Manufacturing racist charges to cover up racism

[Skeptic Ginger]

They offer the liberal POV as well. If you actually watched FOX News, this would be painfully obvious. Check out these FOX News libs.

Geraldo
Dr.Marc Lamont Hill,
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,
Jane Fleming,
Mora Liasson,
Jane Hall,
Geraldo,
Kirsten Powers,
Ellis Henican,
Marvin Kalb,
Al Sharpton,
Lanny Davis,
Amy Stoddard,
Flavia Colvin,
Mort Kondracke,
Juan Williams,
Rachel Sklar,
Geraldine Ferraro
Susan Estrich


I know. You didn't read the list.

Are you seriously trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge here? Really? You are claiming Fox actually is fair and balanced? Seriously?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

An incredibly biased timeline showing that Fox News first AIRED the story after Sherrod resigned. I call it biased as it leaves out Glenn Beck's (sorta) defense of Sherrod. The next morning, CNN and MSNBC were talking about the story (but not that Sherrod was innocent).

The fact that FoxNews.com published the story not long after Breitbart did is where the real story is. Them two are just a bit too close.

I take it you've given up trying to show the White House directed Sherrod's firing?

OK, moving on...

I don't get the point you are making here: "The fact that FoxNews.com published the story not long after Breitbart did is where the real story is. Them two are just a bit too close."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

About this if I can go off topic for a second. I'll pretty much expound on what Skeptic Ginger said. I don't think "racism" is human nature. Mind you I define racism as "having a deep seated and irrational hatred for another racial group or groups". But I do believe xenophobia and prejudice is human nature (we're tribal and territorial by nature) and I do believe racism is an expression of the xenophobia and prejudice innate in all of us.

Racism seems to be tribalism in it's purest and most primitive form. But no doubt those who you percieve to be part of your "tribe" can be broad and include members of different races.

I like how you've made this point.

 

[Cicero]

The fact that FoxNews.com published the story not long after Breitbart did is where the real story is. Them two are just a bit too close.

Hey, MSNBC's K.O. has a dog and pony show with David Brock, Media Matters President.

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

 

[Newtons Bit]

I take it you've given up trying to show the White House directed Sherrod's firing?

OK, moving on...

I don't get the point you are making here: "The fact that FoxNews.com published the story not long after Breitbart did is where the real story is. Them two are just a bit too close."

It's already been pointed out to you that Vilsack is part of the Obama Administration. If Obama's cabinet is not part of the Obama Administration, could you please clarify who believe is?

Oh, and heres an article showing Obama blaming Vilsack for the dismissal.

Would you like to move some more goalposts now?

 

[dudalb]

The Partisan Blinders I am seeing BOTH sides displaying in this thread are just incredible.
Let's see, someone is trying to deny that the Obama Adminsitration (please note, Administration, not Obama personally) fired Sharrod, and then I see people on the other side trying to deny that Fox's right wing slant has not badly damaged it's creditbility.
Just astounding.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hey, MSNBC's K.O. has a dog and pony show with David Brock, Media Matters President.

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

It's still wrong. I get a large amount of my news from FoxNews.com and CNN.com. I don't want half of my (internet) news having the great qualifier of "hey, it's not worse than Keith Olbermann!@!!@!"

 

[Cicero]

Are you seriously trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge here? Really? You are claiming Fox actually is fair and balanced? Seriously?

Since you do not watch FOX News, you do not appreciate the face time libs get on FOX News. Is that your idea of "fair and balanced?" Of course not. But the fact remains that liberal FOX News contributors are on FOX News every day.

 

[Cicero]

It's still wrong. I get a large amount of my news from FoxNews.com and CNN.com. I don't want half of my (internet) news having the great qualifier of "hey, it's not worse than Keith Olbermann!@!!@!"

Well, until we see Breitbart having a love fest with a FOX News host the way Brock has with K.O., you can save your concern for the other half of your internet news.

 

[Cicero]

The Partisan Blinders I am seeing BOTH sides displaying in this thread are just incredible.
Let's see, someone is trying to deny that the Obama Adminsitration (please note, Administration, not Obama personally) fired Sharrod, and then I see people on the other side trying to deny that Fox's right wing slant has not badly damaged it's creditbility.
Just astounding.

More pontification from Mt. dudalb. What do you use to treat your hemorrhoids from all your fence straddling?

 

[A'isha]

Since you do not watch FOX News, you do not appreciate the face time libs get on FOX News. Is that your idea of "fair and balanced?" Of course not. But the fact remains that liberal FOX News contributors are on FOX News every day.

I suppose you actually think "Hannity and Colmes" was an even-handed, unbiased show, because Alan Colmes was liberal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's already been pointed out to you that Vilsack is part of the Obama Administration. If Obama's cabinet is not part of the Obama Administration, could you please clarify who believe is?

Your moved goalpost duly noted. I've said Vilsack made the decision, not Obama, and Obama was informed of the decision in this thread. So now if you are claiming all this time you meant Vilsack was who you meant by "the Obama Administration", and not Obama directly, then you have not been following the thread.

OK, moving on...

I still don't get the point you are making here: "The fact that FoxNews.com published the story not long after Breitbart did is where the real story is. Them two are just a bit too close."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Partisan Blinders I am seeing BOTH sides displaying in this thread are just incredible.
Let's see, someone is trying to deny that the Obama Adminsitration (please note, Administration, not Obama personally) fired Sharrod, ....

No, that is not the case.

SG post #29

In this case, I doubt Obama was involved in the decision to fire Sherrod given the rapidness of the firing.
Gibb's news conference just ended and he said Obama was informed but not consulted. So Obama could have said, wait a minute, and he didn't. OTOH, Obama would have been trusting Vilsack, not the Fox News story.

In post #45 the discussion began suggesting Obama himself made the decision to fire Sherrod:

You don't think Obama was complicit in her dismissal?
This is part of a pattern with this White House.

SG, post #58:

I don't think a President can or should be directly involved in personnel decisions like hiring and firing the people in a department. That's what Vilsack's job is. Can you imagine how many people we'd be talking about Obama getting involved in the employment decisions of?

Cicero post #118:

Hey quiz kid, Vilsack, at the behest of the Obama Administration, fired Shirley before FOX News even aired the video.

When, Newton's Bits in post #138 then said the "White House" that was consistent with claiming Obama specifically directed the firing.

Oddly enough, the White House insisted that she be fired before Glenn Beck aired the story on his show. He was the first person on Fox to air it. And even then, Glenn Beck defending her.

I'll take Newton's word for it he meant Vilsack all along when Newton referred to the "White House". But you are falsely claiming here that it's being denied Vilsack directed the firing of Sherrod. I interpreted Newton to mean Obama personally by his wording, "the White House". But clearly I discussed Vilsack's role from as early as post #29.

What you see as balanced partisan blinders is not what is actually in the thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since you do not watch FOX News, you do not appreciate the face time libs get on FOX News. Is that your idea of "fair and balanced?" Of course not. But the fact remains that liberal FOX News contributors are on FOX News every day.

I watch Fox news all the time. What makes you think I don't watch it? I can't stomach it for very long stretches at a time, but I still watch it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your moved goalpost duly noted. I've said Vilsack made the decision, not Obama, and Obama was informed of the decision in this thread. So now if you are claiming all this time you meant Vilsack was who you meant by "the Obama Administration", and not Obama directly, then you have not been following the thread.

Obama is the head of his administration. The administration is not just Obama. How dense can you be? Is this the No True Scotsman fallacy?

 

[DavidJames]

Obama is the head of his administration. The administration is not just Obama. How dense can you be? Is this the No True Scotsman fallacy?

I don't know about that but Obama Derangement Syndrome seems to becoming contagious.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Your moved goalpost duly noted.[/i]

I guess it takes an expert to notice that kind of thing.



(The humiliation continues.....)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obama is the head of his administration. The administration is not just Obama. How dense can you be? Is this the No True Scotsman fallacy?

I could just as easily say, how dense were you not to see I'd said Vilsack fired Sherrod from the first page of the thread? If you were paying attention, you'd have noted I agreed with you earlier in the thread and clarified the misunderstanding.

But since you didn't clarify the misunderstanding I could also say that suggests you are a liar and you shifted your position from claiming Obama personally fired Sherrod which was unsupportable, to later saying you really meant Vilsack when you said "the White House".

Or, I could say that when people refer to "the White House" they are not referring to all the people in the President's administration and even saying White House to mean the cabinet is not very precise communication.

But those lines of discussion are not productive and just serve to waste more time.

 

[Lurker]

Megyn hosts "America Live." Shepherd Smith is the FOX News anchor of "The Fox report." But where is Hume reporting "opinion masquerading as news?

Hume used to be the anchor of FoxNews.

Did you object to Cronkite's personal bias when he ended the newscast with opinion or commentary? But where is he reporting opinion masquerading as news?

You asked for examples and now you are trying to deflect.

If Kagan were not in fact a liberal, you might be on to something.

You asked for examples and now you are trying to deflect. You didn't ask for examples of where FoxNews was wrong, you asked for examples of where they injected their bias. This was an example.

 

[leftysergeant]

I suppose you actually think "Hannity and Colmes" was an even-handed, unbiased show, because Alan Colmes was liberal.

Hannity just used Colmes as a stage prop to beat up on. I tried, briefly, to watch them, but got too disgusted with the way Colmes folded under the slant-headed moron's barrage of inanities.

About the only person with any sense who gets a serious role to play on Faux News these days is Shep Smith. I don't often agree with his positions, but, in not covering the Breitbart barf, he did show some integrity as a journalist.