It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chris Wallace: Democrats Are 'Fools' for Shunning Fox News

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Fox News correspondent Chris Wallace questioned the wisdom of the Democratic candidate's stance of refusing to appear on Fox News:


"I think Democrats are damn fools for not coming on Fox News," Wallace said in an interview with The Politico.

While Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson have agreed to be interviewed by Wallace, Barack Obama and John Edwards have declined.

Also, the Democratic candidates will not take part in any Fox News-sponsored debates. Wallace has moderated three Republicans debates this year.

"Just imagine if the Republicans, under pressure from right-to-life groups, refused to appear on CNN or MSNBC," Wallace told The Politico.

news.newsmax.com:80...

I agree with Wallace. Fox News gives all candidates an equal opportunity to state their issue on positions. The Democrat's decision to shun them can only be considered cowardly or immature.




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


cowardly and immature to shun a network devoted to espousing a lack of journalistic integrity, horrid personalities like coulter, hannity, and o'reilly, and a general hatred towards intellectualism and progressive values?

i'm sorry, but it's actually called being "sane and rational"

and anyway, fox news is a network full of cowards.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I think it is more likely that Democrats are afraid of discussing their positions. They have been pandering to the lunatic fringe for so long that no matter how much they now want to appear moderate, they must answer up for their past sins. To have to defend their actions would be embarassing at the least. Best for them to hide, as they have been doing all along.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Democrats don't like the hard questions they are sure to receive. They can't control the commentators like they can on CNN, or MSNBC. Remember Russert's question about illegal drivers licenses to Mrs. Bill Clinton? Bet he'll never do that again.

They don't want to go on the cable network with the highest ratings? It's their loss.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Well, on the one hand, Democrats should want to get on Fox news. No other news station caters so heavily towards those Americans who constantly vote against their own self-interests. Breaking through the partisan hate insulation to show American conservatives that yes, there are actually horses in this race who are good for the economy, who are concerned about the fiscal and health well-being of the American people, would be extremely successful. Give John Edwards twenty minutes on prime-time Fox, and watch the nation turn deep blue overnight.

On the other hand, this would assume that the candidates could get a word in edgewise between the host's interruptions, ad-hominem, accusations and non-issue snarky statements posed as questions in the first place. Antagonism, hostility, and insult don't make "hard questions".



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
wow people actually think FOX NEWS is news? i didnt realize. the network is so bought and sold it is not funny. i say this about all the corporate news services but with out a doubt FAUX NEWS is the worst.

i think it is great that political candidates are willing to boycott stations that have no moral standards and allow the hate mongering slander of the above mentioned correspondents and hosts.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Give John Edwards twenty minutes on prime-time Fox, and watch the nation turn deep blue overnight.

Well, they may turn blue, but it would be due to them gasping for breath because of the hubris of Edwards pulling stunts such as this:

Report: John Edwards Charges $55,000 For Speech On Poverty

It would be interesting to listen to him try to defend that.


[edit on 16-12-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Um, for people who think Fox Noise is News...

People who watch Fox Noise believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11 even though no Iraqis were involved.

People who watch Fox Noise believe Saddam had WMDs and we fond them.

People who watch Fox Noise believe Patriot Act is a good thing for America.

People who watch Fox Noise believe believe things are going well in Iraq because there are only 2-4 attacks a day on average.

People who watch Fox Noise believe Bush&Co are conservative even though they have done nothing Conservative.(Out spending every democrat, expanding government to include wiretapping American Citizens phones, citizens like John McCain and the ACLU and going into every bed room to sniff penises to make sure they don't smell like butt)

People who watch Fox Noise believe Bush actually won Florida even though all counts said Gore won. In fact the only reason Florida was a debate was because GWB's cousin at Fox Noise gave Bush Florida before counts were in.

In other words, not news.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Here's Rudy Giuliani's speaker fees (there's three pages, just so you know)
Mitt Romney made over $11 million from his speaking fees in 2006
John McCain? made $328,000 from it in 2001.
Mike Huckabee made nearly $140,000 in speakers' fees last year, including $35,000 from one given to a healthcare company
Ron Paul made $146,035 in speaking fees, plus $17,000 in consulting fees

I can't seem to find any data on the speaking fees for Fred Thompson or Tom Tancredo. Given they are who they are, I'm going to assume that nobody wants to hear them, and not that they speak for free.

John Edwards, like these other guys, charges for his speeches. I do not think that he was asking poor people to foot the bill, do you? That you expect him to "defend" what is in fact common practice that goes uncriticized from your own team, kinda lends credence to what I said about hte pointlessness of trying to go on Fox News.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HHH Is King
People who watch Fox Noise believe Bush actually won Florida even though all counts said Gore won. In fact the only reason Florida was a debate was because GWB's cousin at Fox Noise gave Bush Florida before counts were in.



I watch FOX News and I know that if ALGORE would have won his HOMESTATE of Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Wow, what a partisan Hack

"It's ok for the GOP to steal the election by rigging Florida because Gore didn't win Tennessee!" RR

How sad. I can just see it. 9/11 turns out to be an inside job and...

"Its ok for the GOP to rig 9/11 we got to kill hundred of thousands of brown people, kill US Troops, torture American Citizens, spend trillions on a pointless crime, "lose" billions when halliburton touches it." RR



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by HHH Is King
 



Originally posted by HHH Is King
Um, for people who think Fox Noise is News...

People who watch Fox Noise believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11 even though no Iraqis were involved.

Let's start with your first misstatement, because it is so totally false that debunking it will make it unnecessary to address your other misstatements:

I have never heard Fox News maintain the position that Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

I don't know a single adult who thinks Saddam orchestrated 9/11.

I don't know where you get your info from, but I can assure you it isn't from Fox News.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by The Walking Fox
 



Originally posted by The Walking Fox
John Edwards, like these other guys, charges for his speeches. I do not think that he was asking poor people to foot the bill, do you? That you expect him to "defend" what is in fact common practice that goes uncriticized from your own team, kinda lends credence to what I said about hte pointlessness of trying to go on Fox News.

I have no quarrel with Edwards charging for his speeches. You're missing the point. I was referring to the irony of a multimillionaire charging college students an astronomical fee for a discussion on poverty.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think it is more likely that Democrats are afraid of discussing their positions.


really? i've seen them doing plenty of that



They have been pandering to the lunatic fringe for so long that no matter how much they now want to appear moderate, they must answer up for their past sins.


lunatic fringe? spare me the o'reilly talking points.



To have to defend their actions would be embarassing at the least. Best for them to hide, as they have been doing all along.


they haven't been hiding, they've been discussing in forums where people won't be predisposed to bias against them.

again, i wouldn't go on that network of lunatics and cowards if i had half and ounce of sanity in my body, so i applaud the decision.
fox news: where you can be a hypocrite, so long as you're a republican.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Well, no. You did read the article right? The fee was covered partially by sponsors, and by ticket sales. There were about 1,770 people in attendance - if they had footed the entire bill, it would have come out to $31 per head. That's pretty darn good rates.

Expecting a speaker to speak about poverty for free is like expecting him to give his house to charity before speaking of homelessness



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Well, no. You did read the article right? The fee was covered partially by sponsors, and by ticket sales. There were about 1,770 people in attendance - if they had footed the entire bill, it would have come out to $31 per head. That's pretty darn good rates.

Expecting a speaker to speak about poverty for free is like expecting him to give his house to charity before speaking of homelessness


JSO is a Republican, therefore a Democrat chargng 10 dollars per person to speak is a crime against humanity while a Republican charging 1,000 per person to speak is just raising campaign finances. Damn Neocons, completely given Conservatives bad names because people still think the Republicans are the conservative party.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

To have to defend their actions would be embarassing at the least. Best for them to hide, as they have been doing all along.


I wasn't aware the Democratic candidates were "hiding." They've been in the news every day. They seem perfectly capable of explaining their positions on issues of importance. What, beside declining to appear on Fox News, should they be "embarrassed" about?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think it is more likely that Democrats are afraid of discussing their positions.


really? i've seen them doing plenty of that

Name 3 important pieces of legislation they've passed since they assumed the majority.

They have truly earned the nickname of "The Do Nothing Congress".



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
lunatic fringe? spare me the o'reilly talking points.

Of course you don't want to hear the truth. Just look at their chairman of the DNC - Howard Dean.


They are toning down their plans to make the US a socialistic society, at least until the election is over.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
they haven't been hiding, they've been discussing in forums where people won't be predisposed to bias against them.

Their entire platform for the past seven years has been to Blame Bush for everything.

They campaigned to eliminate the Washington "Culture of Corruption" when they have been the most corrupt group in history.

Their ranks are riddled with alcoholics and drug addicts.

They are pathetic.:shk:



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by HHH Is King
 


You lost all credibility with me when you posted that absurdly false thread entitled "More Republican Rapists".

And you have no idea of my political leanings, so don't assume that you know more than you do.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Name 3 important pieces of legislation they've passed since they assumed the majority.

They have truly earned the nickname of "The Do Nothing Congress".


$2.10 increase in minimum wage
Institution of the security recommendations of the 9/11 commission
Passed SCHIP - vetoed, but it passed Congress


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Of course you don't want to hear the truth. Just look at their chairman of the DNC - Howard Dean.


They are toning down their plans to make the US a socialistic society, at least until the election is over.


And what about Howard Dean? Please do elaborate. I'm going to presume you're going off something beyond the "yeargh," seeing as how you support a guy who's life was nearly snuffed out by a Rold Gold. Not much room to talk about embarrassing moments in a political career, y'know?


Ah, the ol' "socialist" spook. Can you elaborate on this one as well? And why, precisely, such a move would be bad? Myself, I figure a balance of capitalist venture and socialist protections is what gave us the economic golden era that conservatives idealize so.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Their entire platform for the past seven years has been to Blame Bush for everything.

They campaigned to eliminate the Washington "Culture of Corruption" when they have been the most corrupt group in history.

Their ranks are riddled with alcoholics and drug addicts.

They are pathetic.:shk:


Well, true. There's plenty of other piles of crap in the Bush administration that deserve a little credit. For instance the Republican congress in entirety. I don't understand my fellow Democrat's obsession with Bush. The dude's over, gone. There's stinkier fish in the barrel at the moment.

Democrats are the most corrupt...? You know the funny thing is, Fox news can talk about that Democrat who had a few hundred grand stuffed in his freezer, but even that outlet can't ignore the dozens of Republicans who got scooped up with him. And let's be honest... It's not Democrats getting caught with small children and no pants, and as yet, no democrat has offered to blow a cop in a public restroom. Or on a less gross level, no Democrat's asking for millions of federal dollars for a bridge to nowhere.

Alcoholics and drug addicts? Well, nobody questions that Ted Kennedy is 76% vermouth by now (and 24% olive) but who are the others? And seriously, have you taken a look at Bush of late? Dude's saucing a gain - can't say I blame him, honestly, but still...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join