goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 10:23:00 PM

Title: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 10:23:00 PM
People that watch this channel are awfully critical of FoxNews, I mean like they spend their entire day bitching about Fox and any time someone disagrees with them or points out where they're wrong they automatically blame Fox.

Are these people just stupid, or do the really not understand that msnbc is like FoxNews' burnt out, never finished college, pissed off, hasn't found a job he "loves," selfish little transgender sibling?

Title: Re: Re: msnbc
Post by: michigancat on January 15, 2013, 10:27:46 PM
People that watch this channel are awfully critical of FoxNews, I mean like they spend their entire day bitching about Fox and any time someone disagrees with them or points out where they're wrong they automatically blame Fox.

Are these people just stupid, or do the really not understand that msnbc is like FoxNews' burnt out, never finished college, pissed off, hasn't found a job he "loves," selfish little transgender sibling?

Totally. Nail on the head. *clapping.gif*
Title: msnbc
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 10:34:15 PM
People that watch this channel are awfully critical of FoxNews, I mean like they spend their entire day bitching about Fox and any time someone disagrees with them or points out where they're wrong they automatically blame Fox.

Are these people just stupid, or do the really not understand that msnbc is like FoxNews' burnt out, never finished college, pissed off, hasn't found a job he "loves," selfish little transgender sibling?


Hahaha...

You mad, bro?

Sounds like msnbc has you a little butt hurt.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: SdK on January 15, 2013, 10:35:48 PM
I just love Jon Stewart. :D
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 10:40:29 PM
Ironically and Demonstratively, I saw two different polls that found those who watch msnbc to be the least informed of those who represented they get their news primarily from tv sources.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 15, 2013, 10:45:02 PM
One of those guys has a ticker that constantly runs during his show with poll results. They are almost always about 90% or more in favor of the liberal stance. :lol:
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Shacks on January 15, 2013, 10:48:39 PM
Dislike both, but I dislike MSNBC less due to Lockup and To Catch A Predator
Title: msnbc
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 10:49:39 PM
Ironically and Demonstratively, I saw two different polls that found those who watch msnbc to be the least informed of those who represented they get their news primarily from tv sources.


Where'd you see that? Fox?
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 10:50:04 PM
One of those guys has a ticker that constantly runs during his show with poll results. They are almost always about 90% or more in favor of the liberal stance. :lol:

There's a 100% chance one or more of the pit posters will cite one of these polls in support of their idiocy in a thread.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 10:50:51 PM
Ironically and Demonstratively, I saw two different polls that found those who watch msnbc to be the least informed of those who represented they get their news primarily from tv sources.


Where'd you see that? Fox?

Ha.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 15, 2013, 10:53:24 PM
Dislike both, but I dislike MSNBC less due to Lockup and To Catch A Predator

Yes, and I think MSNBC is somewhat more honest about being a blatant propaganda machine than Fox is. Plus, they show some olympic sports when those are going on.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: ben ji on January 15, 2013, 10:57:44 PM
Dislike both, but I dislike MSNBC less due to Lockup and To Catch A Predator

Yes, and I think MSNBC is somewhat more honest about being a blatant propaganda machine than Fox is. Plus, they show some olympic sports when those are going on.

Hmm, Lockup and American greed marathon? Yes please
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 15, 2013, 11:15:32 PM
Dislike both, but I dislike MSNBC less due to Lockup and To Catch A Predator

Yes, and I think MSNBC is somewhat more honest about being a blatant propaganda machine than Fox is. Plus, they show some olympic sports when those are going on.

Only after olbermann got busted. They went down fighting calling themselves journalists until everyone disagreed. I think they found that their few moronic viewers didn't care to hear opposing views, so they embraced it.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: bones129 on January 15, 2013, 11:56:37 PM
Dislike both, but I dislike MSNBC less due to Lockup and To Catch A Predator

Lockup and TCAP are great shows. Both could ultimately go into syndication and live long lives.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2013, 11:59:16 PM
can't sleep on sunday night?  that's ok, lockup is on.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: bones129 on January 16, 2013, 12:21:32 AM
can't sleep on sunday night?  that's ok, lockup is on.

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 16, 2013, 12:03:07 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it??? 
Title: msnbc
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 16, 2013, 12:09:31 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

It brought Glen Beck to the world. How do you not hate it?
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 12:14:46 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

It brought Glen Beck to the world. How do you not hate it?

I hate ESPN for giving us Olbermann.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on January 16, 2013, 12:15:28 PM
Love me some Rachel Maddow!!
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 16, 2013, 12:20:57 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

It brought Glen Beck to the world. How do you not hate it?

I don't really watch it much.  We have guy in our office that screams at the tv when someone turns it on.  It is bizarre. 
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: OK_Cat on January 16, 2013, 12:26:40 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

your guy started this thread about msnbc

point me to the fox news thread
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 16, 2013, 12:34:09 PM
not really the point I was making, but just for giggles I typed in Fox in the search and there are at least 37 threads that popped up.   :cheers:
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: OK_Cat on January 16, 2013, 12:35:27 PM
let's combine all of them with this one to make one huge butthurt thread

except for the one where the guy killed himself live on fox news, that deserves it's own thread.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: TheHamburglar on January 16, 2013, 12:38:26 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

It brought Glen Beck to the world. How do you not hate it?

CNN brought Glenn Beck into the world.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: TheHamburglar on January 16, 2013, 12:54:22 PM
Love me some Rachel Maddow!!

How anyone can listen to Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity for more than 5 minutes without shoving a pencil in their ears, I have no idea. 
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 16, 2013, 01:04:44 PM
not really the point I was making, but just for giggles I typed in Fox in the search and there are at least 37 threads that popped up.   :cheers:

68 v. 66 would be the count
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Institutional Control on January 16, 2013, 01:06:10 PM
I get all my news from Atlantis Cable News.
Title: msnbc
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 16, 2013, 01:10:47 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

It brought Glen Beck to the world. How do you not hate it?

CNN brought Glenn Beck into the world.

Does CNN own Headline News because that's where I saw him first. I was lying(typical lib) when I said Fox brought him to the world. Fox is where he got super big and stuff.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: camKSU on January 16, 2013, 01:18:52 PM
On election night I decided to watch fox for the spectacle... the meltdowns, the grasping at straws, the wild goose chases... all of it - epic. It was very much like watching ku in the tourny when the refs aren't on their knees for them and they just can't believe what's happening.


Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on January 16, 2013, 01:26:26 PM
On election night I decided to watch fox for the spectacle... the meltdowns, the grasping at straws, the wild goose chases... all of it - epic. It was very much like watching ku in the tourny when the refs aren't on their knees for them and they just can't believe what's happening.

The Karl Rove meltdown was incredible
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: camKSU on January 16, 2013, 01:35:33 PM
On election night I decided to watch fox for the spectacle... the meltdowns, the grasping at straws, the wild goose chases... all of it - epic. It was very much like watching ku in the tourny when the refs aren't on their knees for them and they just can't believe what's happening.

The Karl Rove meltdown was incredible

Having to watch them send down the attractive blond down back stage through the building to the bean counters in their cubicles was painful but amazing at the same time.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: 8manpick on January 16, 2013, 02:22:21 PM
So at this point, doesn't everyone who is pretty smart (i.e: most people here) realize that FOX News and MSNBC are both pretty much garbage for anything resembling objective news reporting but really high entertainment value?  I mean, I hate the huge numbers of people influenced by both (way more on FOX, because they are better at it), but it sure can be fun to watch either.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 16, 2013, 02:25:51 PM
So at this point, doesn't everyone who is pretty smart (i.e: most people here) realize that FOX News and MSNBC are both pretty much garbage for anything resembling objective news reporting but really high entertainment value?  I mean, I hate the huge numbers of people influenced by both (way more on FOX, because they are better at it), but it sure can be fun to watch either.

I think my only problem with either is their influence over dumbfucks. I mean, a large portion of our population feels they are getting their legitimate news from both.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on January 16, 2013, 02:31:00 PM
Most, if not all of the main stream media is mumped, no??? If you don't watch MSNBC or Fox, where do you get your news? NBC, ABC, CBS nightly, all just as mumped

Real Time w/ Bill Maher might be the best news/talk show on TV
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 16, 2013, 02:37:43 PM
News on TV is a joke, no matter the source. 
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: TheHamburglar on January 16, 2013, 02:45:16 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

It brought Glen Beck to the world. How do you not hate it?

CNN brought Glenn Beck into the world.

Does CNN own Headline News because that's where I saw him first. I was lying(typical lib) when I said Fox brought him to the world. Fox is where he got super big and stuff.

CNN became Headline News.  I thought he was on it before they rebranded to HLN. 
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: 8manpick on January 16, 2013, 02:46:48 PM
News on TV is a joke, no matter the source.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on January 16, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
News on TV is a joke, no matter the source.

Well yea, but the majority of people dont understand this. I told my parents to watch  MSNBC before the election because it's the least shitty imo. They push their agenda like everyone else but seem to use facts to back it up unlike Fox.

Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Institutional Control on January 16, 2013, 02:51:34 PM
I get all the news and politics information I need from steve dave. The most moderate person I know.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 02:54:39 PM
News on TV is a joke, no matter the source.

Well yea, but the majority of people dont understand this. I told my parents to watch  MSNBC before the election because it's the least shitty imo. They push their agenda like everyone else but seem to use facts to back it up unlike Fox.

 :D
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 16, 2013, 02:56:08 PM
News on TV is a joke, no matter the source.

Well yea, but the majority of people dont understand this. I told my parents to watch  MSNBC before the election because it's the least shitty imo. They push their agenda like everyone else but seem to use facts to back it up unlike Fox.

Fox (TV) is more of an editorial to me.  The website does have some editorialized stuff but generally okay.  IMO the non-editorialized Fox stuff is less biased than most stuff you'll read on MSNBC.  The least biased major news source I've found is the BBC but they get some crap wrong too.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: 8manpick on January 16, 2013, 02:58:44 PM
News on TV is a joke, no matter the source.

Well yea, but the majority of people dont understand this. I told my parents to watch  MSNBC before the election because it's the least shitty imo. They push their agenda like everyone else but seem to use facts to back it up unlike Fox.

Fox (TV) is more of an editorial to me.  The website does have some editorialized stuff but generally okay.  IMO the non-editorialized Fox stuff is less biased than most stuff you'll read on MSNBC.  The least biased major news source I've found is the BBC but they get some crap wrong too.

I like BBC and Al-Jazeera English, but you get shorted on domestic news.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 16, 2013, 03:01:00 PM
I get all the news and politics information I need from steve dave. The most moderate person I know.

AS SHOULD YOU ALL!
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: camKSU on January 16, 2013, 03:01:25 PM
When choosing to watch the news, I watch CNN... It is the most unbiased IMO. Rarely, if ever, watch MSNBC, probably even less than Fox. (despite the opinion of FSD)

Love Bill Maher and Jon Stewart in terms of commentary concerning the current events.

Get my news and information from NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Salon, The Atlantic, Slate, etc...
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 16, 2013, 03:08:19 PM
CNN became Headline News.  I thought he was on it before they rebranded to HLN.
I have no clue.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 16, 2013, 03:14:42 PM
I like to watch Jon Stossell sometimes on Fox Business.  But then again I AM a neo-con. 
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 03:20:42 PM
I like to watch Jon Stossell sometimes on Fox Business.  But then again I AM a neo-con.

Stossell is good. Common sense just confuses the libs.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 16, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
I like to watch Jon Stossell sometimes on Fox Business.  But then again I AM a neo-con.

Stossell is good. Common sense just confuses the libs.

All business-focused news leans to the right. Even the CNBC hosts will tell you that Obama is a rough ridin' moron, but that isn't to say it's right or "common sense." The Economist takes a macro view on most issues and typically comes down just left of center. If you are up to the challenge, The Economist is an excellent way to increase understanding beyond "god-damned taxes are too high."
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 16, 2013, 03:31:58 PM
Stossell is on the business channel, but its not a business or economics show.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 16, 2013, 03:35:37 PM
Stossell is on the business channel, but its not a business or economics show.

Whatever, neo-con. I don't give a damn about Stossell, I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that I read a fancy magazine.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 16, 2013, 03:40:58 PM
Stossell is on the business channel, but its not a business or economics show.

Whatever, neo-con. I don't give a damn about Stossell, I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that I read a fancy magazine.

Magazines......  pffffftttttttt.  Hey Bubbles why don't you get your typewriter out and send me a telegraph on the pony express. 
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 16, 2013, 07:39:38 PM
I have always found it interesting how much libs hate Fox.  I mean, I get that they don't like it, but they freaking hate it and bring it up in every argument.  "You must be watching too much Faux News maaaaaaaaaaaaan". 

Why don't they just not watch it???

I honestly love both MSNBC and Fox, but I love internet trolls like Kim Carnes, too.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 16, 2013, 11:37:54 PM
i used to love watching fox/listening to rush, etc because it's hilarious how much spin they put on things. hannity and combs was one of my favorite shows when i was in high school (old balls, clinton was in office and it was VERY heated). since obama got elected though, it's just too much for me to handle.  the racism from rush is pretty unbearable.

msnbc is boring because they agree with me, although i think maddow is the best commentator on the network and i love that little paper folding sound they do between clips.

i turn to fox during "breaking" news stories because they are the most talented and entertaining, but that doesn't mean as an organization they aren't generally the propaganda wing of the republican party, something that neo-cons won't even admit.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 11:43:02 PM
i used to love watching fox/listening to rush, etc because it's hilarious how much spin they put on things. hannity and combs was one of my favorite shows when i was in high school (old balls, clinton was in office and it was VERY heated). since obama got elected though, it's just too much for me to handle.  the racism from rush is pretty unbearable.

msnbc is boring because they agree with me, although i think maddow is the best commentator on the network and i love that little paper folding sound they do between clips.

i turn to fox during "breaking" news stories because they are the most talented and entertaining, but that doesn't mean as an organization they aren't generally the propaganda wing of the republican party, something that neo-cons won't even admit.

Of course they do.  Republicans have fox, and the libs have every other media outlet.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: sys on January 17, 2013, 01:39:23 AM
i like morning joe, at least when there is something happening in pop culture that can retain my interest for five minutes (or more).
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: ednksu on January 17, 2013, 01:56:49 AM
i used to love watching fox/listening to rush, etc because it's hilarious how much spin they put on things. hannity and combs was one of my favorite shows when i was in high school (old balls, clinton was in office and it was VERY heated). since obama got elected though, it's just too much for me to handle.  the racism from rush is pretty unbearable.

msnbc is boring because they agree with me, although i think maddow is the best commentator on the network and i love that little paper folding sound they do between clips.

i turn to fox during "breaking" news stories because they are the most talented and entertaining, but that doesn't mean as an organization they aren't generally the propaganda wing of the republican party, something that neo-cons won't even admit.

Of course they do.  Republicans have fox, and the libs have every other media outlet.
Here is what you can't understand.  I'll try to make this very basic for you.  MSNBC might have liberals who talk about liberally things in liberally ways.  Foxnews flatout spews direct Republican party talking points and analysis.  It isn't a conservative slant, its a Republican vision. 
Title: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 17, 2013, 06:07:50 AM
BBC World Business Report at 6:30AM ERR'DAY!
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Cire on January 17, 2013, 06:17:59 AM
Msnbc is excruciating.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: TheHamburglar on January 17, 2013, 09:17:46 AM
i used to love watching fox/listening to rush, etc because it's hilarious how much spin they put on things. hannity and combs was one of my favorite shows when i was in high school (old balls, clinton was in office and it was VERY heated). since obama got elected though, it's just too much for me to handle.  the racism from rush is pretty unbearable.

msnbc is boring because they agree with me, although i think maddow is the best commentator on the network and i love that little paper folding sound they do between clips.

i turn to fox during "breaking" news stories because they are the most talented and entertaining, but that doesn't mean as an organization they aren't generally the propaganda wing of the republican party, something that neo-cons won't even admit.

Of course they do.  Republicans have fox, and the libs have every other media outlet.
Here is what you can't understand.  I'll try to make this very basic for you.  MSNBC might have liberals who talk about liberally things in liberally ways.  Foxnews flatout spews direct Republican party talking points and analysis.  It isn't a conservative slant, its a Republican vision.

So you are saying MSNBC is a terrible news source, but since FoxNews is a slightly more terrible news source that makes MSNBC OK?

Both are terrible sources for news because unless it's something that happened 8 seconds ago, they are editorializing the story.  The only difference is do you get it with the view point you agree with with Hannity's smugness or Maddow's smugness.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Institutional Control on January 17, 2013, 10:37:57 AM
I don't watch any of the news networks for news. Unless it's breaking news or election results. Even then, I switch around to whoever is the most entertaining at the moment.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Panjandrum on January 17, 2013, 12:26:45 PM
I enjoy the 6-8 PM Erin Burnett/Anderson Cooper combo on CNN.  I'll then occupy my time until Stewart/Colbert come on.

Occasionally, I'll watch Rachel Maddow because I find her to be entertaining.  The rest of the dudes on msnbc are pretty awful except for Morning Joe.

Lawrence O'Donnell is insufferable, and I always feel like Ed Schultz is like some drunk guy at a Milwaukee bar telling me why the rich guy done screwed me good.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: michigancat on January 17, 2013, 12:30:11 PM
I love the crap out of the PBS News Hour.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 17, 2013, 01:42:48 PM
i used to love watching fox/listening to rush, etc because it's hilarious how much spin they put on things. hannity and combs was one of my favorite shows when i was in high school (old balls, clinton was in office and it was VERY heated). since obama got elected though, it's just too much for me to handle.  the racism from rush is pretty unbearable.

msnbc is boring because they agree with me, although i think maddow is the best commentator on the network and i love that little paper folding sound they do between clips.

i turn to fox during "breaking" news stories because they are the most talented and entertaining, but that doesn't mean as an organization they aren't generally the propaganda wing of the republican party, something that neo-cons won't even admit.

Of course they do.  Republicans have fox, and the libs have every other media outlet.
Here is what you can't understand.  I'll try to make this very basic for you.  MSNBC might have liberals who talk about liberally things in liberally ways.  Foxnews flatout spews direct Republican party talking points and analysis.  It isn't a conservative slant, its a Republican vision.

If you want to know what is going to be the top story on any national TV news outlet other than Fox, all you need to do is go to Media Matters, which has direct access to the White House. There is no integrity left in the media.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 17, 2013, 01:44:41 PM
I enjoy the 6-8 PM Erin Burnett/Anderson Cooper combo on CNN.  I'll then occupy my time until Stewart/Colbert come on.

Occasionally, I'll watch Rachel Maddow because I find her to be entertaining.  The rest of the dudes on msnbc are pretty awful except for Morning Joe.

Lawrence O'Donnell is insufferable, and I always feel like Ed Schultz is like some drunk guy at a Milwaukee bar telling me why the rich guy done screwed me good.

I'm an Erin Burnett fan. She's about the only one besides Jake Tapper willing to ask a tough question of a democrat.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2013, 06:51:42 PM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.

Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 17, 2013, 07:11:56 PM
FSD strikes me more as a infowars.com kind of guy.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 17, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.

Energy independence might be the biggest scam in Washington. Every side uses it to try to sell their point, whether it's green energy or increased exploration, but the reality is that if we used nothing but US energy, our gas prices would be much higher than they are now. Sure, it makes sense to have the ability to use alternate oil supplies in case we ever get cut off, but the idea that importing oil from the Middle East is bad is just ludicrous.
Title: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 17, 2013, 07:28:24 PM
Watching all of you dumbasses debate this makes an elite moderate like me feel so far above you. omg the air up here is fresh!
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 17, 2013, 10:17:37 PM
Watching all of you dumbasses debate this makes an elite moderate like me feel so far above you. omg the air up here is fresh!

Which do you like more, though? For me, it goes

1. O'Reilly. Papa bear really bullies people around and then gives them the last word, only to get his last word in after the interview. He's great entertainment.

2. Maddow. She is probably the smartest out of the biased news media hosts, but she doesn't get the quality of guests than O'Reilly pulls in.

3. Hannity. He was much better when Allan Colmes co-hosted his show. Now he's just an bad person that parrots the republican party line and bullies guests. He can be entertaining, but he's usually not.

The rest of the shows (other than Lockup and To Catch a Predator of course) on those channels are awful.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Institutional Control on January 18, 2013, 08:28:19 AM
I enjoy laughing at Chris Matthews and the dumb crap he says from time to time. I don't like Ed Schultz. He's too over the top and seems to be trying too hard. Like a Rush Limbaugh but with a lot less people who listen to him.

It seems almost most of the liberal friends I have seldom watch/listen to political talk. While almost all of my conservative friends listen/watch political talk daily.  But I think it might have been reversed when Bush was president.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 18, 2013, 08:42:41 AM
schutlz is unwatchable.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: TheHamburglar on January 18, 2013, 09:12:57 AM
Allan Colmes

Pretty sure this guy is a conservative stooge.  No one is that dumb/bad at debating.  Hannity would just softball up contradictions for Colmes to swat out of the park and Colmes never jumped on the opportunity.  He always just stuck to whatever his original talking point was or serve up a bigger contradiction for Hannity to kill him on.  Pretty sure Colmes was told anytime Hannity says something stupid just ignore it or say something more stupid.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: ednksu on January 18, 2013, 08:50:30 PM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.
This is so not worth my time because your limited comprehension will prevent any meaningful dialogue.

MSNBC = liberal
Foxnews = Republican party talking points

There is no analysis other than what the Republican party specifically wants.  This doesn't mean conservative, it means they only spew corrosive Republican talking points.  Its okay to have your news source from a conservative or liberal point of view.  Its not okay to have a party run news corporation where users delude themselves into believing its fair and balanced.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 18, 2013, 10:50:47 PM
Allan Colmes

Pretty sure this guy is a conservative stooge.  No one is that dumb/bad at debating.  Hannity would just softball up contradictions for Colmes to swat out of the park and Colmes never jumped on the opportunity.  He always just stuck to whatever his original talking point was or serve up a bigger contradiction for Hannity to kill him on.  Pretty sure Colmes was told anytime Hannity says something stupid just ignore it or say something more stupid.

Yeah, the show was much better when Hannity had somebody who could make him look like an intellectual. Now he just acts like an bad person for a 1 hour segment and throws a nerf football before every commercial break.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 18, 2013, 11:34:47 PM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.
This is so not worth my time because your limited comprehension will prevent any meaningful dialogue.

MSNBC = liberal
Foxnews = Republican party talking points

There is no analysis other than what the Republican party specifically wants.  This doesn't mean conservative, it means they only spew corrosive Republican talking points.  Its okay to have your news source from a conservative or liberal point of view.  Its not okay to have a party run news corporation where users delude themselves into believing its fair and balanced.

 :flush: :facepalm:
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: ednksu on January 19, 2013, 05:11:56 AM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.
This is so not worth my time because your limited comprehension will prevent any meaningful dialogue.

MSNBC = liberal
Foxnews = Republican party talking points

There is no analysis other than what the Republican party specifically wants.  This doesn't mean conservative, it means they only spew corrosive Republican talking points.  Its okay to have your news source from a conservative or liberal point of view.  Its not okay to have a party run news corporation where users delude themselves into believing its fair and balanced.

 :flush: :facepalm:
nice tapout
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 19, 2013, 08:19:50 AM
Wow Edna.  :facepalm:

Pretty much confirming he is one of the ignorant morons that is the subject of this thread.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 19, 2013, 08:25:17 AM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.

Energy independence might be the biggest scam in Washington. Every side uses it to try to sell their point, whether it's green energy or increased exploration, but the reality is that if we used nothing but US energy, our gas prices would be much higher than they are now. Sure, it makes sense to have the ability to use alternate oil supplies in case we ever get cut off, but the idea that importing oil from the Middle East is bad is just ludicrous.

I'm not sure you understand what "impossible" means.  In any event, it's not a scam. It's a fact even the administration has been forced to acknowledge.

Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 19, 2013, 11:26:43 AM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.
This is so not worth my time because your limited comprehension will prevent any meaningful dialogue.

MSNBC = liberal
Foxnews = Republican party talking points

There is no analysis other than what the Republican party specifically wants.  This doesn't mean conservative, it means they only spew corrosive Republican talking points.  Its okay to have your news source from a conservative or liberal point of view.  Its not okay to have a party run news corporation where users delude themselves into believing its fair and balanced.

 :flush: :facepalm:
nice tapout

There was nothing to say. Your post pretty much ended the thread proving OP is 100% accurate.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: ednksu on January 19, 2013, 10:36:02 PM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.
This is so not worth my time because your limited comprehension will prevent any meaningful dialogue.

MSNBC = liberal
Foxnews = Republican party talking points

There is no analysis other than what the Republican party specifically wants.  This doesn't mean conservative, it means they only spew corrosive Republican talking points.  Its okay to have your news source from a conservative or liberal point of view.  Its not okay to have a party run news corporation where users delude themselves into believing its fair and balanced.

 :flush: :facepalm:
nice tapout

There was nothing to say. Your post pretty much ended the thread proving OP is 100% accurate.
sorry I tried to dumb it down as much as possible for ya. :dunno:
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 20, 2013, 12:27:26 AM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.

Energy independence might be the biggest scam in Washington. Every side uses it to try to sell their point, whether it's green energy or increased exploration, but the reality is that if we used nothing but US energy, our gas prices would be much higher than they are now. Sure, it makes sense to have the ability to use alternate oil supplies in case we ever get cut off, but the idea that importing oil from the Middle East is bad is just ludicrous.

I'm not sure you understand what "impossible" means.  In any event, it's not a scam. It's a fact even the administration has been forced to acknowledge.

They only play the energy independence card to push green energy. It is absolutely not in the United States' best interest to become completely energy independent via government subsidies. The free market will always yield the best price, and it is cheaper, at least today, to purchase foreign oil than it is to extract it domestically.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Domino on January 20, 2013, 01:22:52 AM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.

Energy independence might be the biggest scam in Washington. Every side uses it to try to sell their point, whether it's green energy or increased exploration, but the reality is that if we used nothing but US energy, our gas prices would be much higher than they are now. Sure, it makes sense to have the ability to use alternate oil supplies in case we ever get cut off, but the idea that importing oil from the Middle East is bad is just ludicrous.

I'm not sure you understand what "impossible" means.  In any event, it's not a scam. It's a fact even the administration has been forced to acknowledge.

They only play the energy independence card to push green energy. It is absolutely not in the United States' best interest to become completely energy independent via government subsidies. The free market will always yield the best price, and it is cheaper, at least today, to purchase foreign oil than it is to extract it domestically.

I'm sorry NK, but did you just use the phrase "free market" to describe oil?  :lol:

Oil is one of the most heavily regulated items on the planet. Since I'm sure you've heard of OPEC, you should know they can decide whether to raise or lower the supply. This also ignore the untold amount of money through subsidies oil companies have been getting for the past century in the USA, let alone in other countries. The government long ago decided that it's best interest was cheap oil.

Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 20, 2013, 01:44:29 AM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.

Energy independence might be the biggest scam in Washington. Every side uses it to try to sell their point, whether it's green energy or increased exploration, but the reality is that if we used nothing but US energy, our gas prices would be much higher than they are now. Sure, it makes sense to have the ability to use alternate oil supplies in case we ever get cut off, but the idea that importing oil from the Middle East is bad is just ludicrous.

I'm not sure you understand what "impossible" means.  In any event, it's not a scam. It's a fact even the administration has been forced to acknowledge.

They only play the energy independence card to push green energy. It is absolutely not in the United States' best interest to become completely energy independent via government subsidies. The free market will always yield the best price, and it is cheaper, at least today, to purchase foreign oil than it is to extract it domestically.

I'm sorry NK, but did you just use the phrase "free market" to describe oil?  :lol:

Oil is one of the most heavily regulated items on the planet. Since I'm sure you've heard of OPEC, you should know they can decide whether to raise or lower the supply. This also ignore the untold amount of money through subsidies oil companies have been getting for the past century in the USA, let alone in other countries. The government long ago decided that it's best interest was cheap oil.

If they stop selling us oil, we stop selling them food. This is not hard. Even with OPEC, it is far cheaper to purchase oil from the Middle East than it is to fund US oil exploration.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 20, 2013, 02:36:56 AM
This Reuters opinion article pretty much conveys the reasons energy independence is a scam.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/19/energy-independence-is-a-farce/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/19/energy-independence-is-a-farce/)
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 20, 2013, 09:35:41 AM
If you live in Kansas and aren't aware of the boom in domestic O&G production, well then you are just a rough ridin' ignorant Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Energy independence may not be in the "best interest of the united states" in your opinion, but it sure as hell is possible and well on its way to becoming a reality.  I'm sorry if you prefer to read some globalwarmafoid's take on energy independence in some sloppy article that misses the point.

The so-called "subsidies" that the O&G industry receives are accelerated depreciation of O&G exploration costs and a domestic manufacturing credit available to all companies in the US.  Those "subsidies" pale in comparison to the green energy subsidies, and green energy is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (right now). 


Stop rough ridin' up this thread with your nonsense.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: ednksu on January 20, 2013, 10:03:17 AM
If you live in Kansas and aren't aware of the boom in domestic O&G production, well then you are just a rough ridin' ignorant Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Energy independence may not be in the "best interest of the united states" in your opinion, but it sure as hell is possible and well on its way to becoming a reality.  I'm sorry if you prefer to read some globalwarmafoid's take on energy independence in some sloppy article that misses the point.

The so-called "subsidies" that the O&G industry receives are accelerated depreciation of O&G exploration costs and a domestic manufacturing credit available to all companies in the US.  Those "subsidies" pale in comparison to the green energy subsidies, and green energy is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (right now). 


Stop rough ridin' up this thread with your nonsense.
:lol:
I think my favorite part of this post you guys is when he said the amount of subsidies pales in comparison to green energy subsidies.  I mean you can't make this stuff up folks.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 20, 2013, 10:12:44 AM
You don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Domino on January 20, 2013, 12:14:24 PM
You don't know what you're talking about.

If you had proof of this you would've posted at least one link to a study that shows Green Energy companies getting more subsidies than oil companies.

And even if they start getting more, that would still pale in comparison to the oil companies, who have been getting subsidies for decades before green energy companies started becoming more abundant.

I also don't get why this is a left/right issue, both sides claim to want energy independence.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 20, 2013, 12:49:33 PM
Nuh uh, if you haved proofs you'd have typed em hur
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 20, 2013, 03:05:34 PM
You don't know what you're talking about.

If you had proof of this you would've posted at least one link to a study that shows Green Energy companies getting more subsidies than oil companies.

And even if they start getting more, that would still pale in comparison to the oil companies, who have been getting subsidies for decades before green energy companies started becoming more abundant.

I also don't get why this is a left/right issue, both sides claim to want energy independence.

At least oil subsidies are successful and achieve the desired results, more domestic production. Green subsidies just send more money overseas or pay green company CEOs big bonuses to take them into bankruptcy. I have no problem spending money on actual research and development, but it's stupid to invest in the production of "not ready for market" technology.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 20, 2013, 04:49:19 PM
If everyone gets the subsidy, is it still a subsidy?
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Domino on January 21, 2013, 01:38:53 AM
FSD is a really lame troll. I expected much better given the site. FSD is constantly on this board, with some of the best BBSers in the country, been on the site for years, and he's still terrible. Should've hung up the keyboard years ago.

As for doug, I'll start addressing him when he stops taking talking points at face value. So probably never.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 24, 2013, 07:52:22 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fboingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2Ffoxnews-300x205.jpg&hash=9db68bd32400b37458070092cbede8754729e785)
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 24, 2013, 05:15:07 PM
hey sd, do you remember that graph you posted where it made it look like stuff went up during obama, but actually they labeled it all mumped up and something went down.

that was funny.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 24, 2013, 05:57:47 PM
hey sd, do you remember that graph you posted where it made it look like stuff went up during obama, but actually they labeled it all mumped up and something went down.

that was funny.

Was that the federal deficit thing or the unemployment thing?
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 24, 2013, 06:05:50 PM
it was like a line that went up and down during bush and they had the numbers at all the peaks and valleys, and then spiked up huge for obama and his number at the peak was lower than bush's numbers.  it was a great graph.
Title: msnbc
Post by: camKSU on January 24, 2013, 06:46:47 PM
Great story guys... Have you met Manti Te'o's gf?
Title: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 24, 2013, 07:12:35 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fboingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FFoxneverstopslying.jpg&hash=4dc9c6ef9b535d55746aa77922ac8597fc484a42)
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Institutional Control on January 24, 2013, 08:08:27 PM
steve dave is truly fair and balanced
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 24, 2013, 08:14:01 PM
Sheesh, I have a bad memory!
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 24, 2013, 08:34:55 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fboingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FFoxneverstopslying.jpg&hash=4dc9c6ef9b535d55746aa77922ac8597fc484a42)

I remember this graph. It would be misleading if you couldn't read numbers.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on January 24, 2013, 09:20:18 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fboingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2FFoxneverstopslying.jpg&hash=4dc9c6ef9b535d55746aa77922ac8597fc484a42)

I remember this graph. It would be misleading if you couldn't read numbers.

t's & p's fox viewers.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: steve dave on January 28, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbackdropsrus.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2Ffox-news-figures-strangely-resemble-kids-in-the-hall-characters.jpg%3Fw%3D720&hash=135bcae43c4d25376da24a7f69351ebc5da037ad)
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: mortons toe on January 30, 2013, 05:37:13 PM
I love the "msnbc" presents facts that are presented with a liberal slant statement, but Fox is just propaganda.

I mean, wtf is wrong with you ignorant morons?


Also, msnbc has repeatedly held the position that domestic energy independence not only unrealistic but impossible. They also hold the position that fracing damages drinking water.  Both of these positions are demonstratively false. Even the admin they pee down their leg over has reluctantly confirmed.  They simply don't even bother to check "facts" 99% of the time.

As for media matters, the things they state are false are 99% a matter of opinion. The fact that there's a well funded left winged mouthpiece charged with monitoring Fox 24/7 for "reporting" the items is beyond pathetic.
This is so not worth my time because your limited comprehension will prevent any meaningful dialogue.

MSNBC = liberal
Foxnews = Republican party talking points

There is no analysis other than what the Republican party specifically wants.  This doesn't mean conservative, it means they only spew corrosive Republican talking points.  Its okay to have your news source from a conservative or liberal point of view.  Its not okay to have a party run news corporation where users delude themselves into believing its fair and balanced.

This statement reminds me of GE owning NBC, and Jeff Immelt being appointed "Jobs Czar". It's kind of like Exxon owning Fox... er, nevermind.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on March 16, 2013, 08:02:09 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F247081%2Fslide_247081_1434651_free.jpg%3F1346096194000&hash=2f6e20bfaf526f65776e56228e68ef41932ab581)
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 16, 2013, 11:01:21 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F247081%2Fslide_247081_1434651_free.jpg%3F1346096194000&hash=2f6e20bfaf526f65776e56228e68ef41932ab581)

LOL, What's the story here?
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: star seed 7 on March 16, 2013, 11:21:44 PM
i wish i knew.
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Cire on March 17, 2013, 10:48:06 PM
news
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 17, 2013, 11:36:21 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F247081%2Fslide_247081_1434651_free.jpg%3F1346096194000&hash=2f6e20bfaf526f65776e56228e68ef41932ab581)

Apparently someone at the huffpost purchased half a tv. Dumbfucks
Title: Re: msnbc
Post by: bones129 on March 17, 2013, 11:53:56 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F247081%2Fslide_247081_1434651_free.jpg%3F1346096194000&hash=2f6e20bfaf526f65776e56228e68ef41932ab581)

Apparently someone at the huffpost purchased half a tv. Dumbfucks

New scam. TV buyers beware.