America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by tonygraz. 44 replies replies.
FOX NEWS IS THE BIGGEST LOSER
jackconrad Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Biggest Debate LOSER IS FOX NEWS.. Megan And Company Obviously Lynch Mobbed Trump and Pushed their On Air Buddies Huckabee , Rubio and Kasich..

To Me Ben Carson is the BIG WINNER .. Now i'll get my news from Streaming Sources as Fox has gone Bad..
SmokeMonkey Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 04-05-2015
Posts: 5,688
I agree that it felt as if the questions to specific candidates were tailored to fit an agenda, but there was something else that surprised me, maybe because I don't watch FNC - there was a distinct lack of professionalism exhibited by all the moderators. It was subtle, but very apparent.

I stuck around for Megyn Kelly's (sp?) Show afterwards and realized that maybe that's just how she presents herself. I'd never heard of her before last night and hope to avoid her in the future.

When Chris Wallace was speaking all I could think was wow, at least his dad was a proper journalist.
jespear Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 03-19-2004
Posts: 9,464
jackconrad wrote:
Biggest Debate LOSER IS FOX NEWS.. Megan And Company Obviously Lynch Mobbed Trump and Pushed their On Air Buddies Huckabee , Rubio and Kasich..

To Me Ben Carson is the BIG WINNER .. Now i'll get my news from Streaming Sources as Fox has gone Bad..


I liked what he said, ( on the FEW opportunities he was given), especially when he said he would bring the military back to it's proper strength.

The rest of the candidates, to me, just came off like typical, run of the mill, politicians, except for Trump, who just came off like . . . well, like Trump.

The moderators ?
I almost turned the debate off before it even got started because of their unprofessional buffoonery !

jes
rfenst Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
jackconrad wrote:

To Me Ben Carson is the BIG WINNER


LMAO!
teedubbya Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I watched Fox for a couple/few hours after as well as they congratulated themselves and reinforced what their questions and the answers meant and what was going to happen. They even had a clearly artificial and manipulated focus group to help drive what the impact of the debate would be. It was their big chance to manipulate the election with larger numbers than they usually have and they went all in. It became very transparant what they are. This clearly was done by a non professional entertainment company rather than a news organization. Thats not to say others are not biased etc but this was compoletely in your face out there. Complete crap. Fox news has zero credibility as being at the big boy table after this. The funny part is the folks they are playing to may be ok with everything and they may be crazy like a FOX.
Gene363 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,822
rfenst wrote:
LMAO!


Raciest!

Shame on you Shame on you Shame on you
Gene363 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,822
teedubbya wrote:
I watched Fox for a couple/few hours after as well as they congratulated themselves and reinforced what their questions and the answers meant and what was going to happen. They even had a clearly artificial and manipulated focus group to help drive what the impact of the debate would be. It was their big chance to manipulate the election with larger numbers than they usually have and they went all in. It became very transparant what they are. This clearly was done by a non professional entertainment company rather than a news organization. Thats not to say others are not biased etc but this was compoletely in your face out there. Complete crap. Fox news has zero credibility as being at the big boy table after this. The funny part is the folks they are playing to may be ok with everything and they may be crazy like a FOX.


No organization is with out bias of one sort of another, the 'debate' questions appeared to be from the GOP. That said, they are better than the alternative.
teedubbya Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Gene363 wrote:
No organization is with out bias of one sort of another, the 'debate' questions appeared to be from the GOP. That said, they are better than the alternative.



I recognize noone is without bias but this was blatant. And no, it was ametuer hour and not better than past debates. On this I completely disagree. This was cringeworthy.
victor809 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teedubbya wrote:
I recognize noone is without bias but this was blatant. And no, it was ametuer hour and not better than past debates. On this I completely disagree. This was cringeworthy.


^Agree. Fox news came out looking completely like an arm of the republican party. It was clear from the questions that there was an intended outcome of the debate and changes in the polling of each candidate that someone wanted to effect.

There was zero subtlety here. We may as well have watched a debate moderated by the RNC leadership
frankj1 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
sounds like I made the right choice by not watching. I would watch a debate between the final 2 or 3 candidates, but this had all the elements of a circus, minus the bearded lady.
Gene363 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,822
teedubbya wrote:
I recognize noone is without bias but this was blatant. And no, it was ametuer hour and not better than past debates. On this I completely disagree. This was cringeworthy.


victor809 wrote:
^Agree. Fox news came out looking completely like an arm of the republican party. It was clear from the questions that there was an intended outcome of the debate and changes in the polling of each candidate that someone wanted to effect.

There was zero subtlety here. We may as well have watched a debate moderated by the RNC leadership


I agree, scary isn't it? d'oh!
riverdog Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 03-28-2008
Posts: 2,600
Gene363 wrote:
I agree, scary isn't it? d'oh!

I just had a chill!!!Beer
rfenst Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
frankj1 wrote:
sounds like I made the right choice by not watching. I would watch a debate between the final 2 or 3 candidates, but this had all the elements of a circus, minus the bearded lady.


Ah, I was in bed watching TV and my wife and kids wanted to watch it. I lost the vote and suffered miserably through the whole thing. Paul got hamered by Christi. Trump was tuned down a bit , but was still "The Donald". Rubio moved up a bit, but not much. Bush was boring, but solid. Huckaby did OK. Cruz did OK. Christi did OK. No one won.
Gene363 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,822
rfenst wrote:
Ah, I was in bed watching TV and my wife and kids wanted to watch it. I lost the vote and suffered miserably through the whole thing. Paul got hamered by Christi. Trump was tuned down a bit , but was still "The Donald". Rubio moved up a bit, but not much. Bush was boring, but solid. Huckaby did OK. Cruz did OK. Christi did OK. No one won.


I'm honestly surprised, I saw just the opposite. It's difference between government intrusion and Constitutional freedom. Christi is an embarrassing, angry and vindictive, according to my NJ contact.
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
I'm honestly surprised, I saw just the opposite. It's difference between government intrusion and Constitutional freedom. Christi is an embarrassing, angry and vindictive, according to my NJ contact.


Sh&t... we agree again. I saw Christie as falling back on the decades old "9-11!" fear mongering for allowing the government to sift through as much citizen's personal data as it wanted, while Paul was trying to hold on to the Bill of Rights.
Abrignac Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
rfenst wrote:
LMAO!



I agree it funny as hell that the Republicans want to nominate an establishment candidate who has absolutely zero chance to expand their reach.
Gene363 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,822
victor809 wrote:
Sh&t... we agree again. I saw Christie as falling back on the decades old "9-11!" fear mongering for allowing the government to sift through as much citizen's personal data as it wanted, while Paul was trying to hold on to the Bill of Rights.


What da! d'oh!
teedubbya Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Gene not scary to me. We often agree. It's just not as fun.
rfenst Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Gene363 wrote:
I'm honestly surprised, I saw just the opposite. It's difference between government intrusion and Constitutional freedom. Christi is an embarrassing, angry and vindictive, according to my NJ contact.


form over substance
Mattie B Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2005
Posts: 6,350
My .02


You have to know that Fox News is biased. That said, what other kind of questions would you expect? Of course they will be angled to make all look sharp. Its intentional that questions were "tee'd" up


Think of it like college football
This was their warm up season opener against some hack squad that everyone knows they will crush.

This was an opportunity to sharpen skills and learn from others without taking any damage.


But that's just my opinion.
victor809 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Mattie B wrote:


You have to know that Fox News is biased. That said, what other kind of questions would you expect? Of course they will be angled to make all look sharp. Its intentional that questions were "tee'd" up




I suppose I look at it as "biased" vs "an actual tool of the Republican party".
In this instance, the debate was clearly intended to make some candidates look better than others. I expect Fox to softball the republicans, but I would expect them to softball them all equally. I mean, that first "raise your hand if you're gonna run independent" question was REAL intentional. That's not a biased news station coddling their candidates. That's an arm of the republican party trying to influence polls.
teedubbya Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
They were NOT all teed up and geared to make them look better. It was clear they picked and chose who the wanted to make good and bad. Amateurish and awkward.
Mattie B Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2005
Posts: 6,350
Please tell me that y'all understand that both parties know who their Pony will be.

It's all about who endorses you in politics. It's true locally and nationally.

Example:
Everyone I knew was a Newt fan in 2012. Santorum got more votes than anyone in MS
The MS Gov endorsed Romney.

The GOP knew who was going to win the primary I have no doubt this was passed on to our Gov Bryant.
mikey1597 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
victor809 wrote:
I suppose I look at it as "biased" vs "an actual tool of the Republican party".
In this instance, the debate was clearly intended to make some candidates look better than others. I expect Fox to softball the republicans, but I would expect them to softball them all equally. I mean, that first "raise your hand if you're gonna run independent" question was REAL intentional. That's not a biased news station coddling their candidates. That's an arm of the republican party trying to influence polls.



Spot on Victor
victor809 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Mattie B wrote:
Please tell me that y'all understand that both parties know who their Pony will be.

It's all about who endorses you in politics. It's true locally and nationally.

Example:
Everyone I knew was a Newt fan in 2012. Santorum got more votes than anyone in MS
The MS Gov endorsed Romney.

The GOP knew who was going to win the primary I have no doubt this was passed on to our Gov Bryant.


Agreed.
The parties have probably picked their pony.

That's my point (and I think TWs)... One can accuse a media outlet of left or right bias all you want, this is the first time I've seen a media outlet actually explicitly act on behalf of a party. This wasn't "fox news giving you a right-hand bias look at the Republican candidates"... this was "The Republican Party, Department of Media, telling you which candidate they wanted you to like"
teedubbya Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
It sure wasn't normal let alone subtle or professional.
Abrignac Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Mattie B wrote:
Please tell me that y'all understand that both parties know who their Pony will be.

It's all about who endorses you in politics. It's true locally and nationally.

Example:
Everyone I knew was a Newt fan in 2012. Santorum got more votes than anyone in MS
The MS Gov endorsed Romney.

The GOP knew who was going to win the primary I have no doubt this was passed on to our Gov Bryant.


It seems you may be missing the point. It's no doubt the RNC has chosen Bush. But, FOX as the host of the debate should have remained neutral. Their moderates were anything but.

The opening question was an obvious dig at Trump. It set the tone for Trump's responses. He came off as angry. I can't say I blame him.

We might as well get ready for at least another 4 years of a democratic administration. The RNC pony Jeb Bush, has nothing to offer the very swing voters he desperately needs to get elected.
Mattie B Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2005
Posts: 6,350
I don't know I agree, that Bush is the GOP fav. I may eat crow at a later date, but I don't think it's him.

I think they have been grooming Rubio the last few years more than anyone else.
fiddler898 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
As I wrote elsewhere (nothing like quoting yourself), the answers had nothing to do with the questions. Nothing. Fox's fault is only in that they never followed up. "Excuse me, Senator/Governor/blowhard/Failed CEO, but would you please address the question?"
teedubbya Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Mattie I agree with you on Rubio. There were definitely people they wanted to look better and people they wanted to make worse and they pulled no punches and doing it and were not ashamed of being unprofessional
ZRX1200 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,617
Mattie, Rubio is a right speaking version of Bush but they are both establishment.
mikey1597 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
Pat Paulson for President!






https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aoaccn3dlagymspM..Fb28abvZx4?fr=befhp-s&toggle=1&type=iehp-3.16-1411&fp=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=pat%20paulsen%20for%20president%201968
tonygraz Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,266
Sure miss him, who was the republican that always ran until he croaked ?
Gene363 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,822
teedubbya wrote:
It sure wasn't normal let alone subtle or professional.


I set the DVR to record the debate. There was a sort of false start before they got all the candidates on stage, it was not the usual polished timing and presentation that is normal for Fox or CNN. I was wondering if it was some kind of bad joke.
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
tonygraz wrote:
Sure miss him, who was the republican that always ran until he croaked ?

Harold Stassen?
mikey1597 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
Paulsen's campaign in 1968, and in succeeding years, was grounded in comedy, while not bereft of serious commentary. He ran the supposed campaigns using obvious lies, double talk, and tongue-in-cheek attacks on the major candidates, and responded to all criticism with his catchphrase "Picky, picky, picky". His campaign slogan was "Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny." Every question on social issues received basically the same response: "I feel that it is too directly bound to its own anguish to be anything other than a cry of negation, carrying within itself the seeds of its own destruction. However, to get to the meat of the matter, I will come right to the point, and take note of the fact that the heart of the issue in the final analysis escapes me."[4]

Paulsen's name appeared on the ballot in New Hampshire for the Democratic Primary several times. In 1996, he received 921 votes (1%) to finish second to President Bill Clinton (76,754 votes); this was actually ahead of real politicians such as Buffalo mayor James D. Griffin. In 1992 he came in second to George Bush in the North Dakota Republican Primary. In the 1992 Republican Party primaries he received 10,984 votes total
TMCTLT Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
frankj1 wrote:
sounds like I made the right choice by not watching. I would watch a debate between the final 2 or 3 candidates, but this had all the elements of a circus, minus the bearded lady.



+1. Although I admit I would have liked to hear Carly F in the first or supposed B league debate. This gal is a firecracker who clearly knows the issues and CAN debate with facts....I'd love the opportunity to watch her rip Hillary a new one, and she would unless she just tries to scream over her like Christy Mathews did in her interview with him.
tonygraz Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,266
frankj1 wrote:
Harold Stassen?


Thanks, Frank. I knew it began with an S.
namadio Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 11-24-2014
Posts: 1,621
Vote pro defense spending! Namadio likes his job and his disposable cigar, record, whiskey, and car parts income
DrMaddVibe Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,444
I'm glad Jack that you understand they're the biggest loser.

Of course they are.

Any kind of controlled experiment by our media is a loser's folly. Anyone tuning in to that deserves what they're pushing.

What the hell did you expect? A real debate where questions are asked and the candidate is given all the time to make their point and a counterpoint exchange?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!


Welcome to the snippet narrow minded "Free Press"! The media are all whores bought and paid for. Enjoy the show!

It's time to turn them off...ALL OF THEM...and ignore their "messages" that they call "news".


tonygraz Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,266
They do say that those who listen to Fox are less informed than those who listen to no news at all. It was advertised as a debate and it was not a debate.
Burner02 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
tonygraz wrote:
They do say that those who listen to Fox are less informed than those who listen to no news at all. It was advertised as a debate and it was not a debate.




BSNBC rules!
Gene363 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,822
tonygraz wrote:
They do say that those who listen to Fox are less informed than those who listen to no news at all. It was advertised as a debate and it was not a debate.


According to Brian Williams no doubt.
tonygraz Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,266
Return to forum shaking head in disbelief.
Users browsing this topic
Guest