• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sally Kohn: Fox News Not So Bad

LowDown said:
I want to thank you for your continued efforts to keep Trump's base riled up. We won't be taking advice or opinion from people who hate us, thanks.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is possible that if Hillary had never called Trump's supporters a basket of deplorables, she may have won. And, many of those supporters were actually Democrats.
 
MovingPictures said:
Like you guys don't ever get nasty.:roll::lol:

Stop acting like victims, you're not. You get as good as you give, don't complain because you can't bully people without consequence.
Click to expand...

The left bullied the right first. Fact is, both sides claim the high moral ground when neither side is.
 
Mach said:
I thought you wanted to debate something you had a clue about (why Fox news is a turd). I guess not.
Hiding behind her skirt to throw stones at "lefties", is a fitting place for you to be right now. Who are we gonna debate...she's not here, oh well.
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about? The point of my thread is that even Sally Kohn realizes that if you want to have honest conversations about problems the country faces then you can't thing wrongly about the other side, call them names, and expect to get anywhere.
 
Moderate Right said:
What in the hell are you talking about? The point of my thread is that even Sally Kohn realizes that if you want to have honest conversations about problems the country faces then you can't thing wrongly about the other side, call them names, and expect to get anywhere.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're aware but the electoral college elected as our leader someone that has brought name calling, bullying, demonizing, attacking, to the presidency, and who uses it on a daily basis to attack anyone and everyone, his own allies, his opposition, the media, our national allies, former presidents, etc., etc. And his voters *love him* for it. (and he's a Republican, opposed by liberals).

But you're interested in posting someone else's absurd take on why they think Fox is great because Hannity has a family and is a human?

Writing is on the wall isn't it...better start playing nice, I mean, wouldn't want a bit of tit for that.
 
Mach said:
Even though I know Fox is a joke of station, and a danger to democracy, I still flip on there to see what fresh nonsense they are spewing so I can at least discuss it. Much less start a thread about it.
Here's a gem I caught will flipping over to Hannity a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pHZ6imEseE

35:04

Guest is a former CIA specialist

Hannity: You know Russia well, let me ask you one question while I have you on the show, um..
Hannity: With Hillary's email hacked by so many foreign agencies, we would never know where the emails came from would we?
Guest:...........................ahhhh....
Hannity: Real quick.
Guest: ep, ah, I you know, the Russians were all over those emails I'm sure they....
Hannity: ..Probably were the Chinese and the Iranians and the North Koreans because Hillary's ....
Guest: ....I mean, she's a huge target...
Hannity: We'll pick it up another day I'm just out of time.


Peddling Trump's conspiracy theory nonsense about Hillary's emails STILL.
Loading the questions with conspiracy theory drivel, like a child.
Surprisingly when the former CIA specialist doesn't give him the answer he wanted, OOPS! Out of time.

Some great stuff there Moderate Right, glad you're defending Fox while hiding beyond your impenetrable veil of self-admitted ignorance on what **** Fox broadcasts.
Click to expand...

*With Hillary's email hacked by so many foreign agencies, we would never know where the emails came from would we?*

Comey said HRC's email server was most likely hacked. Just sayin
 
hanger4 said:
*With Hillary's email hacked by so many foreign agencies, we would never know where the emails came from would we?*
Comey said HRC's email server was most likely hacked. Just sayin
Click to expand...
You repeating Hannity's CT nonsense is what I'm saying is the issue with Fox. They fed conspiracy theory B.S. it to you and it apparently stuck.

1.To be clear: The FBI expressly says that there’s no proof that any attempted hack on Hillary Clinton’s personal email account was successful.
Click to expand...

2.he 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails stolen by Russian intelligence agency hackers and subsequently published (leaked) by DCLeaks in June and July 2016[1]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
https://www.vox.com/2016/9/6/12774948/fbi-hillary-clinton-report
 
Roger Ailes (1970 Memo to Richard Nixon) "A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News" (excerpt)

“Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.”
Click to expand...

Roger Ailes (1996) "Fox News, fair and balanced."

Roger Ailes (2005) "We report, you decide."

I'm sorry, but it is impossible to square the last two slogans with anything in Roger's original memo that is widely considered the germ that gave rise to the entire Fox News Channel ecosystem.
Basically, Roger Ailes is talking out one side of his face (or his ass) when speaking to the powers that be, and another side of his face/ass when talking to us dumb yokels.

For the past year I've been quietly biding my time watching the moves being made by Sinclair Broadcast Group because their 72% local market share (a product of the fact that they outright OWN and OPERATE more than 170 local TV stations in America) has the potential to stomp a mudhole in Fox News Channel if SBG just starts writing a monthly check and flipping a switch to send their material to satellite and cable as a rival to Fox News Channel.
And Sinclair is several steps to the Right of Fox News, politically speaking.

If the Tribune merger goes through, SBG will then own well over 220 local stations. Throw their signal up as a dedicated news channel on sat/cable and that will be the end of the Fox News Channel viewer demographic.
To paraphrase Ross Perot, that giant sucking sound you hear will be Fox viewers switching to Sinclair...BAM, CAKE, DONE.

I've also been on Death Watch on Rupert Murdoch. Even the most evil man alive cannot live forever.
Rupert's somewhere between 90 and 238 years old, depending on whether you count in Earth years or the years of his home planet.
His kids are assuredly not liberals but they've made it more than clear that they do not share the old man's politics, and Fox News Channel is one of the few properties that old man Murdoch hasn't ceded control over yet to his kids.

With Sinclair hanging like the Sword of Damocles over the head of Murdoch's cable news empire, and his kids quietly deciding how the old man's favorite baby will keep making money after he dies, it's rather easy to see what the future of Fox News Channel is going to be.

Ailes is dead, Bill O'Reilly is gone, Tucker Carlson still has a facial expression that resembles, "Did I leave the oven on?" and Hannity can't unglue himself from Trump's colon long enough to breathe. Hannity, like Murdoch, has backed the wrong horse, signed on with the Master of the Long Con, he just doesn't know it yet, and neither do most of you nice people.
There's not enough chocolate on those horse biscuits to sustain Fox's channel if a fight with Sinclair ever heats up.
It will resemble the Israeli Six Day War, or maybe the Raid on Entebbe.

All of this boils down to ONE POINT and one point only:
You conservatives feel good about Fox News because they only tell you what their research tells THEM that YOU WANT TO HEAR.
In other words, it ain't news, it's echo chamber confirmation bias.

Yeah, all the other cable news channels do this exact same thing. They have to, because there's no Fairness Doctrine to force all of them to behave as if there is a gentleman's agreement to stick to telling the truth and presenting the facts in any kind of objective and impartial fashion.
These channels do research to gain a foothold on your biases because that is how they derive max profit, nothing more!

And the moment Sinclair decides that they want the Fox viewer pie all to themselves, you will flip on Fox and suddenly it will look and sound a lot like CNN or MSNBC, and most of the old familiar faces will BE GONE, replaced by NEW faces.
And that's because the Murdoch kids will have already done all the research they need to set up an entirely NEW viewer demographic.

That's your news, America...good night.

8d6d1dc2ff88f7f894f75471403f8336.jpg
 
Mach said:
Not sure if you're aware but the electoral college elected as our leader someone that has brought name calling, bullying, demonizing, attacking, to the presidency, and who uses it on a daily basis to attack anyone and everyone, his own allies, his opposition, the media, our national allies, former presidents, etc., etc. And his voters *love him* for it. (and he's a Republican, opposed by liberals).

But you're interested in posting someone else's absurd take on why they think Fox is great because Hannity has a family and is a human?

Writing is on the wall isn't it...better start playing nice, I mean, wouldn't want a bit of tit for that.
Click to expand...

Basically you're saying that because of one person (Trump) it gives the left carte blanche to call everyone on the right racists, bigots, deplorables, and all of the other names they have been using?
 
Mach said:
You repeating Hannity's CT nonsense is what I'm saying is the issue with Fox. They fed conspiracy theory B.S. it to you and it apparently stuck.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
https://www.vox.com/2016/9/6/12774948/fbi-hillary-clinton-report
Click to expand...

Your second link (vox) basically says what Comey said, HRC's email server was likely hacked, that's not a CT. Here's Comey's words concerning the matter;

*With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.*

*She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.*
 
hanger4 said:
Your second link (vox) basically says what Comey said, HRC's email server was likely hacked, that's not a CT. Here's Comey's words concerning the matter;
Click to expand...
What you quoted does not say likely, it says it's possible.
we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.*
Click to expand...
Further, it has been concluded in a dozen different ways, by a dozen different experts and intelligence agenices, that the DNC hack that got the emails, was Russia.

Conspiracy bunk.
 
Mach said:
What you quoted does not say likely, it says it's possible.

Further, it has been concluded in a dozen different ways, by a dozen different experts and intelligence agenices, that the DNC hack that got the emails, was Russia.

Conspiracy bunk.
Click to expand...

Given the long running intel agency record of failure to understand generally, and about Russia specifically, that means almost zip.
 
Moderate Right said:
Basically you're saying that because of one person (Trump)
Click to expand...

Trump is president of the United States, leader of the Republican party, supported by slightly less than a majority at election time, and arguably the most powerful leader in the entire world.
And you are claiming "he's just one person" in terms of leading the world in being a bullying, name-calling asshole?

Can you possible choose a less obvious false-equivalency?

Here's a pop quiz for you.
Which president has engaged in more name-calling, bullying, unprofessional behavior their first year in office:

Trump
Obama
 
OlNate said:
Do you think it's just the left?
Click to expand...

No. Of course not. But the left does it far more than the right. They have been accusing the right of fighting a war against women, a war against the poor, a war against seniors, and a war on just about everything else and have on a regular basis called the right racists, bigots, and everything else. Many on the left constantly do this. Before this election it was only the far right who called Obama names. Most on the right did not use vulgar terms of the left, except for those on the extreme right.
 
Mach said:
Trump is president of the United States, leader of the Republican party, supported by slightly less than a majority at election time, and arguably the most powerful leader in the entire world.
And you are claiming "he's just one person" in terms of leading the world in being a bullying, name-calling asshole?

Can you possible choose a less obvious false-equivalency?

Here's a pop quiz for you.
Which president has engaged in more name-calling, bullying, unprofessional behavior their first year in office:

Trump
Obama
Click to expand...

Just shows your biased partisanship when you take one person on the right to justify calling everyone on the right names.
 
Mach said:
What you quoted does not say likely, it says it's possible.

Further, it has been concluded in a dozen different ways, by a dozen different experts and intelligence agenices, that the DNC hack that got the emails, was Russia.

Conspiracy bunk.
Click to expand...

Likely - Synonyms: possible. Do you really want to quibble over that ??

Hillary's email server and the DNC's server are different animals. Hannity was speaking of HRC's emails.
 
hanger4 said:
Likely - Synonyms: possible. Do you really want to quibble over that ??
Click to expand...
It's the entire argument, the difference as big as night vs day, or true vs false.

Please understand the difference of possible, and likely:

Imagine the odds of winning are 1 out of 1 million (or a trillion!):
True statement: It's possible to win.
False Statement: It's likely you will win.

Your word usage would result, in a dramatic way, the exact opposite logical conclusion. Which is what conspiracy theorists do, use absurdly tiny "possibilities", and turn them into "likely", and then they choose to believe it.

Likely, in contrast to "possible", would indicate at the very least greater than anything larger than a 1 in 2 (50%) chance.
Probable, would be a reasonable substitution, but not possible (as shown above).
 
She's a nutjob and a horrible person. You can research her published articles and tweets and come to that realization. This article is simply her on happy meds.
 
Moderate Right said:
No. Of course not. But the left does it far more than the right. They have been accusing the right of fighting a war against women, a war against the poor, a war against seniors, and a war on just about everything else and have on a regular basis called the right racists, bigots, and everything else. Many on the left constantly do this. Before this election it was only the far right who called Obama names. Most on the right did not use vulgar terms of the left, except for those on the extreme right.
Click to expand...

You deny war against women, poor, seniors?
 
Moderate Right said:
Just shows your biased partisanship when you take one person on the right to justify calling everyone on the right names.
Click to expand...

So you agree Obama, the Democrat/liberal, set a better example on your new "be nice" issue of the day?
And that if this "one person" is the leader of the Republican party, that it seems odd you'd be railing against liberals? I mean, how unifying of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom