You are trying to respond to a complete moron that only knows one song and is incapable of thought. He has no way to actualize information, he is only capable of blaming fox news and george bush for every problem he's ever had. Which is exactly what they need. Bands of zombies on each side bickering with each other while they rob what's left over.

Funny how ignorant gossip like this gets front page billing, and not a word discussed about how the world markets will react as the congress and the president continue to play politics like it's a game rather than get a deal done. All part of the plan.

but this....this can't be correct. fox news would never, ever report something as fact that didn't happen.



:D

Fox News Exec calls Ricks out - Surprised by his "Utter Dishonesty"

>>>Fox News Channel executive vice president Michael Clemente on Tuesday stood by his claim that author Tom Ricks offered a private apology following his appearance on the network, during which the Pulitzer Prize winner sharply criticized Fox's coverage of the September attack in Benghazi. Ricks denied that he ever expressed contrition, which Clemente countered in an interview with TVNewser.

“I’m surprised by the General’s utter dishonesty,” Clemente said. “I’ll refresh his memory – what he said following the segment was, ‘Sorry… I’m tired from a non-stop book tour.’ Perhaps now he can finally get some rest.”

Ricks is not a military general, although Clemente may have been making a reference to the title of the author's latest book, The Generals: American Military Command from World War III to Today.<<<

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...cks-dishonesty

so....he can remember that the guy said 'sorry' but can't remember that he's an author, not a general? maybe a for real general was talking to him, and he got the two confused!

when was ww 3?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-b...b_2198149.html

Back in 2009 when the White House pushed back against Fox News and correctly suggested it's not a "legitimate" news organization, but was instead acting as an "arm of the Republican Party," the channel was vigorously defended by journalists who scolded the administration for daring to critique Fox News and its openly partisan operation:

* Obama's Dumb War With Fox News

* First They Came For Fox. Journalists Should Defend Cable Network Against White House

* In Defense of Fox News

Today, that defense has mostly melted away. In the wake of Fox's unvarnished Mitt Romney cheerleading and its mindless attacks on the president during the campaign, it is no longer controversial for journalists to state publicly that Fox News isn't an independent or serious news organization.

In fact, more journalists are making the clear connection between Fox and its obvious attempts to boost the GOP. (As well as noting its complete failure to actually help the party in 2012.)

What Ricks said on television Monday likely reflects what lots of journalists now concede to be the truth. Ricks just had the guts to say it on Fox News.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f58f_blog.html


i didn't realize fox paid some contributors to come on.

I could not agree more. It is all based on money, and Fox News caters to an affluent audience and blows away all the other news channels in terms of viewership. It translates into millions in advertising and they have no reason to change. MSNBC tries to counter, but it is laughable.

You will be told only what the corporations that own these channels want you to hear.

Case in point - Amber Lyons, a journalist for CNN at the time, was covering the atrocities in Bahrain during the Arab Spring. They were killing not only the protesters, but the doctors and EMT's that were treating anyone involved with the protest.

Did the world hear any of this? Nope. Why? Bahrain pays the parent corporation of CNN to keep this out of the world view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBWLSNDFN0


Anyone who actually watches any of these "news" channels for actual unslanted, unbiased journalism is one brick short of a load.


So when someone with a chip on their shoulders gets muzzled, it really should be no surprise.

Too bad for them they couldn't do the same to Karl Rove on election night. ;)

yep, the press just isn't what it once was. fox is guilty of extreme bias, and very selective reporting. but i think the others are as well, because someone controls the purse strings. of course, it has been that way for some time. hell, each party 'back in the day' had it's own newspaper (andy jackson tangled with his party paper and the editor). then there was jefferson hiring a guy to write negative stories about alexander hamilton...but i digress.

some fox fans tout them as having so much more viewership. well, yeah. it's a matter of mathematics. the moderate to liberals have a wider selection of channels to choose from. the right-wingers all go to fox, because that's the only game in town for that point of view.

saw my parents at thanksgiving. my dad mentioned something he heard on rush. ugh. i don't know how anyone can listen to him.

I'd be guessing that's a typo on the part of whoever put up the post. Here's a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Generals-A.../dp/1594204047

i figured it to be a typo...was hoping it was!

i have a book at home on patton, will probably start it after i finish this new one i just got on Grant.

Which bio of Grant? Is it a new one?

Definitely looked like an abrupt ending, but the clip shows an interview already underway. Do we have a clip that goes from introduction to ending?

yep.
h w brands. love his stuff.

'the man who saved the union' is the title.