Stewart: Fox turns "reasonable concerns" about Obama, economy into "panic attack about the next coming of Chairman Mao"
February 03, 2010 9:28 pm ET
From the February 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Previously:
Ayn Rand
Not pointing fingers here, but how did this get posted? Is it not considered profanity? I worked on a well-thought out, well-linked post yesterday only to have it kicked out (and lost) due to profanity. Funny thing is ... there was no profanity anywhere within my post or within the quotes that I was citing either. Hmmmmmm.
Just wondering is all. Carry on! :-)
"That he {the late Howard Zinn] was considered radical says way more about this society than it does about him."
And I thought I knew some esoteric phrases.
Just going on Fox News is not enough though. You have to formulate a game plan and be prepared for the onslaught because they do not fight fair. First of all, they often invite the weakest progressives on to be, as Glen Beck would put it, slaughtered. Then they will cut your mic, scream at you, call you names, etc. if you get to making your point too good. So while hard hitters who know how to handle their own like Jon Stewart obviously does need to go on there and duke it out, light weights or those not willing to prepare need not apply.
1. Monologue to create faux "reasonable" opposition position.
2. Craft narrow ideological question - "Do you agree with that Congressman" or "Don't you think that is a valid criticism?"
3. When foil tries to unwind ridiculous strawman or "construct", interrupt incessantly, talk over and more loudly to ensure they aren't heard or are unable to even complete a coherent sentence.
4. If foil successfully starts "winning" cutoff their mike or "we'll have to leave it there".
Fox is a joke.
If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.
And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/changing_channels/2010/01/msnbc-to-massachusetts-drop-dead.html
And BTW, I'll bet you're pal Obama shows up on Fox pretty soon, he is too smart a guy not to realize that his pretty whinning about Fox is costing him his credibility. Before too long he will be begging to get on Fox. Will he just be a foil also?
Comical!
Not comical just boring!
What you call a 'foil', most would call 'balance'.
Please list the regular contributors on MSNBC who identify themselves as conservative.
If Fox News is a joke, why do you focus on it so obsessively?
The ratings suggest that there aren't many people who are listening to you.
I'll do it for you,
"How do you account for the frequent appearances of people like Barney Frank, Mark Hill, Ellis Henican, Bob Beckel to name just a few? Wesley Clark also appears from time to time. Gavin Newsome was just on the other night."
Now look closely fool, is there any mention of shows?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
Conservatives, Republicans far outnumber others
By Steve Rendall
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072 also
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
MSNBC devote hours to an actual conservative. Not to be confused with the phony ones you adore on Fox. Can you please point to the liberal show on Fox that would show the same kind of balance? We'll wait....
I'm sure the regular viewers of Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly tune in precisely because these hosts agree with their own opinions (or help them to formulate an opinion).
But a lot of people don't agree with them, and as a result, they don't watch Fox news at night. The ratings for Fox's opinion shows are in the 1.5 - 4M range, which means they attract roughly the same number of viewers as your average wrestling show. (Possibly the same viewers...) Great for cable news, but no big deal in the TV-viewing universe.
Fox's numbers could be a lot bigger if it wasn't in a stranglehold of its own making. It's branded the entire network as the "loyal opposition", leaving no room for anyone else.
There aren't enough people out there who agree with their right-wing stridency for them to grow their numbers beyond a certain point. If you're not interested in hearing them trash the President, what's to see over there?
Roger Ailes should be thanking God every morning for Larry King, because CNN has totally failed to come up with a viable opinion show that anyone wants to watch.
Around 40% identify themselves as conservative and around 40% identify themselves as moderate.
A basic grasp of numeracy will tell you who the minority is.
I would also agree that Jon Stewart would be an excellent addition to a opinion news show. I also think if Fox News had originally hired Joe Conason as they once considered it would have been a good idea. But, they would not even be considered by Fox today.
Fox has a very specific narrative they are selling. This is why they cut away from Obama actually speaking or answering questions whenever they can. Obama being reasonable and intelligent and considerate does not fit the very rigid narrative they are selling to their extremely partisan, spoon-fed sycophants. They made their decision to trade in news for narrative long ago.
Stewart or Conason would not fit into their lineup. They are selling snake oil to a very loyal, very rabid, very niche market. And it is very lucrative. I see no reason for them to change their ways at this point. It would certainly not be for shame or integrity.
Glenn Beck - he just spouts!
Yeah, and monkeys are gonna come flying out of my butt.
Well, apparently, I am completely out of my mind. Who else is out of their mind?
He may have harsh words for Republicans, but most of the time the words are reserved for the more liberal/moderate Republicans, specifically the ones that stray from the party line. The only times I have ever seen Glenn Beck make positive comments toward any Democrat is when the individual sides with the Republicans to defeat a bill.
Well, apparently, I am completely out of my mind. Who else is out of their mind?"
I don't know that I'm out of my mind, but, "As G-d is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"
Trains worked very well for Hitler.
You really need to walk away from the Beckster's program or at least try looking up the BS he spews.
And how much oil is going to be consumed by homeland security driving around trying to keep terrorists from blowing up your toy trains?
Instead of concentrating people in cities where trains make sense we should be decentralizing.
The problem with a decentralized population it is more difficult to conduct death camps.
And Jose, hon, if you are paranoid enough to avoid living in cities and using an energy saving technology out of misguided fear of those technologies and circumstances being abused, please head to West Virginia, New Mexico, Wyoming, or any other state with some unused mountain tops and set yourself up a little independent enclave and leave the rest of us sane people alone.
If on the other hand, you are just using a bit of hyperbole to try to convince people to listen to you, ct it out. It serves no useful purpose to exaggerate.
Generally speaking, heavy cargo does not need to go bullet train speeds.
And unlike Japan and China, the US does not have the concentration of population to justify a massive rail system.
So even though you feel like you are being abused, that will not motivate me to move to West Virginia, etc.
Now the government-built Interstate system? That's massive. The government's defense budget? That's massive.
Guess these anti-rail people are pro-foreign oil and therefore pro-terrorist.
I would be happy to put all of the train money into freeways where there is no speed limit like the Autobahn in Germany.
You on the other hand would prefer to herd people like cattle.
This simpleton reminds me of the potheads I used to buy weed off of in college. Just give me the 1/8th, take my twenty bucks, and shut up with the ridiculous ramblings. You are a waste of time.
I just don't want to pay no stinking taxes to support it.
It is criminal to take gasoline taxes and use them to subsidize public transit. But that is exactly what politicians do to buy votes.
And it's you people who love to be herded like cattle into public transit that end up with someone's buttocks two inches away from your face.
You probably wouldn't even notice if the train you were on was on its way to a death camp with a rear end blocking your view.
Be afraid , be very afraid...of YOU.
I thought it was hilarious that someone could get away with saying that a passive window is going to amplify the energy that a plant needs. That would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
What is even more hilarious is all the idiots who believe it because they want to believe it. Maybe if they believe it long enough it will become true.
The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.
“ The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
Ok genius go to work, how is it wrong to assert that energy saving windows(don't know what material the windows are made of)hinder the growth of plants?
I find it hilarious that you come here giving advice and spouting conspiracy theories without any proof, as if YOUR opinion is enough. You may like getting high off of smelling your own farts,and it might impress your other braindead friends but your pseudo-intellectual rants get no play here.
Really,what about the use of double window panes. They increase insulation without hindering the energy a plant needs to grow.
I said population density, not population center.
Density would be people per square kilometer.
New York already has its subways.
The problem with trains is that you have to get to and from the entry points of the train depots so a 10 mile trip may take 20 miles and twice as long.
There was a study in New York that if there was an anthrax attack on the subway system it could be disabled for years.
The only logical solution to me is to find ways to make the automobile more efficient and decentralize the population. Education can be done online in a virtual environment.
Building train systems is nothing but another pork barrel project designed to get more campaign contributions.
Design roads to minimize stops and traffic jams. That would be a lot better than throwing money down the toilet in a high speed railway system.
See how easy that is?
It is probably closer to 95%.
And my estimates are typically much more accurate than the numbers that come out of $50 million studies.
If you are an insulin addict, for what it is worth you have my condolences.
As far as I can tell, you're a government subsidized drug addict.
So says you. But prey tell how would you fund the not so pork barrel approach to building more efficeint cars and a decentralized population.
There was a study in New York that if there was an anthrax attack on the subway system it could be disabled for years.---jose2
Ok,that's why we have to be vigilant. But tell what if a major freeway was destroyed wouldn't that have a similar effect? Have you ever driven in LA or New York traffic? Did you see the effect that the collaspe of the Oakland/SF bay bridge caused in the Bay area. luckily they had built the BART system that helped to ease the strain. How would you decentralize the population without central planning? What about the increase energy consumption(something you touted as homeland security monitored our rail lines)of those traveling to work from their decentralized homes. How many hours would they travel to and from work/ How about the pollution this would cause? I don't think your ideas are well thought out.
Yes I've driven in LA and SF during rush hour. The probability of a major earthquake is even more reason not to build up centralized systems of any type.
The key to prosperity is going to involve decentralization. For this purpose the automobile is the best solution. Build up the road system and stop taking away taxes from gasoline and putting them into other projects such as public transportation.
Solid state hydrogen fuel I believe will be the solution to small vehicles after the government red tape is removed.
The country can barely afford Social Security.
It definitely cannot afford Medicare and Medicaid.
So if you have a better solution after cutting out Medicare and Medicaid I would like to hear it.
As far as I know, I am the only one who has proposed a solution to the aftermath of cutting those two programs.
1. End Prohibition (grow your own medicine)
2. Cut out the red tape and allow places like Walmart to host clinics.
3. Restore natural medicine.
World stocks hit by fears of debt crisis contagion
Meanwhile the progressives want to tax and spend our way to prosperity.
As a first order of business, let's put in a massive railway system so we can efficiently herd the faithful into death camps.
Trains worked very well for Hitler.
The problem with a decentralized population it is more difficult to conduct death camps." - jose
That is what you wrote. Are you no longer standing behind it? Now you are just arguing that railroads COULD be used to round people up for death camps if necessary? So, roads could NOY be?? What is the point of your premise then? Your brain COULD be used to satisfy a curiosity of knowledge rather than regurgitating spoonfed talking points from hate radio as well. That does not mean it ever will be. So, you now admit that your entire premise was nonsense. You are truly a waste of time.
There is no law that says the jobs of the future require commuting to centralized population centers.
Why should we fund a railway system that centralizes operations? A centralized system makes an easy target for terrorists.
I propose working for decentralizing the workforce, decentralizing the population and decentralizing transportation.
Get a place in the country with a well and a high speed internet connection.
If you love being a factory worker find a factory that recently opened up in the middle of nowhere. They do exist.
And what death camps? Do you got any proof for your NWO paranoia?
THIS PROVES THAT THE DEATH CAMPS ARE FOR REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or are you still obsessed with trying to excuse your vicious attacks on Kennedy the week he died. Is that why you cannot let a thread go without commenting on Ted Kennedy? Because you spent the week he died proclaiming that he was a murderer and supporting the idea that his family should have to look at pictures of Mary Jo Kopechne at his funeral. Is that why you can't let it go? Because somewhere deep in your conscience you know that was a sick thing to do and you are trying to excuse it by attacking Kennedy at every turn? Interesting...
And, of course, only rich libruls have beach front houses in Massachusets. If it were rich conservatives they would pay for the windmills out of their own pocket.
Also, this has nothing to do with the posting at hand.
I think you are referring to the high speed rail system.
In light of that we need to modify your rant.
As a first order of business, let's put in a high speed railway system so we can efficiently herd the faithful into death camps, as quickly as possible.
There, fixed it.
Oh I forgot, that should be "herd the faithful into FEMA death camps."
Sorry, I am so out of touch with those right wing, nut job, conspiracy theories.
Holy fudge, the wool has been pulled over our eyes! We've got to get over to all those European countries, Japan, China, etc. and do what we can to save them! They've had these things for decades, half their population must have been wiped out in the camps by now!!!
Most of the white commentators are weak defenders of Obama and his administration.
Why is that?
Are they afraid to stand up for right, justice or fairness when it comes to this black president or are they incapable of exposing hypocrisy and hate?
Either way they are lousy crusaders, in my humble opinion. In fact, I think they do a disservice to their profession. They allow to much misinformation and lies to go unchallenged by the Republican Party and the media in general. Hell, I can do better than most of these liberal pundits on TV with my limited knowledge on politics.
I can't see a REAL black man overlook or ignore an outright lie and not address it, especially when he has an obligation to set the record straight, unlike many of these white pundits. Most of them don't give a damn about their credibility or integrity, after all whose going to care about a black man? (This is their thinking)
There is absolutely nothing funny about the state of America and the un-necessary and ridiculous fight president Obama is undertaking from a Party who wants him to fail.
John Stewart should have been dead serious with Fox News and Bill O'Reilly; after all they see Stewart as a "ni#@er-loving" adversary, willing to stand against the lynching of a black man.
Due to John Stewart's weak criticsm of Fox News and poor performance and defense of this president, the media is now reporting that Bill O'Racist got the better of John Stewart on his show.
That would NOT happen with me. Bill would have to throw me off his show before I let him pretend he knows what he's talking about.
For Stewart, it is one big joke.
I say we need more diversity on these talk shows because white commentators are weak defenders of the president when they talk to other white commentators. That's a fact.
Please post your list of "qualified" black defenders so I'll know who to listen to.
If you think we don't know what is behind most, not all, but most of the attacks on this president, you are sadly mistaken. So stop trying too.
This post is for those who can understand and relate.
Just so you know I don't need to provide you a qualified black list (You wouldn't listen to them anyway) , when I am a prime example, whether you believe it or not.
Obviously you don't know a racist . . . but black people do . .
Let those who know racism when they see it speak.
If you think we don't know what is behind most
This post is for those who can understand and relate.
you a qualified black list . . when I am a prime example
Your generalizations are pretty striking. My initial post stands.
"Stand" in sharp contrast to common sense and reality. What makes you think our experience with racism need to meet YOUR definition? You think it is a figment of our imagination. It is useless to engage you in meaningful dialog, just like tea-baggers.
See how many thumbs up you get. I appreciate you highlighting my words, they are prophetic.
Affirmative action? Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Affirmative action is racist against white people. You don't hear us whining about it every five seconds. BET is supposed to be an acceptable network. If white people had a White Entertainment Network, we'd be racist.
There are hundreds of examples I could cite. You really need to slow down and look at what you're saying. What you're saying on this thread is just as racist as anything Bill-O has ever said.
Everyone "may" have seen, or experienced, some form of racism but; unless you have lived it EVERY day, you don't have a clue.
Black people do not control the system or have power to be racist against white people, although they can dislike them.
So what if they dislike white people, they are unable to use the system, run by white people, to their advantage. I'm sure all of this is lost on you, being that you want to defend stupidity and hate.
I do not hate someone for something THEY can't control. In other words, it is silly to hate a man because he is white, just like it is stupid to have a black man because he is black. Why? Because he can't control that. But I dislike a white person who is out to do me harm based on my skin color. That is justifiable.
Your argument suggests to me that you are mentally challenged and racist and you are proud of it.
Reserve your comments to someone you can relate to, perhaps skinheads.
That is why he posts the (ahem) stuff he posts.
It makes him feel empowered when he can rant at people unseen about all the hurt he feels for being so down trodden.
I've always found the "affirmative action is racism against whites" kind of odd. In all the years, and different places, that I have worked I have yet to see affirmative action keep a white guy from getting a job.
I may have seen a lot of very qualified blacks not hired, for no real good reason but; I haven't seen it work the other way.
No it's not racist to criticize the president, but we have far too many racist people criticizing the president. Obviously you don't know a racist when you hear one speak because his words are not directed at you, but black people do thanks unfair treatment and history. If you have to ask a stupid question, you are not ready or qualified to speak on the subject. Let those who know racism when they see it speak.
If you think we don't know what is behind most, not all, but most of the attacks on this president, you are sadly mistaken. So stop trying too.
This post is for those who can understand and relate.
Just so you know I don't need to provide you a qualified black list (You wouldn't listen to them anyway) , when I am a prime example, whether you believe it or not.
I'll bet you can't.
Most of the people you named ARE uncle-toms, how else can you explain their appearance on a station that regularly (and openly) disparage their race?
Fox News is proud to say they are in opposition to the president of the United States, why is that? Could it be because he's black? They give the answer to that question each and every day, by their coverage.
I don't expect YOU to give a true answer to that question, just like the uncle-toms who appear on hate television (Fox News). These people you named want to be accepted by white people and because of that they sit down with the devil and join in his propaganda and lies. A Real back man knows a racist and the motive behind his actions, but most of these fools are happy to let these bastards insult them and their people to their face. That's the difference between a real black man and a uncle-toms. A real black man will not sit back and let white people lie on his brother, knowing they would lie on him too.
I refuse to provide you a list, because I am wise enough to know you won't accept it no matter who's on it.
I label a fool an uncle-tom because he acts the part. They know these white commentators are liars, yet they allow them to get away with it. Don't call me a damn Liberal, because I know the difference between right and wrong and I don't need a label to make an educated dicision, unlike conservatives and Liberal. These two groups can't come together for the greater good because of some stupid ideology.
The white people who voted for Obama accepted HIM you bonehead and now he is trying to do a job. Obama, unlike most president, is a man for ALL the people.
Why in the hell are you here and why do you call yourself a "Liberal?
You should be on the site that caters to stupidity. May I suggest Republican.org?
By the way you will never get as many thumbs up as me, because you are not smart enough.
Take note and look around the site.
Just asking.
Beck is not the "every man" when he makes about 30 million dollars.
In fact, I just saw EveryMan walking aimlessly on a deserted street, mumbling about "the helicoptors" and chugging down a bottle of Everclear. EveryMan didn't look like he's having a very good day.
In other words, he'll be the next Big Bumbling Idiot On Fox. And make millions. Ah, America, what a country!
He appears to be a libertarian of the anarcho-capitalist flavor, with the absurd notion that the founding fathers came together to create a government which was not a government.
Somebody please give that man some thorazine before he hurts someone or himself.
The Daily Show is on a small basic cable channel with no political agenda. His show is 30 minutes, 4 times per week. There is no pressure either from network execs or politically motivated advertisers (looking at you Gold Line) to alter or shape his message in any way. I doubt his salary even approaches those of cable news personalities. And finally, Stewart is unafraid to ask really cutting questions.
I still remember his appearance on Crossfire, where he called out the show's format for reducing political discourse down to screaming partisan talking points.