>> ^bobknight33:

That's what Obama said. His plan would cut your bill. WRONG.
Obama will get his monkey spanked on election day. The press will cry foul and the Obama media will blame it on "white raciest". There will be riots in the streets by the brothers and sisters feeding on the media lies that will be propagated by Ed Schultz and the rest of MSNBC. OWS will help with the riots since they have nothing better to do.
Netrunner will be crying


Nah man, even with Romneys bump in the polls it's pretty obvious who's going to win.

That's what Obama said. His plan would cut your bill. WRONG.

Obama will get his monkey spanked on election day. The press will cry foul and the Obama media will blame it on "white raciest". There will be riots in the streets by the brothers and sisters feeding on the media lies that will be propagated by Ed Schultz and the rest of MSNBC. OWS will help with the riots since they have nothing better to do.

Netrunner will be crying

You must be fun at parties.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then
Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.
http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-polit
icized
So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.
Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.
There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.
Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.
I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.
We don't really have partisan lines like that
No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:
Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.
What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

That study is from 2005, and FOX has climbed quite a few steps on the crazy-ladder since then

Research says otherwise. The News channels have not become more radical, but the AUDIENCES have become more polarized.

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

So your assertion is merely an opinion, not documented fact. I have been around a long time, including since 2005, and there has been no perceptable widening of the gap in bias between MSNBC or FOX News as cable channels.

Secondly this was an American study. From the outside, to the rest of the world, FOX and its fans look like bewildered extremists with little or no idea what goes on outside their own, largely imaginary, world.

There is no research study or scholarly document that supports your assertion. You may believe this is fact, but that does not make you correct. You are citing anecdotal evidence from among your group of friends and associates. You clearly tilt to the left in your political opinions, and so it is not surprising your friends & associates agree with you. However - your universe of interactions is not statistically representative of larger populations, and so your opinion must be dismissed as non-factual. The same applies to your opinions about AGW, and other issues about which you opine, but do not document. In other words - you're acting like FOX News and stating opinion as fact. For shame.

Your insinuations that I'm some sort of brainwashed leftist is very strange.

I didn't say that. I said you're a leftist, and that you slant your opinions that direction. That much is obvious. I'm clearly conservative, and I tilt that direction. There is nothing wrong in admitting your propensities and predilictions.

We don't really have partisan lines like that

No offense - but bull feathers. European parlimentarian politics is some of the most partisan, fractous, splintered, and contentous that exist on the planet. Next you'll be trying to tell me that the UN doesn't have partisan lines either. :eyeroll:

Anyway - the fact remains that FOX News is not as 'radical' as you claim. You are probably talking very specifically with people like Glenn Beck in your mind. I'm not trying to tell you that Beck isn't out there. But Ed Schultz is 'out there' too. I dismiss your false appeals to authority as a fallacy, and rest on the proof of research. Most news outlets are predominantly liberal in bias. FOX News is conservative in bias. But FOX is not some sort of radical outlier except in the fact that it isn't slavishly biased to the left like everyone else.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.

Does the Black caucus (formally known as the Black Elected Democrats of Ohio) have any conservative qualified persons? Their member list is all black. Link

Maybe they are the raciest. No white members.

Unless the Black Caucus have a qualified conservative black then John Kasich I would gather is correct is saying what he said.


Nice try Ed Schultz
Netrunner are you propagating the race card?

A man with access to the googles brings you fresh copypasta:

Uygur has appeared on television on numerous occasions on MSNBC, CNN Headline News, E! Entertainment Television, Aljazeera, ABC News, Voice of America, NPR and the Fox News Channel.

He is a regular guest on The Dylan Ratigan Show for a segment opposite various conservative commentators. On several occasions, Uygur has guest hosted the show in Ratigan's absence, and has also served as guest host for The Ed Show in the absence of Ed Schultz as well as the guest host for Keith Olbermann on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

On October 21, 2010 msnbc announced that Uygur had been officially hired as a contributor and substitute anchor for the network. Previously, Uygur had periodically guest hosted and appeared on numerous msnbc programs.

The issue isn't whether they allowed these candidates or activists to plug their causes on the air. That's always going to happen.

The issue is whether the commentator/anchor/personality themselves donated money to candidates they were interviewing, without disclosure to their viewers.

Chris Mathews didn't, Rachel Maddow didn't, Ed Schultz didn't.

Olbermann did, and was punished for it.

I didnt even know of Ed Schultz until this clip so I looked at his Wiki and found this interesting:

"In the late 1990s, several events occurred which he said changed his attitude. One was his mother's illness. A former educator, she got Alzheimer's Disease and began a long, slow decline. Schultz found it frustrating trying to get her the services that she needed. The other was that he met a psychiatric nurse named Wendy who ran a homeless shelter in Fargo. He attributed much of his political change to her, and although he had frequently made fun of the homeless on his show, he said in his book that she helped to humanize them. To his surprise, he found some of the people he had insulted were veterans, and many were unable to get the psychiatric or medical services that might help them. He says that was the moment he began to look at poverty differently."

I think that's what being a liberal is often about, looking reminding yourself that you're not better than the people around you just because of your circumstances.

I only wish he took that same approach in dealing with Rush Limbaugh. Instead of taking a critical look at the man's life and sympathizing and respectufully disagreeing, he chose to insult him and challenge him to a duel.

That being said, i know it's difficult to maintain a polite attitude in the face of bigotry and hate, but I think John Lennon put it best when he said (im paraphrasing because I cant find the quote but I believe i heard it in "The US vs John Lennon")

'Of course they're gonna yell at you and bat at your nose because they want to get you violent. And when you're violent they know how to handle you'

I just hope it doesn't turn into a shouting match, b/c then neither of them will win.

Thing is, Ed Schultz was absolutely correct.

Oh no, McCain may not agree with torture, but he's still trying to appease Republicans here. The "extreme talk show host" isn't the one some of us are thinking here. And even if he were slamming Rush, he'd have to apologize within a day or so any way. http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

It was Ed Schultz of the new Ed Show on MSNBC (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/ed-schultzcheney-wants-th_n_190703.html). Was Ed right? Personally, I think Cheney thinks more about his own success and the success of the Republican party than he does the whole of the American people, so...

Nice to see Ed Schultz get his own show.