased.
I am glad you can still delude yourself. Most of us take the broader
view.
I was reading something the other day that discussed the way the
Republican party must bring itself closer to the center in order to
win back their seats in Congress and Presidency. Whenever this
happens, and it will, it will be interesting to watch those such as
you living alone on your island or righteousness.
DD
libsr...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> libcrushersm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Fox News Tone of Obama coverage -
> > Positive - 25%
> > Neutral - 35%
> > Negative - 40%
>
> > CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
> > Positive - 36
> > Neutral - 25
> > Negative - 39
>
> more balanced than Fox's.
Nope, you don't understand the meaning of fair and balanced.
Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain
Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama
Those are almost even and balanced numbers. Better than anyone else
and Fox *still* has more positive coverage of Obama! Fox is supposed
to be a conservative network according to libs and not to be taken
seriously! Libs lie again!
CNN has 13/61 pos/neg coverage of McCain
CNN has 36/39 pos/neg coverage of Obama
CNN is out of whack. They have almost triple the amount of positive
coverage for Obama and about 30% more negative news on McCain. They
are in Obama's pocket like the rest of the media. I don't want to tune
in to a station and hear gumdrop and lollipop stories about Obama. I
want news...
Me
Liberals hate the idea that anything doesn't go their way, hence they
hate the idea of anything that's fair and balanced and hence, they
hate the idea of a free market of ideas. That's why they have to, at
the very minimum resort to things such as the "Fairness" Doctrine.
What they can't control in the market, they attempt to control through
the courts and through legislation.
They're so dumb though that they don't relaize that something such as
the "Fairness" Doctrine will come back to bite them in the ass.
Sorry libs, you DO in fact hate freedom of speech and freedom of
ideas. You'd all be much more at home and comfortable living in Nazi
Germany or Soviet Russia where you're told what to think and say.
libsr...@hotmail.com
Unbalanced.comG...@GOP-RNC-FauxNews.com> wrote:
> > The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> > found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> > BALANCED news on televsion.
>
> Pew...isn't that a word that means "something smells rotten? lol
>
No, you're mixing Pew up with your boyfriend's anus.lol
Only a lib would question Pew. What's next, the Gallup people are
retards?
You gotta love libs when they get caught in a lie. They never admit or
accept responsibility. That's why everyone hates libs.
"The Pew Center is an independent opinion research group that studies
attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are
best known for regular national surveys that measure public
attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts
trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes.
Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press
(1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are
one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a
nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues,
attitudes and trends shaping America and the world."
"The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media
and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it
serves as an important information resource for political leaders,
journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our
current survey results are made available free of charge."
Pew is a highly
libsr...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 31, 12:24 am, libcrushersm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> > found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> > BALANCED news on televsion.
>
> Once again you are wrong.
Once again you're a liberal in serious denial.
This is *not* my opinion or view, this is the results of reserch by
Pew.
You're a joke.
> I understand that you post this rubbish in
> order to escape your dull little life,
I understand you're a very bitter person who disagrees with anything
that doesn't fit his lib and hate-filled agenda.
Another lib idiot - PWN3D!
Stick to the Daily KOS and keep quoting your hero, Mike Moore. LOL
You gotta love brain dead libs who want to be spoonfed Bush-hate all
day. Fucking morons....
Me
> You gotta love libs when they get caught in a lie. They never admit or
> accept responsibility. That's why everyone hates libs.
>
Socialists don't lie. They "misspeak". When Chairman Barak attempts to
impose massive tax increases on everyone earning over $50 a year, his
explanation will be, "I uh.. did not uh... lie during the campaign
about uh.... raising taxes on only those mean, nasty, evil wealthy
uh.... people. I uh.. misspoke."
Lying is a way of life for liberal scumbags. That and making sure that
as much of the population is as poorly educated and uninformed as
possible are the only ways that they can accomplish their goals.
Snit
833a4d59-3e0f-4167...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on
10/31/08 3:42 AM:
> Liberals hate the idea that anything doesn't go their way, hence they
> hate the idea of anything that's fair and balanced and hence, they
> hate the idea of a free market of ideas. That's why they have to, at
> the very minimum resort to things such as the "Fairness" Doctrine.
> What they can't control in the market, they attempt to control through
> the courts and through legislation.
It makes no more sense to try to group all Liberals like that than it does
to group all Conservatives. Both are very large groups.
> They're so dumb though that they don't relaize that something such as
> the "Fairness" Doctrine will come back to bite them in the ass.
>
> Sorry libs, you DO in fact hate freedom of speech and freedom of
> ideas. You'd all be much more at home and comfortable living in Nazi
> Germany or Soviet Russia where you're told what to think and say.
Can you point to someone who actually believes the views you have created?
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
10/31/08 3:55 AM:
You have just shown you do not know the difference between a Socialist and a
Democrat... and you are making up quotes, clearly.
Did you mean to show your lack of understanding and capabilities like that?
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Me
> "Me" <BabaOhRea...@yahoo.com> stated in post
> 833a4d59-3e0f-4167-896c-77be58ff2...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on
> 10/31/08 3:42 AM:
>
> > Liberals hate the idea that anything doesn't go their way, hence they
> > hate the idea of anything that's fair and balanced and hence, they
> > hate the idea of a free market of ideas. That's why they have to, at
> > the very minimum resort to things such as the "Fairness" Doctrine.
> > What they can't control in the market, they attempt to control through
> > the courts and through legislation.
>
> It makes no more sense to try to group all Liberals like that than it does
> to group all Conservatives. Both are very large groups.
>
> > They're so dumb though that they don't relaize that something such as
> > the "Fairness" Doctrine will come back to bite them in the ass.
>
> > Sorry libs, you DO in fact hate freedom of speech and freedom of
> > ideas. You'd all be much more at home and comfortable living in Nazi
> > Germany or Soviet Russia where you're told what to think and say.
>
> Can you point to someone who actually believes the views you have created?
>
level.
These are not views that I've created. These are facts. Apparently you
have a hard time telling the difference.
Tell you what though. Since you love the socialist form of government,
why don't you let me pay for a one way plane ticket down to Venezuela
with the proviso that you never return to my country. You'll love it
there and feel right at home.
Snit
fa62f8d4-5c00-45e7...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com on 10/31/08
3:39 AM:
Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Hannity, O'Reilly, and the
other Fox talking heads knows they are very much a conservative group.
Looking at: <http://elections.foxnews.com/>
-----
"Featured Story": McCain Predicts Late-Night Win on Election Day
Elsewhere on the page:
* Iraq War Vet's McCain Endorsement Rockets to Top of YouTube
* Fox News Poll: Obama's Edge Over McCain Narrows
* Obama Lays Plans To Kill Expectations After Election Victory
* Palin's Alaska 'Shares' Oil Wealth With Residents
* Transcript: McCain Interview With FOX News
* Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots Of Help On Economic Crisis Response
* Palin: Rousing Speeches Can Fill a Stadium, But Cant Keep This
Country Safe
* Palin Stumps in Tom Ridges Hometown
* McCain to appear on SNL
* PA-Born Biden Cheers Phillies World Series Win
-----
This is when even based on the Fox polls Obama is ahead by 5.9%.
One has to be completely blind to not see that Fox is very, very biased.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown
Snit
10/31/08 4:15 AM:
> On Oct 31, 7:07 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Me" <BabaOhRea...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>> 833a4d59-3e0f-4167-896c-77be58ff2...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com on
>> 10/31/08 3:42 AM:
>>
>>> Liberals hate the idea that anything doesn't go their way, hence they
>>> hate the idea of anything that's fair and balanced and hence, they
>>> hate the idea of a free market of ideas. That's why they have to, at
>>> the very minimum resort to things such as the "Fairness" Doctrine.
>>> What they can't control in the market, they attempt to control through
>>> the courts and through legislation.
>>
>> It makes no more sense to try to group all Liberals like that than it does
>> to group all Conservatives. Both are very large groups.
>>
>>> They're so dumb though that they don't relaize that something such as
>>> the "Fairness" Doctrine will come back to bite them in the ass.
>>
>>> Sorry libs, you DO in fact hate freedom of speech and freedom of
>>> ideas. You'd all be much more at home and comfortable living in Nazi
>>> Germany or Soviet Russia where you're told what to think and say.
>>
>> Can you point to someone who actually believes the views you have created?
>>
> Yes, anyone with an IQ above 50. Apparently you haven't reached that
> level.
I disagree that "anyone with an IQ over 50" "hate[s] freedom of speech and
freedom of ideas" and would be "much more at home and comfortable living in
Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia."
Frankly I find your claim to be completely absurd... even more than your
last one.
> These are not views that I've created. These are facts. Apparently you
> have a hard time telling the difference.
It is not a "fact" that freedom of speech is a bad thing, even if you insist
everyone with an IQ over 50 agrees (even if they did that would not be
proof).
> Tell you what though. Since you love the socialist form of government,
What? Nope. I have repeatedly said pure Socialism would be no better than
pure Capitalism. You must have me confused with someone else.
> why don't you let me pay for a one way plane ticket down to Venezuela
> with the proviso that you never return to my country. You'll love it
> there and feel right at home.
Who do you think you were directing this toward?
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Me
> One has to be completely blind to not see that Fox is very, very biased.
>
> --
Here we have perfect example of an uneducated, ill-informed left-wing
loony liberal scumbag, lying, uh... misspeaking.
Shit, tell us how often you've watched Fox. And for once in your
cowardly, miserable life, just try to tell the truth. I won't hold my
breath for that one.
mcnewsxp
<libcrus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a86f71f2-814b-4f53...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
RichL
No one takes "Me" seriously in rec.music.beatles. He has nothing to
offer that's on topic, and his political rants properly reflect his
"every man for himself, government is evil" attitude.
Don't expect anything intelligible out of him.
Me
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > "Me" <BabaOhRea...@yahoo.com> stated in post
>
> - Show quoted text -
More twaddle out of Little DickL. An old, senile ex-hippie who's good
at spending other people's money and no doubt looks forward to living
in The People's Republic Of America.
Little Dick, in fact, you and your uninformed socialist views are the
one who's not taken seriously.
Just a pathetic, hypocritical old man.
RichL
> More twaddle out of Little DickL.
"DickL". How original.
> An old, senile ex-hippie
Define "hippie". I doubt that I would have ever met any reasonable
definition at any point in my lifetime.
> who's good at spending other people's money
I probably pay more in taxes in a year than you do in three. Nice try.
> and no doubt looks forward to living in The People's
> Republic Of America.
Once again showing evidence of his outstanding <choke> reasoning
ability. Your dark fantasies are amusing yet have no bearing whatsoever
to reality. I suppose you think the Kennedy and Johnson administrations
represented "People's Republic of America I".
> Little Dick, in fact, you and your uninformed socialist views are the
> one who's not taken seriously.
I'd put it up to a vote, but I don't want to waste others' time.
> Just a pathetic, hypocritical old man.
Excellent self-description!
Avatar the Aviator
>> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
>> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
>> BALANCED news on televsion.
>
> Pew...isn't that a word that means "something smells rotten? lol
>
The Pew family is old $$$ American royalty out of Phil. Source? Oil.
Sunoco. mvm
Me
Funny how assholes like you always point to Kennedy as an icon of
American liberalism. He'd be hated by people like you today. He was
for a strong defense and low taxes, things which are totally foreign
to your way of thinking.
As far as you pay in taxes, well gee, I guess you want to have a dick
swinging contest. Talk about fantasists. HAHAHAHAHA Another lie to
chalk up to you.
RichL
> Funny how assholes like you always point to Kennedy as an icon of
> American liberalism. He'd be hated by people like you today. He was
> for a strong defense and low taxes, things which are totally foreign
> to your way of thinking.
When did I *ever* say I was not in favor of a strong defense?
And as far as taxes are concerned, you're wrong as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
In the period 1954 - 1963 (which includes Kennedy's term), the lowest
tax bracket was 20%, and the highest was 91%.
Today, in contrast, the lowest bracket is 10% and the highest is 35%.
Don't let facts interfere with your fantasies, however.
> As far as you pay in taxes, well gee, I guess you want to have a dick
> swinging contest. Talk about fantasists. HAHAHAHAHA Another lie to
> chalk up to you.
You're the one who incorrectly said that I "spend other people's money".
You were wrong, now you're whining.
Why am I not surprised?
Me
> Me <BabaOhRea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Funny how assholes like you always point to Kennedy as an icon of
> > American liberalism. He'd be hated by people like you today. He was
> > for a strong defense and low taxes, things which are totally foreign
> > to your way of thinking.
>
> When did I *ever* say I was not in favor of a strong defense?
>
> And as far as taxes are concerned, you're wrong as usual.
>
>
> In the period 1954 - 1963 (which includes Kennedy's term), the lowest
> tax bracket was 20%, and the highest was 91%.
>
> Today, in contrast, the lowest bracket is 10% and the highest is 35%.
>
> Don't let facts interfere with your fantasies, however.
>
> > As far as you pay in taxes, well gee, I guess you want to have a dick
> > swinging contest. Talk about fantasists. HAHAHAHAHA Another lie to
> > chalk up to you.
>
> You're the one who incorrectly said that I "spend other people's money".
> You were wrong, now you're whining.
>
> Why am I not surprised?
Check out Kennedy's speech to the New York Economic Club in December,
1962 nitwit. I'm sure that you get all of your information from
Wikipedia, but try use a source that's reliable.
BlueBuyYoo
Right. So fair and balanced means that each candidate gets the same
amount of positive and negative coverage, even if they don't deserve it.
RichL
Hey doofus,
read and weep:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Now that's two independent sources that have the same information. Note
that the top tax rates in both sources match exactly in the
Kennedy-Johnson years.
What Kennedy said in 1962 may have been applicable in the context of
those times but I'm sure he'd be aghast at the drastic reduction in the
top tax rate over the years.
Now I don't know how things work where you come from, but as far as I'm
concerned, until you post an authoritative source that contradicts the
above, I consider you PWN3D!
Snit
Eu-dncGICeKyZpfU...@supernews.com on 10/31/08 5:34 AM:
CSMA has the same type: Steve Carroll, MuahMan, Wally, Tim Adams, ...
I recognize them... but play with them. :)
--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal
Snit
10/31/08 4:31 AM:
See, RichL... "Me" snips all evidence, calls people names, creates stories
about others... he is very much like CSMA's Steve Carroll. Except a bit of
a better debater. :)
--
BU__SH__
DGDevin
> No one takes "Me" seriously in rec.music.beatles. He has nothing to
> offer that's on topic, and his political rants properly reflect his
> "every man for himself, government is evil" attitude.
>
> Don't expect anything intelligible out of him.
So, if r.m.b. is where his posts originate, is there some good reason to
x-post to half a dozen groups when replying? Surely a.g.a. produces enough
off-topic noise all on its own without importing more.
RichL
> See, RichL... "Me" snips all evidence, calls people names, creates
> stories about others... he is very much like CSMA's Steve Carroll.
> Except a bit of a better debater. :)
Carroll must be awful then.
Snit
"Me", as far as I know, has never accused someone he has had *no* contact
with outside of Usenet of raping him... and had his girlfriend threaten to
call the police and someone's employer to make such claims.
Years ago I made a comment about Bush's law breaking... and ever since then
Carroll has been in a rage - his newest drivel is about how it is against
the presumption of innocence to note Bush's guilt until or unless he is
found so in a court... but it is just dandy to call people rapists, to say
Clinton is guilty of perjury even *contrary* to the findings of a court,
etc. Completely hypocrisy.
--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
RichL
You seem particularly grouchy lately ;-)
Is there a reason to expect anything other than political argument in a
thread that was crossposted originally by one of AGA's finest? And is
there any particular reason to be touchy about people participating in
such a thread from a group whose signal-to-noise ratio is much higher
than AGAs and whose nutjob contingent is much smaller?
Sorry, it's just a tad too ironic to see you complaining about off-topic
noise when you're among the main contributors to such noise within AGA.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
DGDevin
>> So, if r.m.b. is where his posts originate, is there some good reason
>> to x-post to half a dozen groups when replying? Surely a.g.a.
>> produces enough off-topic noise all on its own without importing
>> more.
>
> You seem particularly grouchy lately ;-)
I don't see me as being especially snarky today you whiny liberal
rat-bastard.
> Is there a reason to expect anything other than political argument in
> a thread that was crossposted originally by one of AGA's finest? And
> is there any particular reason to be touchy about people
> participating in such a thread from a group whose signal-to-noise
> ratio is much higher than AGAs and whose nutjob contingent is much
> smaller?
I'm simply saying that maintaining the x-posting plays into the hands of the
trolls, in effect you're following their game plan. I can understand
letting the air out of their tires, I just don't see the need to x-post all
over the place when attention is what they so desperately want. What did
people in the Las Vegas vacation group do to deserve this?
> Sorry, it's just a tad too ironic to see you complaining about
> off-topic noise when you're among the main contributors to such noise
> within AGA. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Well, you recently pointed out that my x-posting to alt.guitar re: a certain
lunatic was A Bad Thing, and yet here you are arguing with obvious cretins
while x-posting to a string of groups. It just struck me as an odd state of
affairs given your previous display of concern, ya know?
RichL
Yeah, I see your point in a sense. But in another way, my concern about
AG was motivated primarily by the fact that it was essentially
non-political before Mulay et al. commenced their invasion. On the
other hand, RMB is much less political than AGA and I saw participation
of people in that group as injecting a moderating influence against
extremism on both the left and right.
But OK, I've said my piece and it's not like it's going to change
anyone's minds, so I'm done.
DGDevin
> But OK, I've said my piece and it's not like it's going to change
> anyone's minds, so I'm done.
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. ;~)
Snit
VyHOk.3708$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com on 10/31/08 10:51 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Looking at: <http://elections.foxnews.com/>
>>
>> -----
>> "Featured Story": McCain Predicts Late-Night Win on Election Day
>>
>> Elsewhere on the page:
>> * Iraq War Vet's McCain Endorsement Rockets to Top of YouTube
>> * Fox News Poll: Obama's Edge Over McCain Narrows
>> * Obama Lays Plans To Kill Expectations After Election Victory
>> * Palin's Alaska 'Shares' Oil Wealth With Residents
>> * Transcript: McCain Interview With FOX News
>> * Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots Of Help On Economic Crisis Response
>> * Palin: Rousing Speeches Can Fill a Stadium, But Cant Keep This
>> Country Safe
>> * Palin Stumps in Tom Ridges Hometown
>> * McCain to appear on SNL
>> * PA-Born Biden Cheers Phillies World Series Win
>> -----
>>
>> This is when even based on the Fox polls Obama is ahead by 5.9%.
>>
>> One has to be completely blind to not see that Fox is very, very biased.
>
> Heh. Well done.
>
> And the featured story now is:
>
> "Three Reporters From McCain-Endorsing Papers Removed From Obama's Plane"
LOL! Ah, they report... and anyone with a brain can decide for themselves
how biased they are. :)
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Dave
>> perhaps puff up positive ones? "Fair and Balanced" shouldn't mean
>> tracking numbers of pro and con news statements. It should mean using
>> FAIR substantive facts.
>
> It means they present both sides of the argument equally and let you
> judge instead of them.
lol No, it doesn't! Those tables show number of postive vs negtive
stories, which is pretty meaningless in and of itself. For example,
everyone agrees--even RW pundits and strategists--that the McCain campaign
has been poorly run. So, a positive story on his campaign would be bogus.
>> Look, would a news network be "fair and balanced" if they gave Hitler
>> the same ratio positive to negative news as Ghandi? HECK NO.
>
> It would mean they are in Ghandis pocket.
Boy, you are DUMB! I suppose you'd have been in favor of an equal number of
stories both for and against slavery.
Steve Carroll
You aren't the first person Snit has lied to... and you won't be the
last. Here
are comments by some of the people he duped for a time:
--
1- Adam Kesher: "Steve, IIRC Sandman's website has a member area and a
login. If you forget your password, you can ask it to e-mail it to
you,
and a bot will send an e-mail.
*That* is the e-mail Snit got from Sandman's website, and yes he's
that
fucked in the head and starved for attention that he'd claim it to be
an
e-mail from Sandman himself. So, don't get sucked into his little
circus.
The e-mail, in this particular instance, did probably originate from
Sandman.net."
2- Alan Baker: "People's perceptions of you are *formed* by behaviour
and not withstanding your occasional on topic posts, I wish you'd
leave
too. Please note that despite the amazing silliness that is Edwin, I
have never made the same wish of him."
3- Andrew J. Brehm: "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you
are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the
newsgroup."
4- AZ Nomad: "The fact that you routinely change your headers to
weasel
out of killfiles proves that you're an asshole."
5- Andy/news/nospam: "Why do you keep these things up, Snit? Why not
just let them go away and show how responsible a member of CSMA you
are?
You could show your enemies up by being better than then, rise above
the
low level you so obviously dislike. Anything, just stop...."
6- B.B.: "Does the From: header contain the string "Snit"? If yes,
then
troll. Otherwise, maybe. Dunno why I had my KF on you set to expire,
but
it's fixed now."
7- bobinnv: "I learned some time ago how much better this group can be
if you kill file Snit. I have never understood why more people don't
do
the same.."
8- Bob S: "This has always been pretty much a free-for-all group, but
since Snit showed up, its become almost impossible to have a decent
discussion about anything.
The solution is to NOT REPLY TO SNIT. But for some reason, some people
just can't stop feeding him."
9- ?b? unny: "snit makes me sad."
10- buzz off: "Snit is obviously mentally ill..."
11- chrisv (cola): "No, she called him "shit", and rightly so, for
they
way he was so ignominiously birthed into a toilet at the bus depot,
and
simply refused to die, despite repeated flushes.
It's now far too late to *flush* him, but we can still *plonk* him..."
12- C Lund: "Snit is not my responsibility. Maybe it's time for you to
learn how to use your kill-filter. I am assuming, of course, that your
Usenet browser has a kill-filter."
13- Code Orange: "Then why post it? What need is there for you to
"win"
an argument? They don't like you, you don't like them. Why must you
keep
this up? What results are you expecting?"
14- Dawg Tail: "You've already apologized for having already misread
what I had previously written. What makes you think that you're
correctly understanding what I'm writting now. You've got a history of
reading into things what you wanted people to have said instead of
what
they really said.
I suggest you get over this limitation of yours. It's making you look
foolish."
Dawg Tail: "PC advocates, Mac advocates, Linux advocates. Almost all
of
them are making similar claims about Snit. When you have so many
diverse
people who share a common perception where do you think the problem
lies? With Snit? Or almost everyone else? The answer doesn't require
an
advanced degree to figure out."
15- Dave Fritzinger: "Snit, please go away. Get a life, meet a woman,
do
something, but please, please, please, GO AWAY!!!! "
16- Donald L McDaniel: "Jesus, snit. You're a teacher. I thought you
knew what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was
presented
to you. I guess I had too much confidence in you."
17- ed: "snit, you continually amaze me with how much of a liar and
loser you are. you may notice a semi-regular pattern with me where i
stop responding to your posts for stretches at a time, then start up
responding as if you were a normal person. i suppose it's tough for
the
magnitude of your 'loserdom' to stick, so it loses some of it's
sharpness when i stop responding to you. you almost always start
responding back in a semi normal way, but inevitably degenerate. it's
once again that time. i can only ask that you pass my condolences to
your wife and unborn child for having to put up with such a dishonest
fool as yourself. (well, if your wife is a loser as well, just pass
those condolences to the rug-rat to be; if not, double
condolences to her). "
18- Edwin: "You've got to be out of your mind, Snit. You're the worst
troll this group has ever seen. You're a liar and a forger, and you've
almost destroyed this group single-handedly. For you to post a list of
out of context arguments, and lies, and forgeries about your enemies
labled as a "peace effort" has to be one of the craziest stunts you've
pulled. It's all about your sick need for attention, your need to be
center stage at all times. You'd publicly eat dog turd if you thought
it
would make people look at you."
19- Elijah Baley: "Seriously, Snit, you need psychiatric help. Go see
a
doctor."
20- Elizabot v2.0.2: "I see you were unable to respond to the points
in
my post and you are back to your repetitious regurgitation mode. How
childishly typical of you, Snit. "
21- fibercut: "That is the problem. In the years I have been coming to
CSMA I have seen in the past year a real hatred among people, besides
the typical Mac vs. Windows typical argument. I feel that it is like
being in a room of really young children trying there best to best the
other person. The one common thing among all of this seems to be you.
I
hate to be like this, but facts are facts. You seem to be in the
middle
of a great percentage of arguments. CSMA has become less about Macs
and
more about "look everybody, I think he lied". Is there no end then all
this picking at each other on such a personal level. CSMA has always
been al little adversarial but you have personally crank it up to the
point that this place is no longer fun. Congratulations on stopping
CSMA
and making this place your own personal
circus."
22- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with the Snit
(AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He will drive you
crazy
with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted need to be ALWAYS right at any
cost. He will move goalposts, set up strawmen, and bore you into
submission with his endless pedanticism. The only way to engage him is
to hit and run. NEVER engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that
will only anger you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!"
23- gimme_this_gimme_t...@yahoo.com: "Hitting the vodka tonight Snit?"
24- Greycloud: "You really shouldn't lie like that. Everyone else
notices that you are not honest and you have no honor."
25- Henry Flam: "Who gives a damn about this shit? Snit, once in a
while, I make the mistake in thinking that that you are starting to
make
sense in your posts; I tend to agree with your politics. Then you post
stuff like this and it destroys any respect that I have for you."
26- Heywood Mogroot: "*plonk*"
27- Jamie Hart (cola): "It seems that since you are unable to offer
support for your statements, you're reduced to personal attacks on me.
Incidentally, anyone reading this post can see that I have offered no
straw men, and have only asked you to explain how the things you state
as facts can be true. I'm really sorry that you're taking this
attitude,
the topic is an interesting one and I thought you might have some
insights. I've snipped the rest, since you dislike long posts and
avoid
answering any of the questions I asked by saying everything was just
repeated. "
28- Jason McNorton: "You're one of the many, many paranoid people on
usenet that should be confined most likely. You sit there and refresh
your screen endlessly. You post the same nonsense over and over.
Either
you're a super troll, or you're a super mess."
29- JEDIDIAH (cola): "You're simply full of shit."
30- Jeff B.: "Yo, Snit. We're not pals. I think you're a git."
31- Jeff Hoppe: "This is a Macintosh Advocacy newsgroup. Not a 12-step
recovery plan. Your medical problems or conditions won't help me
achieve
a greater understanding of my Mac. In fact, it detracts from it and
those kinds of discussions have no place in a newsgroup such as this."
32- Jesus: "Really, Snit. It's annoying. What are you accomplishing
besides being annoying? Is that your goal?"
33- Jim Lee Jr.: "Snit, read the thread's title, is Bush mentioned in
it? You (and Carroll) ought to learn to stay on topic and not hijack
threads."
34- Jim Polaski: "Why is it that nearly every thread you're involved
in
seems like it turns into some tit-for-tat, dozens of responses to OT
things and garbage?"
35- Jim Richardson (cola): "And yet again, Snit runs away, rather than
actually provide evidence for his claims. Par for the course I
suppose."
36- Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo: "and Snithead has even farther to fall
-
in a few weeks he'll be out on the street after midnight, yelling at
passersby 'sucky sucky, $2...'"
37- John C. Randolph: "You're nothing but a troll yourself. What are
you
bitching about?"
38- JohnOfArc (cola): "I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like
a
black hole! But hey, if we all promise to never again even entertain
an
unkind thought re Apple, will you take it back and lock it up?
Please??"
39- John Q. Public: "I have not been bothered to read Snit's postings
since I figured out who he is. I don't bother to filter his posts, I
just consider the source and skip to the next one when I see his
name."
40- John Slade: "I don't get posts from Snit. I wouldn't be shocked
that
he has some kind of disorder. He made up stuff about being a computer
repairman and teacher. He's just plain loony and best ignored. Let him
deal with his disorder by medication. He's here to do one thing, get
attention from people. He says the crazy stuff just to get a reaction.
You say you like to beat him over the head. Well that's what he's
counting on, he says stuff he knows isn't true in hopes to get a rise
out of people like you. Ignore him, you won't regret it."
John Slade: "Snit, you have a enough problems as it is without adding
drinking booze to the list. How the hell did you manage to get out of
my
killfile? Oh well back into the cage you go, PLONK."
41- Josh McKee: "Snit, I assume there was some point to this posting?
Because I certainly cannot find it."
42- K E: "I haven't read this board for awhile but I see that even
though the trolls still roam free at least the worst troll of the lot
is
mostly being ignored by readers on this bb. If the few stragglers that
keep replying to him would just stop responding to Snit at all this
place could be worth coming back to. There's a good chance he'll pack
up
and take his trolling to more fertile ground."
43- Kelsey Bjarnason (cola): "Funny how you simply don't bother
reading
the posts that rip your entire thesis to bleeding gobbets of putrid
excrescence. Maybe some day you'll learn how to support your position,
instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming, hoping
it'll
all go away."
44- Ku Karlovsky (cola): "You repeatedly chastise others for ad
hominem
attacks while in the same sentence make your own ad hominem
attacks.You
make silly claims and then avoid the subject of your silliness. You're
a
liar and a hypocrite and you always have been."
45- Lars Trager: "Yes, you are stupid."
46- Lefty Bigfoot: "Okay, I tried to put up with it for a long time,
but
the few times you post something worth reading just aren't worth it
anymore. *plonk*"
47- Liam Slider (cola): "Maybe he's responding to the fact you've been
an annoying little fuckwit lately. You started out with the pretense
of
trying to be fair, but lately all there is from you in COLA is
trashtalk
about Linux and you acting every bit the troll."
48- Linonut (cola): "Snit is a Tholenoid."
"Indeed. Snit may be the first retraction of my general killfile
amnesty. The volume of cavilling, whining, foot-stomping,
back-tracking, goal-post shifting, and petulance generated by that
effete candy-ass beggars belief".
49- Lloyd Parsons: "Well, I don't know if Oxford is the most
cretinous,
I would think that would be reserved for Snit! ;-)"
50- Mark Kent (cola): "The problem with someone like Mr Glasser is the
same as it is with Mr Wong, even if he were to be honest now, it would
be impossible to determine where the honesty starts and the usual
dishonesty ends. In my primary school, one of the teachers was very
keen
on proverbs, and I recall her going over the "cry wolf" story.
Mr Glasser could "cry wolf" over and over now, and I would not come to
help him with his sheep, because I do not know any way of determining
if
he's ever telling the truth, or indeed, if he ever has."
51- Mayor of R'lyeh: "The fact is that he's probably pulling it to
this
post since its all about him and he managed to make me think about him
today. A friend of mine has a toddler. I went over to her house and
videotaped her kid doing a bunch of cute toddler stuff then burned a
DVD
of it for her. While we were watching the DVD her kid got mad. He got
mad because we quit making him the center of attention and made that
kid
on the tv the center of attention. He even ran up to the tv and tried
to
block our view of it. That's how Snit lives his whole life."
52- Michelle Ronn: "The real topic here is that one someone refutes
your
"facts", you run away and ignore them. Refuting your "facts" is easily
done in this case. I did it, and you ignored it. "
53- Mike: "Nonsense. I never see you "advocate" anything. All I see
you
doing is engage in endless semantic arguments with everyone.
You're the TholenBot of CSMA. BTW, that's *not* a compliment!"
54- Mike Dee: "I will no longer accuse you of lying here. Instead I
can
only say that you are a complete and delusional kook that happens to
inhabit CSMA for the time being. That you are unaware of how deranged
you actually behave further reinforces this notion. Please seek
professional help."
55- mmoore321: "Snit is a human car-accident and we are all
rubbernecking. We know it is bad form, but yet strangely curious.
Treat
him the same way, look but just keep moving on."
56- Mojo: "Actually, these facts piss everybody off because they are
off-topic, unnecessarily confrontational, extremely boring and clearly
show that you are crying out for attention."
57- Mr. Blonde: "Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that
your
obsession with Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him.
Killfilling someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet
you piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
website's validation status more often than most people check their
e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual."
58- MR_ED_of_Course: "Seriously, spend half a day at any pre-school or
kindergarten and see if the kids there can't teach you a thing or two
about social behavior."
59- Muahman: "Ummm, dude you post 1000 posts a day. 999 of them are
trolls, if anyone here has issues it's not me."
60- Nashton/Nasht0n: "Oh for crying out loud, if I wasn't convinced
that
snit is a total loser, and I rarely call people losers, I certainly am
now. Why bother responding to his stupidities anyway?"
61- New Bee: "Honest and honorable? You? You've either got a wry sense
of humor, or you're completely nuts. Either way you're just a waste of
time, and you've done more than anybody to make this group a cesspool.
Then you revel in wallowing in your own filth."
62- Not Important: "I get this mental image of you and a sibling as
children in the back seat of the family car saying:
Mom, 'snits' touching me ...
and you responding much as you do now ...
I'm not touching you, you're touching me!
The problem is that by now you should've grown out of that type of
poke
and complain interaction with others. But, of course, you've haven't
learned how to interact with others in a more 'constructive' and
mutually beneficial manner even now."
63- OldCSMAer: "What's he been doing? Am I going to be sorry I
killfiled
him?"
64- OldSage: "What drives me nuts is your unrelenting ability and
desire
to argue on the head of a pin about the most trivial of things."
65- Oxford: "If you are using MT-Newswatcher:
Select offending Author, example Snit...
Go to the Filters Menu, Choose "Kill this Author"
Click "OK"
Then Repeat with each annoying Author of your choice.
Then to see your work...
Choose the Filter Menu again,
Then "Refilter Articles"...
Bam! No more boring, pointless bickering about nothing.
Enjoy!!!!!"
66- Patrick Nihill: "I mean, honestly, who would you rather discuss
something with; Dan, or someone like Zara? Or, for that matter, Snit,
for whom the work 'troll' seems so painfully inadequate?"
67- Pawel Wojciak: "Jesus Christ, snit... <plonk> "
68- PC Guy: "Forget it Snit, you're a waste of time. For someone who
talks about everyone else not being "honest and honorable" you appear
to
be the least honest and honorable of anyone here."
69- Peter: "I've never felt the need to use the filters in Newswatcher
but I thought Id try the Kill this Author.. option with Snit. Ten
seconds later and he's gone! Amazing."
70- Peter Bjorn Perlso: "Plonked for 60 days. Now stfu and take your
argument with sandman into the private room."
71- Peter Hayes: "True, but that removes Snit completely, and
someti...
err..... occasiona.... errrrr..... once in a blue moon he has
something
useful to say."
72- Peter Jensen (cola): "Where has he ever said that they were not
different windowing environments? Message-ID, please. Experience has
told me not to trust you on anything without backing evidence."
73- Peter Kohlmann (cola): "Snot is a hideous troll. Nobody is as
dishonest as that piece of unadultered garbage. There are csma posters
even more stupid than Snot. Oxford comes to mind. There are certainly
other csma posters who lie nearly as much. But no others are so intent
on trolling in whatever way possible as Snot"
74- Phil Earnhardt: "You're only interested in trying to get
superficial
snipes and extrapolate inappropriate conclusions."
75- Rapskat (cola): "For instance, your sig you reference a long
standing war you have going with some person from csma. It's like you
single out persons to target your attentions upon and then
continuously
berate them with constant barbs and goads to perpetuate their
acrimonious responses, which in turn you respond in kind, etc. ad
infinitum. Above all things, your affinity for Macs and your
overbearing
pompous nature aside, this is what convinces me that your primary
purpose for frequenting this and other groups is to troll."
76- RichardK: "Just killfile him already."
77- Rick (cola): "Snit, you are a liar. And an ignorant one. You trash
people that are trying their level best to cope with a horrendous
situation. And you do it without the slightest idea of what is going
on."
78- Rick G.: "Just to be plain here, I have no doubt that he is a
troll.
I am tolerant of his nature, not blind to it. However, as a troll, he
is
... somewhat clumsy."
79- Robert F.: "Um, perhaps you misunderstand. I don't care if you
quote
Mayor McCheese claiming the Earth is a flat plate perched on the shell
of a tortoise, I was merely pointing out that you run the risk of
looking ridiculous when you quote something patently stupid. If that's
your goal, you're on the right track, and more power to you."
80- Roy Culley (cola): "You appear to be in the latter category.
Starting crossposted threads for the simple purpose of hoping to
generate a flame war. If you truly want to learn more about Linux and
how it can help you and your supposed users why aren't you requesting
help from a more technical Linux newsgroup than an advocacy group?
As the old saying goes, those who can do, those who can't teach. Your
posts seem to confirm that saying IMHO."
81- Sandman: "He is by far the most killfiled person in the -HISTORY-
of
csma. I've never seen someone so disliked, almost hated, in a news
group
before. He has the ability to turn just about any person against him
in
just a few posts. On usenet, trolls do this daily, but the funny part
with Michael is that I actually think he DOESN'T consider himself be a
troll - damn what -EVERYONE ELSE- is calling him. Obviously they are
wrong. Only Tholen himself can match this behaviour."
82- sav: "You really need to take a rest somewhere nice. Honestly,
even
the nutters who hang out down on Brighton seafront made more sense
than
this. You been doing drugs or something?"
83- Sean Burke: If you're dumb enough to respond to snit, you're
probably dumb enough to click on a spam attachment that promises to
remove smut from your harddrive."
84- ShutterBugz: "so snit-zel has some kind of problem expressing
anger,
i guess. he has to vent his frustrations in other ways. and he thinks
he's making sense: well the syntax is there and he figures he's pretty
smart. indeed, he tells us, he's done the personality tests and the iq
tests and he's okay! aaaaahhhhh, you see he's soooooooo well
adjusted."
85- Steve Carroll: "The only things we are sure about Snit is that he
has:
* a monumental reading comprehension problem.
* nym-shifted numerous times to avoid kill-files.
* built too many straw-men to count... some, the size of small cities.
* been labeled a disingenuous liar/troll(or worse) by the vast
majority.
* used numerous sock-puppets and admitted to it.
* stolen IDs and admitted to it.
* gotten booted off by ISPs for his behavior.
* twisted more context than all csma posters combined.
* made more unsupported accusations than all csma posters combined.
* virtually no life outside of csma."
86- Steve Mackay: "Just killfile Snit, the dishonest piece of elephant
dung, and all would go away. Sure, I got caught up in the "Snit
Circus",
but then the cotton candy began to sour, and CSMA begun to smell like
elephant dung."
87- Steven de Mena: "Sorry, you have now lost all credibility with me
for your rediculous argument regarding this."
88- Steve Travis: "Oh oh... Now look what we've done. Snit has lost
all
self respect and has sunk to the point of using words like 'asses'
when
referring to others. Oh, how could the morally superior snit have
fallen
so low.. Please take a moment out of your busy schedule to feel
embarassed for him. Or perhaps we should set up a fund to get him more
happy glue (and the appropriate plastic bags)."
89- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him then.
A
snit is a snit is a snit and always will be."
90- TheLetterK: "That is merely your perception, Shit. You're the one
lacking counter evidence, and your arguments basically amount to "I'm
right, nya nya nya." No matter how many examples someone points at to
demonstrate their claim, you blindly continue to insist that they
provide no evidence, or that the evidence given is irrelevant. Worse
still, you fall back on straw men and disingenuous quote mangling to
portray the argument in your favor. You are one of the worst trolls
that
inhabit CSMA, Shit. *Edwin* is more prone to fits of reason than you
are. "
91-Tim Adams: "I'd kill file you but then I'd miss the fun. you see,
you
never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you really are. Why just
the
other day I had a great laugh when I saw you, the king of liars (in
this
NG anyway) calling somebody else a liar."
92- Tim Crowley: "I don't know - I think you might have more
compassion.
Snit is sick. He needs help. This is the only way the poor sick fool
can
get attention. My fucking God, he's taken to hanging out with and
supporting racist pig fuckers like MuahMuah. It is true that no-one
likes him and those that pretend they do are just using him or don't
know him - but come on- it's not his fault. He's sick. Have some
compassion, eh? All these idiot trolls, Zara, Stew, Tommy,
MuaaaahMuaaah, and Snit - they are all so alike. I pity each and every
one of them"
93- Tim Smith: "No, he didn't, and there is no reasonable way you
could
actually believe he lied. You are purely trying to troll here."
94- Timberwoof: "*Plonk!*"
95- Tom Bates: "Do you have to turn any thread you post in into one of
your Circus acts?"
96- Tommy: "In case you did not get it, I think the moral was: Stop
polluting the world with your infantile and obsessive "writings". You
give Mac advocacy a bad name. If that was your goal you have
succeeded!
That also goes for all that bullshit on your website"
97- TravelinMan: "I still can't figure out what's wrong with Snit.
Most
people have him kill-filed and the few who don't mostly restrict their
responses to 'why don't you go away, no one wants you here'.
Just what would keep someone in this group with all of that animosity?
Must be some kind of severe mental illness."
98- Wally: "Because by your own admission "honor and honesty" are
nothing more than a "game" to you, as such not only do you wish to
define the rules, but no doubt you will also attempt to alter or bend
the rules when inevitably things do not go to your liking, for this
reason I doubt anyone would be foolish enough to play your game."
99- William R. Walsh: "Now, if you'll excuse me, and accept my sincere
apologies for this, PLONK! Feel proud about that. You're the first
person to be plonked from my new computer! :-) "
100- Woofbert: "*Plonk*"
101- zara: "Look - I'm not into combing through thousands of posts, to
prove what was said or not said - I leave stuff like that to people
without lives, like Snit. But it is assuredly, in the record. Ping
Snit
to do a search - you will flatter him, and give meaning to his tawdry
little life."
102- Znu: "I think your 'I'll go start a new thread to try to draw
more
people into the debate I'm currently having with Steve/Elizabot/etc'
tactic is fairly trollish."
103 - High Plains Thumper: "Well, for one who is trolling this
group, those were extremely poorly done examples, making problems
that do not exist except an invention of Snit's own mind."
104 - Geoff M. Fitton:
"The Prescott Computer Guy *still* showing how stupid he is...
What a mar00n".
105 - William Poaster:
"Good grief. If anyone's having a mental breakdown it's the Prescott
Computer Guy, Michael Snit Glasser. What a f#cked up mess he is'.
106 - Tattoo Vampire:
"In other words, in another attempt to troll, you made yourself look
like a
fool. Again".
107 -Mr. Blonde
"Lastly, I can't help but comment on the fact that your obsession
with
Sandman has actually grown since you claimed to KF him. Killfilling
someone generally implies you're ignoring that person, yet you
piggyback onto virtually every reply to him here and and check his
website's validation status more often than most people check their
e-mail. These are not the actions of a mentally balanced individual".
108 - CozmicDebris
"I'm done with your three year old games. The archives show my answers
and your
inability to process them. Keep posting your list and proving that you
are an
idiot troll. I will not address it any further- you being too stupid
to realize
and accept that is not my problem".
109 - WhoMe
"F michael IS a teacher, it's no wonder he's home more than he's
anywhere near a
classroom".
110 - spi...@freenet.co.uk
"The thought is probably to show everyone here just how bad a troll
snit is".
111- Carlo Coggi
"He must believe he is surrounded by 'trolls' ... in the groups he
trolls
in, that is.
I wondered if the idiotrollers like snit would reply to this thread.
Of
course, I didn't see his posts, only your reply".
112 - bobinv
"I learned some time ago how much better this group can be if you kill
file
Snit. I have never understood why more people don't do the same".
113 - Zaren Ankleweed
"And with that, Snit goes in the global killfile. No subject, no
author,
no nothing. Buh-bye".
114 - H
"Your crappy posts are still showing up in seperate threads, are you
doing this
on purpose to piss people off? I dont ever censor people cause that's
just
retarded but if you dont fix it I'm gonna have to cause I dont wanna
see your
name 40 times in a row. So uh, change your client or something".
115 - PeterBP
"Oh will you stfu".
--
I.M. Mortal
>
> Mulay invasion.
Lot's of playing and recording lately. Think I'll upload to my site this
weekend. :-). Already voted.
Obama/Biden!
mvm
McGarnagle
Right. Obama doesn't deserve it but he gets fair coverage anyway.
Now, go the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and Michael Moore dot com
and tell me how many negative articles you see about Obama and how
many positive you see about McCain.
LOL
Thanks for that!
RichL
It will all be over soon anyways, and I'm sure everyone will graciously
accept the outcome. Right?
Right?
Puh-leeze someone tell me I'm right!?
McGarnagle
<whydoIst...@usenet.com> wrote:
>libsr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> > > CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
>> > > Positive - 36
>> > > Neutral - 25
>> > > Negative - 39
>> >
>> > At least when it comes to Obama, these stats suggest CNN's coverage is
>> > more balanced than Fox's.
>>
>> Nope, you don't understand the meaning of fair and balanced.
>>
>> Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain
>> Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>>
>> Those are almost even and balanced numbers. Better than anyone else
>> and Fox *still* has more positive coverage of Obama! Fox is supposed
>> to be a conservative network according to libs and not to be taken
>> seriously! Libs lie again!
>>
>> CNN has 13/61 pos/neg coverage of McCain
>> CNN has 36/39 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>>
>>
>> CNN is out of whack. They have almost triple the amount of positive
>> coverage for Obama and about 30% more negative news on McCain. They
>> are in Obama's pocket like the rest of the media. I don't want to tune
>> in to a station and hear gumdrop and lollipop stories about Obama. I
>> want news...
>
>How can you say CNN is "in Obama's pocket"
Again for the blind lib:
"CNN is out of whack. They have almost triple the amount of positive
coverage for Obama and about 30% more negative news on McCain."
LOL
That's not fair and balanced for BOTH parties.
Think more... period.
Back to Daily KOS for you!
McGarnagle
wrote:
>>> Or does it mean they filter the news? Lay back on negative facts, or
>>> perhaps puff up positive ones? "Fair and Balanced" shouldn't mean
>>> tracking numbers of pro and con news statements. It should mean using
>>> FAIR substantive facts.
>>
>> It means they present both sides of the argument equally and let you
>> judge instead of them.
>
>lol No, it doesn't! Those tables show number of postive vs negtive
>stories, which is pretty meaningless in and of itself. For example,
>everyone agrees--even RW pundits and strategists--that the McCain campaign
>has been poorly run. So, a positive story on his campaign would be bogus.
If it's so poorly run and not deserving of any positive stories, why
is the race tightening and close as it is??
Hitler ran great campaigns and was one of the first to utilize
airplanes. I guess you think he should have gotten only positive
coverage because he had run such a good campaign.
>
>>> Look, would a news network be "fair and balanced" if they gave Hitler
>>> the same ratio positive to negative news as Ghandi? HECK NO.
>>
>> It would mean they are in Ghandis pocket.
>
>Boy, you are DUMB! I suppose you'd have been in favor of an equal number of
>stories both for and against slavery.
Sure, otherwise people would think slave owners got the shaft and feel
sorry for them.
Why, are you so scared the slave owners might have a legitimate beef
that they may win over people like you?
You sound racist *and* dumb...
libsr...@hotmail.com
> "DocDice" <steve_johns...@bellsouth.net> stated in post
> fa62f8d4-5c00-45e7-919b-f67410e9e...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com on 10/31/08
> 3:39 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 12:24 am, libcrushersm...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> >> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> >> BALANCED news on televsion.
>
> > order to escape your dull little life, however, each of us know that
> > CNN and Fox are the two most biased "news/entertainment" stations on
> > our airwaves. I suspect many of us are also aware that any "pew" poll
> > is also biased.
>
> > I am glad you can still delude yourself. Most of us take the broader
> > view.
>
> > I was reading something the other day that discussed the way the
> > Republican party must bring itself closer to the center in order to
> > win back their seats in Congress and Presidency. Whenever this
> > happens, and it will, it will be interesting to watch those such as
> > you living alone on your island or righteousness.
>
> Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Hannity, O'Reilly, and the
> other Fox talking heads knows they are very much a conservative group.
>
> Looking at: <http://elections.foxnews.com/>
>
> -----
> "Featured Story": McCain Predicts Late-Night Win on Election Day
HAHAHAHAAHA!
This shows the stubborn stupidity of libs.
A national and respected non-partisan group takes a well-documented
survey over a long period of time and clearly shows Fox News to more
fair and balanced than anyone else..... and this annoymous lib stooge
comes up with a meaningless one hour, cherry-picked snapshot of Fox
with innocent headlines like "Biden cheers Phillies" and thinks he's
proven something.
> This is when even based on the Fox polls Obama is ahead by 5.9%.
>
> One has to be completely blind to not see that Fox is very, very biased.
Yes, they don't have Obama up by 20%, so they're "biased", right....
Just like fatboy Murtha saying Obama's lead isn't big enough because
white people are racist.
These are REAL libs, folks.
This is NOT made up.
Incredible....
Snit
594e7c16-3e5d-455f...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com on
10/31/08 4:30 PM:
...
>>> I was reading something the other day that discussed the way the
>>> Republican party must bring itself closer to the center in order to
>>> win back their seats in Congress and Presidency. Whenever this
>>> happens, and it will, it will be interesting to watch those such as
>>> you living alone on your island or righteousness.
>>
>> Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with Hannity, O'Reilly, and the
>> other Fox talking heads knows they are very much a conservative group.
>>
>> Looking at: <http://elections.foxnews.com/>
>>
>> -----
>> "Featured Story": McCain Predicts Late-Night Win on Election Day
>
>
> HAHAHAHAAHA!
>
> This shows the stubborn stupidity of libs.
How does your cowardly snipping show *anything* about me?
> A national and respected non-partisan group takes a well-documented
> survey over a long period of time and clearly shows Fox News to more
> fair and balanced than anyone else..... and this annoymous lib stooge
> comes up with a meaningless one hour, cherry-picked snapshot of Fox
> with innocent headlines like "Biden cheers Phillies" and thinks he's
> proven something.
Cherry picked? I looked at it as I responded to a post. Your "defense" of
Fox is laughable. At best.
>> This is when even based on the Fox polls Obama is ahead by 5.9%.
>>
>> One has to be completely blind to not see that Fox is very, very biased.
>
> Yes, they don't have Obama up by 20%, so they're "biased", right....
Er? Ah, now you are going out of your way to miss the point. Snicker.
> Just like fatboy Murtha saying Obama's lead isn't big enough because
> white people are racist.
>
> These are REAL libs, folks.
>
> This is NOT made up.
>
> Incredible....
Pssst: I am not a Liberal... I am quite moderate.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
libsr...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> And the featured story now is:
>
> "Three Reporters From McCain-Endorsing Papers Removed From Obama's Plane"
LOL
Top story from Fox:
• Obama Sees Red
Moving into GOP turf, Obama says McCain is taking low road to the
White House, puts up ads in Republican states
----
You gotta love gullible libs. They're not very bright and easily
routed...
"OMG, a study from a respected group found Fox News wasn't the devil.
OMG, my life is ruined! Must stop this at all possible costs. This
cannot be true, I hate Fox. I hate them with my whole heart. I hate,
hate, hate them" - Poisoned Rose, Snit and other assorted scared libs
McGarnagle
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>LOL! Ah, they report... and anyone with a brain can decide for themselves
>how biased they are. :)
If that's true why are you and the circus lady putting such a
Herculean effort into trying to decide for them?
Fox News scares the crap out of libs.
I love it....
McGarnagle
<fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Oct 31, 10:02 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> > See, RichL... "Me" snips all evidence, calls people names, creates
>> > stories about others... he is very much like CSMA's Steve Carroll.
>> > Except a bit of a better debater. :)
>>
>> Carroll must be awful then.
>
>You aren't the first person Snit has lied to... and you won't be the
>last. Here
>are comments by some of the people he duped for a time:
>
Very impressive.
And you know when Snit is endorsed by two of the biggest nutjobs in
AGA - RichL and El Kabong - you know he's not very bright and a loon.
RLM
If 50% of the posters in this thread have even turned on F@UX VEWS.
That just blows me out of the water man. Christ! That's more than the ten
people that my guess would have been.
Is it the music that draws the crowd? Maybe the jokes.
Yea! It's got to be the jokes.
Far out!
Who are the drunks that studied this again.
McGarnagle
wrote:
>No one takes "Me" seriously in rec.music.beatles.
You mean no one takes RichL seriously in aga or rmb.
> He has nothing to
>offer that's on topic, and his political rants properly reflect his
>"every man for himself, government is evil" attitude.
>
>Don't expect anything intelligible out of him.
Coming from the guy who said Bush was negotiating with Ahmadinejad
"as we speak."
Bugman
"McGarnagle" <McGar...@notospam.com> wrote in message
news:e54ng4pi8eogl0b09...@4ax.com...
Maybe it's because there is more postive stuff to report about Obama and
more negative stuff to report about McCain. Are you saying they make up
stuff?
Snit
8r5ng4p7c6bd0bima...@4ax.com on 10/31/08 4:42 PM:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll
> <fret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 10:02 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> See, RichL... "Me" snips all evidence, calls people names, creates
>>>> stories about others... he is very much like CSMA's Steve Carroll.
>>>> Except a bit of a better debater. :)
>>>
>>> Carroll must be awful then.
>>
>> You aren't the first person Snit has lied to... and you won't be the last.
>> Here are comments by some of the people he duped for a time:
>>
>
>
> Very impressive.
>
> And you know when Snit is endorsed by two of the biggest nutjobs in AGA -
I have no desire for your "endorsement".
--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
Snit
You are, of course, insane. Just thought you should know. Don't worry... I
am sure Carroll will be your new best buddy. He is barking mad, too!
--
"The music is not inside the piano." - Alan Kay
Snit
10/31/08 4:38 PM:
Ah, like Carroll you sink to fabricating "quotes". How cute!
libsr...@hotmail.com
>
> I just don't see the need to x-post all
> over the place
Uh, it gets a little tiring of the constant circle jerk between Devin-
DickL-RS. That's not debate nor interesting. You guys spew the same
shit everyday and no one cares for it but you three. Why you so scared
to talk to someone else except DickL and RS? You feel protected in
your little hole here, where you all ankle bite on LV.
> What did
> people in the Las Vegas vacation group do to deserve this?
Basically a few assholes like you thought they ran the place and
posted Bush-hate for the last 8 years, so I felt the need to get some
fresh opinions in there and break up their liberal clique... plus, I
don't feel like posting the same thing five different times. If cross-
posting was so evil, we wouldn't wouldn't have the capability to do
it.
DickL wrote:
> > Sorry, it's just a tad too ironic to see you complaining about
> > off-topic noise when you're among the main contributors to such noise
> > within AGA. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Best thing you ever wrote, DickL. Now only if Kabong would grow a ball
and stand up to Devine like that.
DGDevin
> It will all be over soon anyways, and I'm sure everyone will
> graciously accept the outcome. Right?
>
> Right?
>
> Puh-leeze someone tell me I'm right!?
LOL, some people are already positioning themselves to have something to
complain about for at least the next four years. Considering all the things
the Bush administration has broken it will take a series of miracles to get
even half of it fixed.
BlueBuyYoo
The above thread is comparing national news services. The sites you
listed are not taken seriously.
Your problem is that there is more negative material to report about
McCain than Obama.
The real problem is that neither of these characters is fit to run the
US. Some choice.
Fattush
> McGarnagle wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:00:13 -0400, BlueBuyYoo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yup. I've been saying that for weeks.
Kathleen Miller
On Fox, the biggest variance is how much more positive coverage there is of
McCain than elsewhere.
I.M. Mortal
tractor beam.
As was once wisely observed of the USSR, all nuclear missiles not in it,
are pointed at it.
Smile. :-) mvm
Firepoofİ
>> On Oct 31, 7:26 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> One has to be completely blind to not see that Fox is very, very biased.
>>
>> --
> Here we have perfect example of an uneducated, ill-informed left-wing
> loony liberal scumbag, lying, uh... misspeaking.
>
> Shit, tell us how often you've watched Fox. And for once in your
> cowardly, miserable life, just try to tell the truth. I won't hold my
> breath for that one.
rofl ... delusion delivers such great little nuggets of humor
--
Jesus, Son Of God (and Da'Virgin Mary) raised by STEPdad Joseph, is nothing
buttaholy bASStyrd...which reminds me...just who is the grandFATHER of the
baby bASStyrd anyway? Man...ya' got me? ~>:/
Dave
>>> judge instead of them.
>>
>>lol No, it doesn't! Those tables show number of postive vs negtive
>>stories, which is pretty meaningless in and of itself. For example,
>>everyone agrees--even RW pundits and strategists--that the McCain campaign
>>has been poorly run. So, a positive story on his campaign would be bogus.
>
> If it's so poorly run and not deserving of any positive stories, why
> is the race tightening and close as it is??
Don't be so literal. I wasn't exactly suggesting that there wouldn't be ANY
positive stories. But, as I said, it's not my evaluation that McCain's run
a poor campaign; nearly everyone says it was poorly run, including RW
pundits. The same people agree that Obama's campaign has been extremely
well run. If one team has it together and the other doesn't, who do you
suppose is going to get the positive stories?
AND, as even Laura Ingraham has reported, there's dissention in the ranks of
the McCain staff. Such that last week staffers were aleady looking towards
2012.
>>Boy, you are DUMB! I suppose you'd have been in favor of an equal number
>>of
>>stories both for and against slavery.
>
> Sure, otherwise people would think slave owners got the shaft and feel
> sorry for them.
>
> Why, are you so scared the slave owners might have a legitimate beef
> that they may win over people like you?
OK, so what exactly would the positive angle on slavery be, that a "fair"
press should report?
> You sound racist *and* dumb...
Racist? How's that? Because I'd be against finding nice things to say
about people who enslave others?
JP
wrote:
>The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
>found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
>BALANCED news on televsion.
>
>With 22% and 25% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 40%
>negative of both, Fox News comes out as the most FAIR AND BALANCED
>news on television. The libs are caught in yet another lie!
>
>With 10% and 43% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 73% and 14%
>negative coverage of McCain and Obama, MSNBC comes out as the most
>BIASED News on television.
>
>Read it and weep libs - Fox is the fairest news out there and the rest
>of the media is in Obama's pocket.
>
>You lose... again:
>
>
>http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
>
>Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain
>Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
>CNN has 13/61 pos/neg coverage of McCain
>CNN has 36/39 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
>MSNBC has 10/73 pos/neg coverage of McCain
>MSNBC has 43/14 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
>Media overall has 14/57 pos/neg coverage of McCain
>Media overall has 36/29 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
>
>
>MSNBC Tone of McCain coverage -
>Positive - 10%
>Neutral - 17%
>Negative - 73%
>
>Fox News Tone of McCain coverage -
>Positive - 22%
>Neutral - 38%
>Negative - 40%
>
>CNN Tone of McCain coverage -
>Positive - 13
>Neutral - 26
>Negative - 61
>
>
>
>MSNBC Tone of Obama coverage -
>Positive - 43%
>Neutral - 43%
>Negative - 14%
>
>Fox News Tone of Obama coverage -
>Positive - 25%
>Neutral - 35%
>Negative - 40%
>
>CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
>Positive - 36
>Neutral - 25
>Negative - 39
>
>
>--------
>
>The lib fool asked:
>"Explain why Fox News have been found to have an almost 10:1 ratio of
>conservative to liberal guests." - Snit (humiliated lib stooge gets
>PWN3D!)
McCain ahead this morning!!!! See Drudge Report...
Sonnova
(in article <gegj34$n8p$1...@registered.motzarella.org>):
You said a mouthful of truth that time!
autumng...@gmail.com
> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> BALANCED news on televsion.
>
> With 22% and 25% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 40%
> negative of both, Fox News comes out as the most FAIR AND BALANCED
> news on television. The libs are caught in yet another lie!
>
> With 10% and 43% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 73% and 14%
> negative coverage of McCain and Obama, MSNBC comes out as the most
> BIASED News on television.
>
> Read it and weep libs - Fox is the fairest news out there and the rest
> of the media is in Obama's pocket.
>
> You lose... again:
>
> http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
>
> Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
> CNN has 36/39 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
> MSNBC has 43/14 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
> Media overall has 14/57 pos/neg coverage of McCain
> Media overall has 36/29 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
> MSNBC Tone of McCain coverage -
> Positive - 10%
> Neutral - 17%
> Negative - 73%
>
> Fox News Tone of McCain coverage -
> Positive - 22%
> Neutral - 38%
>
> CNN Tone of McCain coverage -
> Positive - 13
> Neutral - 26
> Negative - 61
>
> MSNBC Tone of Obama coverage -
> Positive - 43%
> Neutral - 43%
> Negative - 14%
>
> Positive - 25%
> Neutral - 35%
> Negative - 40%
>
> CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
> Positive - 36
> Neutral - 25
> Negative - 39
>
>
> The lib fool asked:
> "Explain why Fox News have been found to have an almost 10:1 ratio of
> conservative to liberal guests." - Snit (humiliated lib stooge gets
> PWN3D!)
Thanks for this great link. I was looking for the report on google
and found this. Its so refreshing when I read anyone who isn't
blinded by the left media. THANK YOU for making my day. love your
lib fool q.
I.M. Mortale
>
>
> Thanks for this great link. I was looking for the report on google
> and found this. Its so refreshing when I read anyone who isn't
> blinded by the left media. THANK YOU for making my day. love your
> lib fool q.
FoxNews is a joke to all those who aren't subject to its vapid-moron
tractor beam.
As was once wisely observed of the USSR, all nuclear missiles not in it,
are pointed at it.
Smile. :-) mvm
PS- "lib" usage marks the typist as an AM radio zombie. "Theirs" is on
the way ;-)... mvm
McGarnagle
>>>> It means they present both sides of the argument equally and let you
>>>> judge instead of them.
>>>
>>>lol No, it doesn't! Those tables show number of postive vs negtive
>>>stories, which is pretty meaningless in and of itself. For example,
>>>everyone agrees--even RW pundits and strategists--that the McCain campaign
>>>has been poorly run. So, a positive story on his campaign would be bogus.
>>
>> If it's so poorly run and not deserving of any positive stories, why
>> is the race tightening and close as it is??
>
>Don't be so literal. I wasn't exactly suggesting that there wouldn't be ANY
>positive stories. But, as I said, it's not my evaluation that McCain's run
>a poor campaign; nearly everyone says it was poorly run, including RW
>pundits. The same people agree that Obama's campaign has been extremely
>well run. If one team has it together and the other doesn't, who do you
>suppose is going to get the positive stories?
>
>AND, as even Laura Ingraham has reported, there's dissention in the ranks of
>the McCain staff. Such that last week staffers were aleady looking towards
>2012.
All of which have nothing to do with any issues.
Meanwhile, Obama is linked to a new radical every week and cutting off
media outlets that aren't in his pocket.
>>>Boy, you are DUMB! I suppose you'd have been in favor of an equal number
>>>of
>>>stories both for and against slavery.
>>
>> Sure, otherwise people would think slave owners got the shaft and feel
>> sorry for them.
>>
>> Why, are you so scared the slave owners might have a legitimate beef
>> that they may win over people like you?
>
>OK, so what exactly would the positive angle on slavery be, that a "fair"
>press should report?
>
>> You sound racist *and* dumb...
>
>Racist? How's that? Because I'd be against finding nice things to say
>about people who enslave others?
Because then the slave owners could blame it on "intolerant
Christians" who never let their side be heard. Like libs always blame
the Christians for all of societies ills.
You would knowingly help the slave owners making you a racist... and a
dumb one.
McGarnagle
Exactly... but the libs make Fox out to be a "Daily KOS", even Obama
told O'Reilly that. But the truth is Fox runs as much negative on
Obama as they do McCain, making them fair.
Plus the libs won't admit those sites are jokes and reference them
repeatedly! That's why people hate the libs and their hypocrisy!
>
>Your problem is that there is more negative material to report about
>McCain than Obama.
Not when there is a new terrorist or lib radical linked to Obama
weekly.
>
>The real problem is that neither of these characters is fit to run the
>US. Some choice.
Like most elections....the best and brightest never run, due to the
smearing of each other on both sides.
McGarnagle
wrote:
Proof? Link?
And maybe Obama is the messiah and the libs are the chosen people.
Maybe Iraq is Vietnam.
Maybe Bush is Hitler.
Maybe Mike Moore isn't biased.
Libs and their "maybe" LOL
McGarnagle
Showing exactly how "in the pocket" for Obama and liberal the rest of
the media are...
PLUS Fox actually gave MORE positive coverage to Obama than McCain!
McGarnagle
wrote:
I agree. I forced myself to watch Olbermann two days in a row once,
and I felt like I was watching a kids show. All he did was continually
and crudely bash Bush, Fox "Noise" and "Bill-O". Not any kind of
debate or news at all...
"You know, it's going to be a long, long night at MSNBC if I manage to
pull this thing off. For starters, I understand that Keith Olbermann
has ordered up his very own 'Mission Accomplished' banner. And they
can hang that in whatever padded room has been reserved for him.
Seriously, Chris, if they need any decorating advice on that banner,
ask Keith to call me so I can tell him right where to put it." - John
McCain
Snit
>> Thanks for this great link. I was looking for the report on google
>> and found this. Its so refreshing when I read anyone who isn't
>> blinded by the left media. THANK YOU for making my day. love your
>> lib fool q.
>
>
> I agree. I forced myself to watch Olbermann two days in a row once,
> and I felt like I was watching a kids show. All he did was continually
> and crudely bash Bush, Fox "Noise" and "Bill-O". Not any kind of
> debate or news at all...
From what I have seen of him, which is not much, he is certainly more
coherent than Rush... maybe on par with Bill O'Reilly. None of them are
anywhere near non-biased. All are fairly good entertainers.
> "You know, it's going to be a long, long night at MSNBC if I manage to
> pull this thing off. For starters, I understand that Keith Olbermann
> has ordered up his very own 'Mission Accomplished' banner.
See, that is funny. Better than most of Rush's schticks.
> And they
> can hang that in whatever padded room has been reserved for him.
> Seriously, Chris, if they need any decorating advice on that banner,
> ask Keith to call me so I can tell him right where to put it." - John
> McCain
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
McGarnagle
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>"McGarnagle" <McGar...@notospam.com> stated in post
>puppg4dgocq96agov...@4ax.com on 11/1/08 4:46 PM:
>
>>> Thanks for this great link. I was looking for the report on google
>>> and found this. Its so refreshing when I read anyone who isn't
>>> blinded by the left media. THANK YOU for making my day. love your
>>> lib fool q.
>>
>>
>> I agree. I forced myself to watch Olbermann two days in a row once,
>> and I felt like I was watching a kids show. All he did was continually
>> and crudely bash Bush, Fox "Noise" and "Bill-O". Not any kind of
>> debate or news at all...
>
>From what I have seen of him, which is not much, he is certainly more
>coherent than Rush... maybe on par with Bill O'Reilly. None of them are
>anywhere near non-biased. All are fairly good entertainers.
LOL
I agree, O'Reilly claims he is in independent, but he clearly favors
conservative views. But the thing is, he offers an opposing viewpoint.
Olbermann is nowhere near as clever as O'Reilly or Limbaugh. There is
a reason why Limbaugh and O'Reilly are No.1 at what they do and why
Olbermann is not.
And I don't listen to radio, but I do know O'Reilly usually has an
opposing viewpoint on his show, something I can't say about Olbermann.
If Obama wins, it's pretty much over for the Bush-basher Olbermann and
for whatever he had....
Snit
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:10:10 -0700, Snit
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "McGarnagle" <McGar...@notospam.com> stated in post
>> puppg4dgocq96agov...@4ax.com on 11/1/08 4:46 PM:
>>
>>>> Thanks for this great link. I was looking for the report on google
>>>> and found this. Its so refreshing when I read anyone who isn't
>>>> blinded by the left media. THANK YOU for making my day. love your
>>>> lib fool q.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. I forced myself to watch Olbermann two days in a row once,
>>> and I felt like I was watching a kids show. All he did was continually
>>> and crudely bash Bush, Fox "Noise" and "Bill-O". Not any kind of
>>> debate or news at all...
>>
>> From what I have seen of him, which is not much, he is certainly more
>> coherent than Rush... maybe on par with Bill O'Reilly. None of them are
>> anywhere near non-biased. All are fairly good entertainers.
>
>
> LOL
>
> I agree, O'Reilly claims he is in independent, but he clearly favors
> conservative views. But the thing is, he offers an opposing viewpoint.
Well, so does Michael Moore. :)
> Olbermann is nowhere near as clever as O'Reilly or Limbaugh. There is
> a reason why Limbaugh and O'Reilly are No.1 at what they do and why
> Olbermann is not.
I know I do not listen to him as much as I do Rush and O'Reilly.
> And I don't listen to radio, but I do know O'Reilly usually has an
> opposing viewpoint on his show, something I can't say about Olbermann.
Oh, he talks over and cuts off the opposing view.
> If Obama wins, it's pretty much over for the Bush-basher Olbermann and
> for whatever he had....
Could be. I would not care.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
Logic
McGarnagle <McGar...@notospam.com> wrote:
> >>>> in to a station and hear gumdrop and lollipop storiesabout Obama. I
> >>>> want news...
> >>>
> >>>How can you say CNN is "in Obama's pocket"
> >>
> >> Again for the blind lib:
> >>
> >> "CNN is out of whack. They have almost triple the amount of positive
> >> coverage for Obama and about 30% more negative news on McCain."
> >
> >Maybe it's because there is more postive stuff to report about Obama
>
> Proof? Link?
>
> And maybe Obama is the messiah and the libs are the chosen people.
>
> Maybe Iraq is Vietnam.
>
> Maybe Bush is Hitler.
>
> Maybe Mike Moore isn't biased.
>
> Libs and their "maybe" LOL
Being "fair and balanced" helped Fox promote their agenda over the last
8 years. We should thank them for that.
Oh wait, it was a disaster.
L
--
http://www.christianecon.com/2008/10/tina-fey-on-sarah-palin-she-winsi.html
http://www.christianecon.com/2008/09/republicans-as-weak-as-can-be-imagined.html
Jamie Kahn Genet
> On Oct 31, 1:24 am, libcrushersm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> > found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> > BALANCED news on televsion.
> >
> > With 22% and 25% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 40%
> > negative of both, Fox News comes out as the most FAIR AND BALANCED
> > news on television. The libs are caught in yet another lie!
> >
> > With 10% and 43% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 73% and 14%
> > negative coverage of McCain and Obama, MSNBC comes out as the most
> > BIASED News on television.
> >
> > Read it and weep libs - Fox is the fairest news out there and the rest
> > of the media is in Obama's pocket.
> >
> > You lose... again:
> >
> > http://www.journalism.org/node/13437
> >
> > Fox News has 22/40 pos/neg coverage of McCain
> > Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama
> >
> > CNN has 13/61 pos/neg coverage of McCain
> > CNN has 36/39 pos/neg coverage of Obama
> >
> > MSNBC has 10/73 pos/neg coverage of McCain
> > MSNBC has 43/14 pos/neg coverage of Obama
> >
> > Media overall has 14/57 pos/neg coverage of McCain
> > Media overall has 36/29 pos/neg coverage of Obama
> >
> > MSNBC Tone of McCain coverage -
> > Positive - 10%
> > Neutral - 17%
> > Negative - 73%
> >
> > Fox News Tone of McCain coverage -
> > Positive - 22%
> > Neutral - 38%
> > Negative - 40%
> >
> > CNN Tone of McCain coverage -
> > Positive - 13
> > Neutral - 26
> > Negative - 61
> >
> > MSNBC Tone of Obama coverage -
> > Positive - 43%
> > Neutral - 43%
> > Negative - 14%
> >
> > Fox News Tone of Obama coverage -
> > Positive - 25%
> > Neutral - 35%
> > Negative - 40%
> >
> > CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
> > Positive - 36
> > Neutral - 25
> > Negative - 39
> >
> > --------
> >
> > The lib fool asked:
> > "Explain why Fox News have been found to have an almost 10:1 ratio of
> > conservative to liberal guests." - Snit (humiliated lib stooge gets
> > PWN3D!)
>
> Liberals hate the idea that anything doesn't go their way, hence they
> hate the idea of anything that's fair and balanced and hence, they
> hate the idea of a free market of ideas. That's why they have to, at
> the very minimum resort to things such as the "Fairness" Doctrine.
> What they can't control in the market, they attempt to control through
> the courts and through legislation.
>
> They're so dumb though that they don't relaize that something such as
> the "Fairness" Doctrine will come back to bite them in the ass.
>
> Sorry libs, you DO in fact hate freedom of speech and freedom of
> ideas. You'd all be much more at home and comfortable living in Nazi
> Germany or Soviet Russia where you're told what to think and say.
Odd then that you need to bash liberals when the whole point of being
liberal is... oh wait, you don't know what the word means, do you? :-D
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> BALANCED news on televsion.
*yawn* all your American NEWS is sensationalist, amazingly provincial,
and just plain embarrassing to those of use who grew up listening and
watching serious news shows. Fox can be 'balanced' all it likes, I'd
still rather watch any of the nightly News shows here in New Zealand or
BBC World News via satellite. At least they're not cringe inducing like
CNN, Fox, etc.
No wonder there are so many nutters and funamentalists in the US if
that's your standard of NEWS programming. How could you possibly grow up
with a well reasoned outlook in such a society?
I.M. Mortale
A+ :-) mvm
>
http://tinyurl.com/32j32m
>
McGarnagle
Kahn Genet) wrote:
><libcrus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
>> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
>> BALANCED news on televsion.
>
>*yawn* all your American NEWS is sensationalist, amazingly provincial,
>and just plain embarrassing to those of use who grew up listening and
>watching serious news shows. Fox can be 'balanced' all it likes, I'd
>still rather watch any of the nightly News shows here in New Zealand or
>BBC World News via satellite.
LOL
BBC? The admitted liberal network?
No wonder you hate opposing views.
You're spoonfed Euro-liberal crap about the US all day... and what's
worse, you find the BBC propaganda "serious news".
Good luck with all that, kid!
MuahMan
> On Oct 31, 6:48 am, libsrui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > You gotta love libs when they get caught in a lie. They never admit or
> > accept responsibility. That's why everyone hates libs.
>
> Socialists don't lie. They "misspeak". When Chairman Barak attempts to
> impose massive tax increases on everyone earning over $50 a year, his
> explanation will be, "I uh.. did not uh... lie during the campaign
> about uh.... raising taxes on only those mean, nasty, evil wealthy
> uh.... people. I uh.. misspoke."
>
> Lying is a way of life for liberal scumbags. That and making sure that
> as much of the population is as poorly educated and uninformed as
> possible are the only ways that they can accomplish their goals.
Fuck liberals. Too lazy to work and too lazy to defend themselves. We
need another Civil War, this time eradicate the liberals with no
regard for human life!
Stephen Cowell
"MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> wrote
Your struggling tears of defeat are tasty, if a bit salty.
Cry more of them.
__
Steve
.
Dave
>>a poor campaign; nearly everyone says it was poorly run, including RW
>>pundits. The same people agree that Obama's campaign has been extremely
>>well run. If one team has it together and the other doesn't, who do you
>>suppose is going to get the positive stories?
>>
>>AND, as even Laura Ingraham has reported, there's dissention in the ranks
>>of
>>the McCain staff. Such that last week staffers were aleady looking
>>towards
>>2012.
>
> All of which have nothing to do with any issues.
Illustrative that there ain't much POSITIVE to report about the McCain
campaign.
> Meanwhile, Obama is linked to a new radical every week
Well, the Repugs have TRIED. Hasn't worked too well, has it?
> and cutting off
> media outlets that aren't in his pocket.
Maureen Dowd, a liberal columnist for The New York Times, was excluded from
the McCain campaign airplane in late August after writing about a
McCain-Palin rally in Washington, Pa.
Time Magazine writer Joe Klein was also kept off the McCain-Palin plane.
Dallas Morning News reporters were excluded from a McCain campaign airplane
as more journalists clamored to cover the final days before the election.
"For what it's worth, we've had the same trouble with the McCain campaign,"
a Dallas Morning News blog entry said Friday. "One of our reporters dropped
off earlier this week when space became an issue, and we're only getting
back on with McCain tomorrow for the final weekend because they, unlike the
Obama campaign, are adding a second plane."
> Because then the slave owners could blame it on "intolerant
> Christians" who never let their side be heard.
Hey idiot, THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE. Get it? There's no other side to
slavery, just like there's no other side to Nazism. You don't give the KKK
a chance to "let their side be heard". There's no other side. And, BTW,
the slave owners were Christians who used the Bible to justify what they
were doing.
> Like libs always blame
> the Christians for all of societies ills.
That tired thing again? Good grief. Hey, dunderhead, all the high-level
Democrats you rail against as liberals ARE CHRISTIANS, you fool!
Game over. Thank you for playing.
OT: ATTN Taxpayers
> On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, abe slaney <abesla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hang on, it doesn't say that Fox is the "fairest" news out there. It
> > just says that they've given higher marks to the Pathetic Campaign for
> > Morons than MSNBC did. Is anybody here surprised?
>
> What's wrong?
>
> Shit-for-brains can't read stats?
>
> Fox has the closest ratio to positive-negative news for both Obama and
> McCain meaning they were the most fair and balanced.
Flunk logic much?
> What? They didn't teach you math at Michael Moore University?
>
> Libs - they ignore all the facts.
Neanderthals -- they ignore reality.
OT: ATTN Taxpayers
> On Oct 31, 6:48 am, libsrui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > You gotta love libs when they get caught in a lie. They never admit or
> > accept responsibility. That's why everyone hates libs.
Hahahaha... define "everyone", please. Would that be the "everyone"
who is going to elected Barack Obama today?
-hh
>
> A national and respected non-partisan group takes a well-documented
> survey over a long period of time and clearly shows Fox News to more
> fair and balanced than anyone else.....
No they didn't.
Perhaps you should try reading your own URL link...including the next
page...before you make any more inane and ignorant comments.
Pew merely found that Fox appeared to be more balanced than CNN or
MSNBC, **on CATV**.
However, Pew also found that Broadcast Network TV was found to be "A
More Balanced Medium".
Yes, that's a direct quote. Pew summarized it as:
"If the cable channels are now offering three distinctly different
perspectives on the race, that was much less so the case for the
traditional three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC."
FYI, Pew also commented on Network Morning vs. Evening:
"The bigger differences in network television were, as we have seen
over the years in our studies, between morning and evening news
programs, even on the same network."
And FYI, on Newspapers too:
"The front page coverage of the 13 newspapers studied here tended to
portray a more extreme version of the overall press treatment of
both..."
The bottom line is that variations in reporting 'tone' is unavoidable,
which may or may not contain bias. As per the Pew study, the only
time that Fox appears "Fair and Balanced" is within a small segment of
the overall Media market, namely that of CATV.
However, even this is relative, since MSNBC is significantly different
than Broadcast NBC, so it could be that Fox was simply being compared
to a statistical outlier ... and heaven forbid(!), simply found to be
slightly less of a barking moonbat.
Of course, since this argument by "lib crusher smith" is so weak and
lame, it should come as no huge surprise that the advancement of his
agenda has functionally backfired.
Guess that means that its time for him to throw his Verizon DSL modem
against the wall and to go take himself on a walk in traffic on the
I-10 as a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for being so
stupid in public. Afterall, ignorance can be fixed, but stupid is
forever :-)
-hh
JP
Fucking dumbass! Fox News is only ON CABLE which included the Dish and
Direct TV networks who buy from cable...
-hh
>
> Fucking dumbass! Fox News is only ON CABLE
> which included the Dish and Direct TV networks
> who buy from cable.
As is also CNN and MSNBC.
Had the troll said "...on CATV", he would have been correct (as per
Pew), but he didn't: he said "...on TV", which includes Network TV.
It is there that he is factually wrong as per Pew.
The humor here has nothing to do with politics, or either of the
parties (like I really care!): it is merely that the very document
that the OP troll wanted everyone to read is what directly disproves
the OP troll's claim.
Thus, he was hoisted on his own petard!
-hh
MuahMan
All liberals/socialists/communists/democrats must be slaughtered
without mercy before they can do anymore damage.
Tartarus
> The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has
> found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND
> BALANCED news on televsion.
>
> negative of both, Fox News comes out as the most FAIR AND BALANCED
> news on television. The libs are caught in yet another lie!
>
> With 10% and 43% positive coverage of McCain and Obama and 73% and 14%
> negative coverage of McCain and Obama, MSNBC comes out as the most
> BIASED News on television.
You don't understand the study.
Suppose Hitler and Mother Teresa were running. Should FOX have equally
supportive coverage of each? Suppose MSNBC gave Hitler 10% positive
coverage and Mother Teresa 80% positive coverage. Would that prove
MSNBC was not being fair?
Tartarus
Tartarus
> On Oct 31, 12:19 am, poisoned rose <whydoIstillbot...@usenet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > libcrushersm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Positive - 25%
> > > Neutral - 35%
> > > Negative - 40%
>
> > > CNN Tone of Obama coverage -
> > > Positive - 36
> > > Neutral - 25
> > > Negative - 39
>
> > more balanced than Fox's.
>
> Nope, you don't understand the meaning of fair and balanced.
>
> Fox News has 25/40 pos/neg coverage of Obama
>
But if McCain was doing a worse job, shouldn't the coverage reflect
that?
Jesus 50% favorable
Satan 50% favorable, now *that's* fair and balanced!
Tartarus
libcrus...@gmail.com
> Troll �libsrui...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > A national and respected non-partisan group takes a well-documented
> > survey over a long period of time and clearly shows Fox News to more
> > fair and balanced than anyone else.....
>
> No they didn't.
>
> Perhaps you should try reading your own URL link...including the next
> page...before you make any more inane and ignorant comments.
>
> Pew merely found that Fox appeared to be more balanced than CNN or
> MSNBC, **on CATV**.
>
> However, Pew also found that Broadcast Network TV was found to be "A
> More Balanced Medium".
HA! HA! HA!
Shit-for-brains CAN'T read. Here, I'll explain it for the lib asswipe,
since his mommy isn't home:
Pew said that Broadcast Network TV (ABC, NBC, CBS) was a more balanced
medium than CATV (CNN, FOX, MSNBC).
IT DID NOT SAY THAT ANY ONE NETWORK *OR* THE BROADACST NETWORK
*MEDIUM* WAS MORE BALANCED THAN *FOX NEWS*.
It's like saying if Australia beat the US in Golf, that would mean
Tiger Woods is no longer the best player, becuase he was on the losing
*team*.
Read all the stats...read them again.... and again... bring in mommy
to explain.... then cry your fucking retarded lib heart out.
FOX IS MORE BALANCED THAN ANY OTHER NETWORK ON TV - CABLE OR
BROADCAST.
PWN3D!
You lose, lib.... again.
Like *all* the libs before him who have crossed my path, hh is in a
dark place now. Bitchslapped, humiliated and *crushed* by me. He will
hate me forever and will lash out at me under the cover of different
names, forever scarred by his hurt feelings.
Libs - haunted by Fox, Bush and the Libcrusher forever!
Next...