No. And that pile of crap at the end of your post said everything about what your post contains.

Have a good night, sir.

__________________
Fenian smokes on sausages for a living

You sure are tough behind a computer screen, aren't you?

Sir, I will have you know I would beat you like a red headed step child if you want to throw the gloves on. Whaddya say, homie? Wanna get T- Rolled in the ring, dogg?

__________________
Fenian smokes on sausages for a living

America is tired of leftist propaganda and thats why fox draws so many viewers. For thoes of you who say that the media isnt owned by the left just check this out!

Home The Vault Gear About
Shocka! Journalists give to Democrats 9-1
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Shocka! Journalists give to Democrats 9-1

Like that 1990s survey revealing that about 90 percent of the Washington press corps supported Clinton, a president who didn’t crack 50% in either 1992 or 1996, didn’t tell us this years ago. Still, it’s one of those things the confirms what we already know: Journalists tend to be a bunch of libs who are are out to “change the world” rather than just report on it:

The following 144 journalists made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.
Key: (D) contributed to Democrats or liberal causes, (R) to Republicans and conservative causes.
Click on “details” next to each name to see the amounts and what the journalists have to say.
Television:
(D) ABC News, Mary Fulginiti, “Primetime” correspondent.
(D) ABC affiliate in Boston, WCVB, Sangita Chandra, producer.
(D) ABC affiliate in Wichita, KAKE, Susan Peters, anchor.
(D) CBS News, Serena Altschul, correspondent for “CBS Sunday Morning.”

List of journalists taking sides - Politics - MSNBC.com

Etc. The list goes on for a while and you see mostly (D) in front of the names. Not surprising, even though it’s getting giant headline treatment elsewhere. In other shocking news, the sun shines.
We all know that j-schools attract post-Watergate types who want to get the next scoop that brings down the next president, as long as that president has (R) in front of his name. We all know that most journalists will carry water for the NOW gang while ignoring the Concerned Women of America, whose ideology is conservative and whose membership dwarfs the far left NOW. We all know that most journalists cover environmental issues like they’re a huge threat, while downplaying the very real and ongoing threat from Islamic radicalism. We all know this. It’s not much of a surprise to see it confirmed via political donations.
What might be a bit more surprising is that MSNBC’s David Shuster showed up for a forum at the far left Take Back America confab yesterday. Click here, go to Day 3 and look at the 11 am session, the one called “The Mainstream Media: Fair and Balanced.” You have far left blogger Duncan “Atrios” black, a Clinton guy, two Air America guys, a WaPo guy, a Newsweek guy, a freelancer who specializes in Latino issues, and David Shuster of MSNBC. They used Fox’s branding motto to title the session, but didn’t include anyone from Fox, just a guy from one of its (distant, as the ratings go) rivals, and who once worked for Fox. I doubt Shuster defended Fox, since he works for MSNBC now and shows up on Hardball all the time. I’m guessing that that forum as composed wasn’t fair or balanced.
So what was alleged news reporter David Shuster doing at a far left pep rally that seems designed to be nothing but a Fox bash? Hmmm?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." Ronald Reagan
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

FAUX NEWS = RIGHT WING EXTREMIST PROPAGANDA NEWS.....AFTER ALL THE FAUX NEWS AUDIENCE ARE MOSTLY KNUCKLE DRAGGING CONSERVATIVES....SO WHAT!!!!!!

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

As usual, "rat as a man" attempts to distract with more insults.
Very good, now go sit down and watch spongebob.

I note that you have no information on the political leanings of FOX.

The Pew study showed that those that watch FOX trust the news less than any other group. And they are watching FOX.

Prove that FOX is both conservative and trusted by conservatives.

Unless FOX is conservative and is trusted, then the more likely reason for watching FOX is the entertainment news.

AN IMMODERATE MODERATOR
NY POST EDITORIAL

October 6, 2007 -- So, should viewers of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate expect an exchange of views between the candidates - or between the candidates and one of the event's moderators?
It's a fair question, given the jaw-dropping comments Thursday evening from MSNBC blowhard - and scheduled debate moderator - Chris Matthews.

Matthews was celebrating the 10th anniversary of his "Hardball" program at a Washington event, when he let loose a broadside at the White House.

Bush & Co., he declared, had "finally been caught in their criminality."

He compared this White House's behavior with another one, saying, "Spiro Agnew was not an American hero."

Of the vice president, Matthews said, "God help us if we had Cheney during the Cuban missile crisis. We'd all be under a parking lot."

Now, "Hardball" is an opinion show, and Matthews is certainly entitled to his opinions - however offensively he chooses to express them.

But why should any Republican candidate expect fairness from Matthews now?

More to the point, why should potential voters expect Matthews to treat the candidates' views fairly?

By engaging in this sort of intemperate rhetoric, Matthews has effectively disqualified himself as an "honest broker" for this coming debate.

NBC needs to replace him as a debate moderator immediately. The job - by definition - requires an attempt to display objectivity going into an event.

Yes, the distinction between "objective journalist" and "opinion-maker" in recent years has been blurred to the point where they're nearly indistinguishable. But Matthews' comments obliterated any possible distinction.

Earlier this year, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to participate in a debate on Fox News on the grounds that the channel was "biased." That's baloney, of course - certainly the debate wasn't going to be moderated by Fox's prime-time opinion hosts.

That is, the Fox network's Chris Matthews analogues.

Given Matthews' outrageous rhetoric - and if MSNBC doesn't haul him off the debate forthwith - the GOP candidates would be well within their rights to stay home, too.

Otherwise, viewers should just change the channel.

Here we go again, citing opinion pieces from a Rupert Murdoch publication, means absolutely nothing.

LOLOLOLOOLOOLLOLOLnew york post is a fox news advertisement rag. stevie k king of copy andpastem fox bullshit.

You've got to be able to do better than Rupert Murdoch. Give me a break.