Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MEDIA: Only Fox News provides both sides’ opinions

Letter by Richard N. Mercier, University Place on July 30, 2012 at 10:58 am with 95 Comments »
July 30, 2012 10:58 am

Re: “Fox, MSNBC viewers see the world differently” (TNT, 7-27).

Everyone knows that people who watch MSNBC and CNN are liberal and that most everyone who watches Fox News is conservative. The real issue is how the news is reported. Yes, Fox News does lean right, but MSNBC and CNN are both left. They report only liberal-left ideas and agendas, never offering a different point of few or opinion.

Every Fox News program presents both opinions so that the listeners can make up their own mind instead of having someone telling tbem how it should be. Fox News pits conservative and liberal talk show host, authors, reporters and celebrities head to head with the current issues of each day. Does MSNBC and CNN provide fair-and-balanced reporting? They give their opinions.

My question is, why are the producers of these two networks not sharing both sides of the issues? What are they afraid of? Do they simply think that the American public are too stupid to come to their own conclusions on the important issues in this country?

Those who want to hear all the national news, not just hand-picked news, and would like to see real people debate the hot issues of the day should turn to Fox News to get the whole story.


, , ,
Leave a comment Comments → 95
  1. MrCarleone says:

    Gee Dickey, put your foil hat back on and go back to bed !

  2. Richard, if you follow these boards you will see the ones that cry out against FNC never watch. They form their opinion from far left media and call it a day.

  3. Mr Mercer, you have my respect for sticking your neck out in support of FOX NEWS. It is certainly not going to be a popular position in the forum. The left leaners are going to rotisserie you. Mr C is just the first.

  4. aislander says:

    The crucial difference between Fox News and the slanted media is not in the opinion shows–everyone knows and expects them to be partisan in both cases–it is in the hard news coverage that Fox separates from the partisan herd.

    Every time a survey of the hard news broadcasts is conducted, Fox comes out as more evenhanded.

    Giving the conservative take–or even factual information that supports a conservative point of view–is considered by the left to be slanted…

  5. Everyone knows that…

    …anyone who starts a statement with “everyone knows” is about to write something that isn’t a known fact.

  6. Who are the “liberals” that are featured on FOX? They might be slightly left of center (or slightly left of the featured right wing host) thus qualifying them for the DNC but they are hardly what I would call Left.

  7. oldoc – anyone who writes a letter about FOX is just trolling for responses.

  8. Mr C. there are monsters in the closet and bugs in your bed…give it a break couldn’t even provide a rebuttal. When you spout the same pablum you liberals excel at does it make you feel proud that you told him off or it put the debate to rest? You’re so shallow that some idiotic comment made you feel good about yourself. Get a Playboy, go in a closet, make yourself feel good, at least than you’ll have reason…

  9. Every time a survey of the hard news broadcasts is conducted, Fox comes out as more evenhanded.


    Here is a citation for the seventh study that shows that FOX viewers are the most misinformed.

  10. alindasue says:

    aislander said, “Every time a survey of the hard news broadcasts is conducted, Fox comes out as more evenhanded.”

    I suppose you could provide links to all (or even some) of these surveys, eh?

  11. aislander says:

    Why certainly! Here’s just one: http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/12/fox-news-is-mos.html

    I wouldn’t want to deprive you of the pleasure of doing your OWN EASY RESEARCH, so I’m certain you can find many more…

  12. aislander says:

    Think Progress, beerBoy? Well, Tass and Pravda ARE rather inactive, I guess…

  13. Bb- can you explain why people (you being one of that group) get incredibly fired up over FNC?

    And honestly, how much have you watched it?

  14. Theefrinker says:

    “Do they simply think that the American public are too stupid…”

    well….I guess it seem likes a safe assumptions now.

  15. thenewstribune52 says:

    Fox News advertises they are “Fair and Balanced” yet you say “Fox News does lean right.” Something is out of balance here.

  16. http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel

    Scroll down a bit and you can see a list of FNC liberals. Not included are the many liberal guests.

  17. SandHills says:

    Most of FNC is not news, but spoon fed opinions.

    I like the option we have on local cable here, where I can watch ABC at 5:30; NBC at 6:00; and CBS at 6:30 – each are slightly different, but are, for the most part, consistent in how they just try and inform rather than convince.

    But that’s not all, I read at least three newspaper sources a day, with other internet sources – anyone whose focus is on being fed the news mainly through the “no spin zone” of Fox, or MNBC, or any other talking heads, are seriously in danger of losing touch with reality.

  18. beerboy, Bob Beckel and Alan Combs slightly left? I hate to think who you qualify as left. Also I would be interested in knowing who if anyone is a constant right wing quest on MSNBC.

  19. NWflyfisher says:

    “ThinkProgress is an American political blog that “provide[s] a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies”.[2] It is an outlet of the Center for American Progress.”

  20. Fox has been so thoroughly demonized at this point, you won’t get far making a case for them, though what aislander says here is true IMO

  21. tellnolies says:

    “Research into studies of media bias in the United States shows that liberal experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a conservative bias, while conservative experimenters tend to get results that say the media has a liberal bias, and those who do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative get results indicating little bias, or mixed bias.[22][23][24]”

    (from Wikipedia’s media bias article)

    ROFL!! Imagine that! You’ll get about as much “truth” debating what flavor is “the best.”

    One’s own perspective creates the percieved liberal or conservative bias.

  22. aislander says:

    sozo! Good to see your post.

    And good news for beerBoy: Tass and Pravda are both alive and well, so you won’t be forced to cite pretenders such as Think Progress, but are now able to embrace the real thing!

    Don’t forget to give credit where due, though…

  23. aislander says:

    tellnolies: You are correct with respect to opinions about what constitutes bias, but objective studies can and have been done. All that is required is that the items be unidentifiable as to source, and that they be rated by a panel with a range of ideologies as positive or negative. A statistical analysis of the results provides an objective view of bias.

  24. As more people turn to the web for hard news, the cable and network news need to distinguish themselves in order to make a profit.

    FNC has remained steady, while CNN and the networks moved left, in my opinion. Also, showing bias is no longer journalistic taboo. Really, that is center of the debate. What is news vs opinion.

    When Shep Smith introduces Bill O, he says “analysis and opinion”. That is a good start. Separate “news” and “opinion”. What Bill does well is show both sides. That is what I think people are missing on other programs.

  25. CT7,
    Some of us watch Fox in order to know our enemies and the lies they spread.

    How many conservatives can honestly say they actually watch MSNBC/CNN rather then get the edited Fox Version of what was allegedly said?

    The real difference between you fox bats and those of us who are not, is we know Fox is slanted, baisied, and is officially an entertainment network that is not required to tell the truth.

    The only polls/studies that claim Fox is the most fair and balanced were conducted either by Fox or by some other biased conservative organization.

    Non-conservative organizations usually rate the British Broadcasting Service (BBC) as the least biased, followed by:
    PBS Newshour,
    The Daily Show,
    The Daily Rundown on MSNBC, and
    Anderson Cooper on CNN.


  26. alindasue says:

    aislander, Brutally Honest is almost as non-biased as Think Progress. I think I will take both sources with an equal number of salt grains.

    Based on my own admittedly limited exposure to both FOX News network and MSNBC, I would say that they are both equally slanted (or “balanced” depending on your bias).

    tellnolies said, “ROFL!! Imagine that! You’ll get about as much “truth” debating what flavor is “the best.””

    I find myself agreeing with him.

  27. menopaws says:

    The honest truth, in my opinion , is that ALL cable news is just dreadful…….Fox and CNN being sooo damn eager to scoop each other that they both reported the health care decision WRONG. While I did find that pretty funny—it is obvious that their pursuit of the truth is secondary to their ratings. MSNBC doesn’t get off the hook either—while I do vote Democrat, I find their slant just as annoying as those on the right. I am a real purist—I like my news to be the news…….commentary is opinion, not news and should be regarded as political. So, I suggest everyone go back to the networks—Scott Pelley and Brian Williams are both excellent, PBS also does a pretty good newscast and Canadian Broadcasting gives you a world view that has ceased to be represented by the American media…..But, most of cable news is pretty awful. they didn’t set out to appeal to news junkies—it’s all about politics……And, for me, I am already sick of politics!!!! I just want my news!

  28. aislander had to go back to a 2007 study that compared apples and oranges, if you actually look at the study. They looked at Fox News shows compared to other networks opinion shows. They said they had to do that because Fox inserts opinions in its new shows while the other mainstream organizations have spearate opinion segments or shows.

    They looked at Britt Hume’s broadcasts. I do find him fairly even handed, and watch his presentations.

    The study looked at how many times candidates or parties were mentioned and whether or not an opinion was given in the context of the mention, and which way the opinion was slanted, according tpo the viewers. So the “scientific” study turns out to be a count of mention and some university students’ opinions about opinions.

    I’ll stick with every survey that shows Fox viewers least informed and least knowledgeable.

  29. aislander says:

    xring: So…I provided a link with the results of a survey by the Center For Media and Public Affairs. Since you maintain that any such survey is in itself biased, I challenge you to prove that CMPA is, in fact, biased.

    Hint: the only allegation of bias I could find was in Source Watch, a blatantly LEFTY organ, and that allegation was a reaction to this very study. At worst: pot-kettle…

    So back it up. Show where the methodology was flawed. Otherwise, you have nothing…

    Perhaps Pravda can help…

  30. X- http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

    A little dated. If anything the other have shifted left, FNC steady.

    As to your “enemies” comment, you are a product of this admin and the hate it breeds.

  31. Question for both sides, has anyone had their opinion/mind changed by an argument or facts stated by either side? No,so here we are, name calling and doubting the species of the other. I chose a side (not that I don’t have leanings the other way) but because I relate more to the right. And I think most liberals are sniveling cowards, just telling the truth as I see it now I will be called names or ignored, big deal so what. I will fight for what I believe right, and working from the center will get you tire tracks on your back… Have at it hacks you can go to work now and may your day be blessed and the sun shine brightly.

  32. aislander says:

    There is no place for the “middle” at this point in history because it has shifted so far to the left. We need a strong and sustained push to the right to even get into the same time zone as the historical American middle…

  33. Harry_Anslinger says:

    I watch plenty of Fox News. More than MSNBC. However I know HOW to watch FNC. If you watch Fox and actually believe it to be un-biased and haven’t seen ‘Outfoxed’ to understand how they manipulate viewers and realize it is the mouthpiece for Roger Ailes than you are certainly gullible. Regardless, using corporate media “infotainment” as a primary source of “news” is pure folly. Unfortuneatly too many people do consider these corporate infotainment outlets as legitimate, considering this thread.

  34. Bob Beckel and Alan Combs slightly left?


  35. @aislander – your sense of “historical center” is set somewhere right after the American Revolution and definitely before the 20th century.

  36. alindasue says:

    I admit, I don’t know much about the Center For Media and Public Affairs, so I looked them up. This is what the Wikipedia entry said regarding their funding:

    “The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA’s non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.[18][19] After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as “conservative,” the Post published a “Clarification,” which concluded, “The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators.”[20]

    The left leaning political organization MediaTransparency (now run by Media Matters for America, itself a liberal organization[21]) documented that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation). The organization, which collated information from returns filed by numerous conservative foundations, claimed that 86% of CMPA’s total funding came from conservative-leaning foundations.[citation needed] In response to Media Transparency’s claims, CMPA posted on its website a listing of $1,766,500 in grants received from 19 “non-conservative” and centrist foundations and non-profit organizations.[22]”

    If both dollar figures are correct, then CMPA received $2,960,916 in funding, $1,766,500 of which came from a combination of “non-conservative” and “centrist” foundations. That would mean that $1,194,416, or roughly 40% of their funding, comes from sources that are NOT “non-conservative” or “centrist”.

    Make of that what you will…

    aislander, Pravda is a Russian newspaper. While I do like to view news from an international perspective, often reading British or Japanese news sources, I can’t see how your repeated references to Pravda have anything to do with a conversation on bias in American news outlets.

  37. LeePHill says:

    Oprah to Sarah Palin – “There is a rumor that I snubbed you during the campaign. Do you feel I did?

    Sarah Palin to Oprah – “No, not at all.”

    Fox and Friends – “We wonder why Sarah Palin went on Oprah’s show since Oprah snubbed her during the 2008 campaign.”

    Good, stuff, huh, Richard?

  38. aislander says:

    Pravda, alindasue, is not so much a Russian news outlet as it is a communist mouthpiece. Just like Think Progress (which was cited by beerBoy)…

  39. alindasue says:

    CT7 sai, “As to your “enemies” comment, you are a product of this admin and the hate it breeds.”

    I think it would be more correct to state that this administration is a product of the American voters…

  40. ct7 – I’m not “fired up” about FN. I am responding to inane claims made by the letter writer – including this one: turn to Fox News to get the whole story.

    In my attempts to “get the whole story” I don’t rely on any single outlet and I don’t expect the pundits – Leftish or Right – to give me the right spin because….it is spin they are peddling, not truth.

    I don’t watch much television news – mostly local channels for the weather and reports on wild fires – but, as I have communicated to you before, I find all of them rather terrible as they spend very little time reporting the news. Back when my little rabbit ears could pull in PBS I would watch the McNeil/Leher Report because they actually spent time on issues to provide a deeper context rather than focusing upon sound bites, spectacle footage, followed by a celebrity report and some “happy news” like ALL of the rest of them do. I can’t watch cable news because I refuse to pay for TV.

    Telling me that I need to watch FOX News because I don’t like it is akin to my wife who insists that, if I eat more Brussels sprouts I will finally learn to like them. FOX News – like Brussels sprouts – leave a bad taste in my mouth….so I don’t consume it.

  41. menopaws says:

    Like I said–these guys don’t even know what real news is…..bunch of opinionated amateurs with expensive haircuts and clothes………News is a lot different from commentary and frankly, most of the talking heads on all these shows make a living stirring up crap just so they can continue to get paid……….The part that I find insulting is the idea that THEIR opinions are more important than mine…or yours…..Really a bunch of puffed up, self serving “experts” in fleecing the cable networks for $$$$$. That appears to be their main area of expertise…..Just abandon them for awhile and things might actually get more reliable and intelligent……..ratings rule.

  42. alindasue says:

    aislander said, “Pravda, alindasue, is not so much a Russian news outlet as it is a communist mouthpiece. Just like Think Progress (which was cited by beerBoy)…”

    Brutally Honest appears to be just as biased in a “right-wing” direction. Your implication here seems to be that any “left” leaning organization would be a “communist mouthpiece”. You and I both know that’s not necessarily true, but it does make for a nice piece of emotional hyperbole to bring the “red scare” into the conversation.

    If you have a problem with communism, that’s fine. If you can cite evidence that beerBoy’s source was indeed communist which you have a problem with, that’s fine too. However, Pravda has no bearing on the topic of bias in AMERICAN media.

  43. alindasue says:

    beerBoy said, “In my attempts to “get the whole story” I don’t rely on any single outlet…”

    Which is how it should be. Remember back in high school when we had to find at least three separate source types to cite for our research essays? That was to increase the chances of accuracy in our research.

    How easy it is for people to forget those simple high school lessons when they get older.

    ” I can’t watch cable news because I refuse to pay for TV.”

    We quit cable TV back in 1999 when my husband was one of thousands laid off from Boeing that year. Every time we stay in a hotel and turn on the TV in the room, we remember why we still haven’t gotten cable back. There are much better uses for our money.

  44. The only fair and balanced news reporting are the 30 minute evening news programs; ABC/NBC/CBS. They don’t have much time to be on one side of the fence!

  45. aislander says:

    Of course Pravda has bearing on a discussion of media bias as a cynosure of that quality.

    Please elucidate for me the substantive differences between the goals of Marxism and those of American progressivism. I’m not talking about window dressing, such as the means of production being controlled by the “99%” rather than outright “ownersip” by the workers, but actual differences.

    Same thing, different names…

  46. lylelaws says:

    Obviously liberal regulars on Fox News?

    Ok, how about Juan Williams, Alan Colmes Mara Liasson and Bob Beckel.

    Now would someone please list the obviously conservatives on CNN?

  47. Meno- haircuts is an interesting topic. Do you know the story of BHOs barber?

    Bb- then your issue is with people not getting their information from enough sources, correct? Yet you chose to jump on the leftist bandwagon proclaiming FNC as the devil. Your outrage seems misplaced.

    I read a ton of news. Drudge is the first place, followed by a few conservative sites that would make your skin crawl. Realclearpolitics (also Fox-like in usually giving both sides of an issue), a bunch of finance sites, and I get the Economist.

    But if I am watching news, it is FNC unless I am in a hotel or something major happened (I like to see the ‘other’ side reporting on the same event).

    While I find myself defending FNC, what bothers me most here is the disinformation from the left. The lack of honesty on their own media sources. I read many a Times article and am shocked by the comment section.

  48. menopaws says:

    Cable news is the comic book version of journalism………Left or right–doesn’t matter…….Bad, sleazy, stupid—not a real journalist in the whole ugly mess…..I agree with Borg—-go to the networks–they do the job and report the news………I’m smart enough to form my own opinions, aren’t you? CT7—Please explain what expensive haircuts of cable news talking heads has to do with Obama???? Do you have some weird obsession or something–can’t seem to move past that topic………those fatheads on cable can’t seem to talk about anything else either—maybe limited knowledge of other topics is what keeps them….and you….on point……….Big old world out there—lots and lots of other stories for those who want to learn……

  49. CT7, if you had read the Huffington Post, you’d have known about the president paying his barber to come to Washington since he started doing it after his inauguration in 2008. That story is old news, but Fox, the Drudge and others have leapt on it like crazy this election year.

    This is the way Fox works. First, it presents a story (even if it is old, old news), and make some implication, that can make Obama look bad if they work at it, like “some WH insiders claim that the president pays for the trips, but no actual accounting has been made.” Then, Breitbart’s site makes the false statement that the trips are at taxpayers expense. So Fox then states in its next report, “Sources say taxpayers have allegedly shelled out over $23,000 for this service since 2008″.

    Then the commentors get hold of the story and start leaving out “allegedly” and presenting this nonsense as fact. And then Fox viewers think it is a factual stiory that the ‘liberal media’ is just refusing to cover.

    The German media outlet story that Fox and others based their recent account on said nothing about taxpayer funding. They reported accurately that the barber did not reveal who was paying, but that he charged Obama $21 just like anyone else. They didn’t interview anyone at the WH about this.

    The taxpayer funding thing was added by Obama haters, and Fox just blithely went along. So much for “fair and balanced”.

    Here is an earlier story in July, 2011 plainly stating that Obama pays for the costs himself.


  50. Ah… I see someone misplaced this letter that was supposed to go in the comics section?

  51. aislander again with his problems with Teddy Roosevelt being a Marxist because he was a Progressive.

    dude….seriously…it is hard to take you seriously when you keep beating that tired (mis)meme.

  52. This is the FCC’s classification of Fox News as of March 2012. http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/03/13/fox-news-classified-satire-by-fcc/

  53. This UK paper says he pays for it. It does not quote him or any other official.

    But, with airfare and transport, how much is he paying for a haircut? Well, he pays $20. What is the real cost? Nice carbon footprint on a haircut.

    And yes, I read an article somewhere over a year ago. Point?

    Meno- you just learned BHO spends thousands on haircuts. You are welcome.

  54. aislander says:

    Same question that stumped you last time, beerBoy: when does a progressive stop progressing?

    Remember, perfection is not an option…

  55. MyBandito says:

    This letter belongs in the comics section, not the editorial page.

  56. alindasue says:

    The Free Wood Post article is itself satire and not to be taken seriously. That’s what they mean at the top of the page when they state “News that’s ALMOST reliable”.

    It looks like an interesting site. I’ll have to check it out later. I like satire.

    We get it. If it’s remotely progressive, then it must be related to communism – at least, that’s what you appear to be saying.

    However, since this thread is about biases in American news sources – whatever the biases may be – and not Russian news, I’m going to ignore further references to Pravda until the next ‘progressivism=communism’ thread when those references might actually be on topic.

  57. aislander says:

    I’m just trying to figure out what “progressive” is, alindasue. Since, in my opinion, most news sources are biased in a progressive direction, my posts are most certainly on topic.

    Now: when do progressives stop progressing?

  58. I think the answer scares them. When there are no “rich” people. When everyone has the same amount of everything. When individual effort is superseded by collective wants.

  59. aislander says:

    Right. A communal society.

    My point.

  60. Fox is as fair and balanced as Pravda.

  61. alindasue says:

    aislander said, “I’m just trying to figure out what “progressive” is, alindasue.”

    If you are not even sure what “progressive” is, how can you be the one to say when they stop “progressing”?

    It’s been my observation that what defines “progressive” and it’s opposite (regressive?), liberal and conservative, “left” and “right” and even “center” all depends on who is doing the defining and the political atmosphere of the day.

    In that sense, I suppose your off-topic argument is somewhat on topic in that it shows the effects on how bias affects how things are currently labelled and presented in the media.

  62. alindasue says:

    aislander said, “I’m just trying to figure out what “progressive” is, alindasue. Since, in my opinion, most news sources are biased in a progressive direction…”

    Put another way, if you don’t even know what “progressive” is, how can you be so sure that news sources are biased “in a progressive direction”?

  63. Alindasue, you are truly the only bipartisan one here. You religious values must have you torn. But can you answer the question? Do you consider yourself “progressive”? If so, can you define your beliefs?

  64. aislander says:

    You miss the point, alindasue. I know what a progressive direction is; I want to know what the progressive destination is…

  65. averageJose says:

    What a fun thread. I especially get a kick out of the denial of being “fired up”.

  66. aislander says:

    It IS fun, aJ. I had a occasion in another thread to cite the philosopher i*a*m*j*i*m*m. Hope you caught that.

  67. aislander says:

    Should have read: “I had occasion…”

  68. lylelaws says:

    I am still waiting for someone to name any conservative regulars on CNN.

    I listed four liberal regulars on Fox.

    So who lets the full story be told? Fox News.

  69. alindasue says:

    lylelaws said, “I am still waiting for someone to name any conservative regulars on CNN.”

    Well, since neither beerBoy nor I have cable television, neither of us would have a clue who’s on CNN. Is there anyone here who actually watches CNN and can answer that question?

    CT7 said, “You religious values must have you torn. But can you answer the question? Do you consider yourself “progressive”?”

    My religious values don’t have me torn at all, although they do help form my core values. (It’s well known to most here that I am LDS, just like Mitt Romney and Harry Reid.)

    I am both “pro life” and a firm believer in what Jesus said about loving our neighbors. I believe in working hard to support myself and assisting those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. I believe in both frugal spending and supporting my community with my tax dollars when it is needed. I believe in growing my own food, carpooling and buses, and supporting local businesses, but I don’t consider a new Walmart in town to be doom for the community.

    Do I consider myself “progressive”? That would depend on which issue we are speaking of and the current definition of “progressive”, wouldn’t it?

    I would think that something that is “progressive” would in fact be progressing. If it reaches “a destination”, it is no longer progressing and therefore no longer “progressive”, wouldn’t you think? I suppose then it would then become the new “conservative” at that point, whatever that is.

    All I can tell you is that Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush were all Republicans, yet so different in their political beliefs. We can no more find a definition of “Republican” that fits all four of those esteemed gentlemen, than we can find the definitive meaning of “progressive” politics.

  70. MililaniJag says:

    Yes,All those right wing nut regulars on FNC like Juan Williams,Alan Colmes,Con.Dennis Kucinich,Lanny Davis,Santita Jackson AKA The Rev.Jessie Jackson’s daughter,Bob”F Bomb”Beckel,Tamara Holder,Doug Schoen,Pat Caddell,Kristen Powers,Marc Lamont Hill,Geraldo Rivera,Leslie Marshall….to name a few.

  71. I’m just trying to figure out what “progressive” is,

    Yah sure, ya betcha! Your crusade to link the left to all the evil in the world has nothing to do with you “trying to figure out what a progressive is”. You have already decided.

    Stop lying about your intentions. It really undermines your credibility as a trustworthy commenter.

  72. It IS fun, aJ. I had a occasion in another thread to cite the philosopher i*a*m*j*i*m*m. Hope you caught that.

    Are you really so obtuse as to not know who aJ is?

  73. kooky

  74. menopaws says:

    CT7—I also learned that your obsession with Fox News and irrelevant facts is out of control…..If the President can afford the haircuts, what is the problem???? It’s not like he is putting a car elevator in the white House is it???? Don’t play the money game you idiot—you come out on the losing side with your little prep school moron candidate….Try something new—go read a book or Time magazine……….Big world—much bigger problems than the President using money he EARNED to get an expensive haircut……..What a waste of time—this blog lives for the Tea Bag whiners…….Any fresh ideas out there????

  75. LeePHill says:

    “lylelaws said, “I am still waiting for someone to name any conservative regulars on CNN.”

    Joe Scarborough, former GOP Congressman, has a daily show on MSNBC.

    Lyle, you need to stick to “racism”. It makes you look less silly.

    “Liberal regulars on FOX” – Which one has their own daily show?

  76. LeePHill says:

    “CT7 says:
    July 30, 2012 at 8:54 pm Alindasue, you are truly the only bipartisan one here. You religious values must have you torn. But can you answer the question? Do you consider yourself “progressive”? If so, can you define your beliefs?”

    CT7 pulls the “religious can’t be progressive” card. Jesus was a progressive and opposed the conservative element of the time.

  77. averageJose says:

    LOL… are you so unendowed that you didn’t catch why he responded to me about the comment b?

    Kooky indeed.

  78. aislander says:

    Yes, alindasue, the meaning of “conservative” does depend on what one is bent on conserving, doesn’t it?

    My point about progressivism is that it defines itself by its label–it is an ideology of action rather than ideas. There is another well-known ideology that defined itself in that way, but I digress (not really, but I don’t wish to incite obloquy from beerBoy). Progressives MUST continue to move or they are not progressives anymore.

    Lemmings are said to do that, but, if that is true, they move only themselves and not a larger, unwilling population. I think army ants are a better comparison

  79. Since “conservatives” aren’t into conserving resources or conservationism, how are they conservative?

  80. How is unabashed and unrestrained militarism “conservative”?

    How is an embrace of neo-liberal economic policies “conservative”?

  81. aislander says:

    Many conservatives–most certainly including me–are conservationists. We don’t, however, use the environment to impose a larger, coercive agenda…

    …as the left does.

  82. averageJose says:

    Exactly aislander.

  83. MarksonofDarwin says:

    It really is interesting to note that even though many have labeled themselves “progressive,” that many of their ideas actually come from a reactionary call to leave things just where they are. No progress at all, and even in some instances want to pull everyone back to some romantic “simpler” time. Alindasue’s example of the whole Walmart kerfluffle is a great example of this.

    On the flip side, many conservatives actually embrace many liberal ideas….perhaps not consciously, but they do. Liberalizing our public school system to allow more choice and flexibility could be one example.

    There is a different reason I wanted to post here, but thought I should stick something almost on topic first….does anyone know what happened to Roncella? I don’t come here as often as I used to, but he has been noticeably absent.

  84. aislander says:

    MoD: Roncella, who used to own Roncella’s restaurant in Federal Way, died a while ago. I posted a little memorial about a month ago…

    I wish you and some others would post more often, but after the way you were flamed I don’t blame you for visiting less often.

  85. MarksonofDarwin says:


    That was my fear. He was a great guy. We had many disagreements, (most notably on Sarah Palin) but he was always respectful and a gentleman. This is sad news…he will be missed.

    I don’t mind being flamed as much as I don’t suffer fools.
    The dishonesty and shallowness of some who have taken over is really too bad. The worst is that they portray their ideology in such a stereotypical way, that it’s more than a bit cartoonish. I have many thought provoking conversations with self styled progressives, and they are never so supercilious and silly. I still can’t believe that grown adults would believe half of what they claim to.
    I suppose it’s the curse of partisanship. Anything and everything bad about their party is pooh-poohed, while everything bad about the other party is blown way out of proportion.

  86. Hills, I heard that today on….FNC!

    They played the quote. The reporter was way out of line. So the aide used firm language?

    When is BHO going to answer a question from a reporter that was not 100% screened? That last press conference with 10 answers was a joke.

  87. Thinking about this letter and I just did not get how the writer could say only Faux News gives both sides of the issues and then I got it. What Richard means regarding both sides is, the extreme rightwing bat$h*t crazy and the regular rightwing views.

  88. averageJose says:

    “cartoonish” is an understatement.

  89. averageJose says:

    “unabashed and unrestrained”

    Hyperbole much?

  90. romamar says:

    This letter didn’t convince me that Fox is any more balanced than other cable networks. There aren’t any facts presented just opinions.

    The producers on all networks make decisions on what issues and opinions to cover based on ratings, not on what’s balanced.

    In my opinion, why try convincing someone to eat broccoli if they absolutely hate it? The American public is free to watch whatever they want.

  91. Hyperbole much?

    Nope….not when “conservatives” regularly post things like “turn the region into glass”.

  92. CT7, here is a factual comparison, not an attack on either Obama or Romney. Romney had one more interview with selected journalists than Obama, while Obama has answered more shouted questions.

    They each of conducted about the same number of televised interviews during their pre-election overseas trips, and have ahd about the same number of press conferences since Romney sewed up the nomination.

    If Romney’s aide doesn’t like reporters shouting questions, then don’t invite them along. That is what reporters do – to all presidential candidates.

  93. averageJose says:

    LOL… so you equate an anonymous comment on the TNT to be “unabashed and unrestrained militarism”.

    Your delicate sensitivity is showing (again) my friend… kooky.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0