Fox News: At it again

gah · November 14, 2012, 05:43:32 PM

Quote from: slslbs on November 09, 2012, 12:07:18 AM
most of it seems pretty bogus.
Romney had some major gaffs in Europe.
in 08,Obama's "guns and religion" was on the new like crazy, same with his pastor.
All politicians "stretch the truth" but Romney and Ryan made it an art
debate1 Romney "my health care plan covers pre existing conditions" - which is campaign "took back" several hours later. Even Ari Fleischer said it was a real head scratcher. Ryan's marathon time - reported as embarrassingly false (sub 3 hrs vs just over 4 hrs) by that well known pinko publication Runner's World.
and then, there's the Jeep fiasco (btw, Bain bought Delco when this was all going on and did, in fact, transfer jobs to China)
I could go on.

of course, the real reason Romney lost was Chris Christie and hurricane Sandy.

wait, wasn't Sandy an act of God?
What does that say about bias of the Supreme Being?
Jesus is a lefty

If Jesus is a lefty, he's alright by me.

mbw · February 11, 2013, 02:01:56 PM

check out this anti feminism opinion piece by some anti-feminism author entitled "To be happy, we must admit women and men aren't 'equal'

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/05/to-be-happy-must-admit-women-and-men-arent-equal/#ixzz2KcQgoSD8

VDB · February 11, 2013, 03:03:31 PM

^ I lost count of the fallacies and gross over-generalizations after about paragraph number three. Clearly just a quick little hack piece to help pimp her new book.

VDB · March 26, 2013, 11:18:10 AM

foxnews.com is asking its visitors today whether the Supremes should overturn Prop 8. I'm sure you'll find the results of this poll to be rather shocking!

sls.stormyrider · March 26, 2013, 10:00:48 PM

I wonder what they will all say when DOMA comes up for review.
Do the Fox viewers think the Supreme Court should overturn it because it's a state's issue?
anyone willing to take a wager?

runawayjimbo · March 28, 2013, 12:17:33 AM

Quote from: slslbs on March 26, 2013, 10:00:48 PM
I wonder what they will all say when DOMA comes up for review.
Do the Fox viewers think the Supreme Court should overturn it because it's a state's issue?
anyone willing to take a wager?

From what I've read that's likely to be Kennedy's position for joining the 4 liberals in overturning it. But to your question, no, I'm sure they will conveniently forget their appreciation for federalism. Of course, Fox viewers I don't really fault; how Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito can get away with it is beyond belief.

Re Prop 8 it sounds like they will just refuse to rule on it based on standing. Effectively a punt but gay marriage will still be legal in CA. It may not be a national win, but there is little doubt that marriage equality is simply a matter of time. Especially given the recent number of politicians who are coming out in favor of it since they are always late to the party.

VDB · March 28, 2013, 10:23:18 AM

I was talking with a (gay) lawyer friend of mine about the standing issue. On the surface it sounds strange they'd agree to hear a landmark case like this only to refuse to rule on it and let the prior ruling stand. Unless SCOTUS is just so bent on delivering a firm message to the lower courts about how standing works, which I'm sure would be far too wonkish and oblique for either side to find much satisfaction in the outcome.

But if the conservatives on the court really believe states (and their voters) should be allowed to ban gay marriage if they want, wouldn't they want to find a way around the standing issue so they can (in their hope) rule on the case? Or are they afraid they wouldn't be able to find a majority of conservative viewpoints on this and it'd be safer to let the 9th Circuit's ruling stand than risk having the entire SCOTUS winding up overturning gay marriage bans nationwide?

As for DOMA, my friend seemed to think it's dead in the water. Even if you can get past the standing question on this one (DoJ refuses to defend it, but the House of Reps, who obviously helped pass the law, seems to have a legit stake in defending their own laws), this case seems so fundamentally unfair that you'd think anyone should have a hard time defending it.

runawayjimbo · March 28, 2013, 09:46:19 PM

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on March 28, 2013, 10:23:18 AM
I was talking with a (gay) lawyer friend of mine about the standing issue. On the surface it sounds strange they'd agree to hear a landmark case like this only to refuse to rule on it and let the prior ruling stand. Unless SCOTUS is just so bent on delivering a firm message to the lower courts about how standing works, which I'm sure would be far too wonkish and oblique for either side to find much satisfaction in the outcome.

Kennedy was asking the same question during arguments, openly saying they probably should not have agreed to hear the case. But the Rights + Kennedy never had to consent in the first place as (I think) you only need 4 votes to grant cert. So while I agree it seems strange that they'd hear it just to kick it back, I understand the logic (inasmuch as the law adheres to logic). And remember, the Justices aren't egotistical trial lawyers looking to adjudicate their way into history through landmark decisions. They are much more comfortable following current precedent than setting new ones.

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on March 28, 2013, 10:23:18 AM
But if the conservatives on the court really believe states (and their voters) should be allowed to ban gay marriage if they want, wouldn't they want to find a way around the standing issue so they can (in their hope) rule on the case? Or are they afraid they wouldn't be able to find a majority of conservative viewpoints on this and it'd be safer to let the 9th Circuit's ruling stand than risk having the entire SCOTUS winding up overturning gay marriage bans nationwide?

I think Scalia and Thomas (possibly joined by Alito) almost certainly will make this case in their dissenting opinion. But as far as I know, Kennedy has been pretty gay friendly, most notably writing the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas overturning Texas' sodomy law, so he was never likely to join in a sweeping rebuke to gay rights. I think the 4 liberals would much rather extend the Equal Protection clause and make gay marriage a protected national right (look for a Ginsburg concurrence). But without Kennedy, the right never had a real chance to overturn the lower court's decision.

Buffalo Budd · July 15, 2013, 02:48:59 PM

This is incredible:

mbw · July 15, 2013, 02:59:53 PM

Quote from: Buffalo Budd on July 15, 2013, 02:48:59 PM
This is incredible:

http://week4paug.net/index.php?topic=6924.msg704856#msg704856

and not fox news, just saying.

Buffalo Budd · July 15, 2013, 03:13:37 PM

Ahhh, I haven't been in that thread in awhile. My bad.
I'm pretty sure they were a fox news affiliate but i could be wrong. Got it from this:

QuoteBay Area Fox affiliate KTVU purportedly learned the names of the flight

mbw · July 15, 2013, 03:17:09 PM

Quote from: Buffalo Budd on July 15, 2013, 03:13:37 PM
Ahhh, I haven't been in that thread in awhile. My bad.
I'm pretty sure they were a fox news affiliate but i could be wrong. Got it from this:
QuoteBay Area Fox affiliate KTVU purportedly learned the names of the flight

'Fox News Channel' and your local fox affiliate are two entirely different things, just saying.

:-)

Buffalo Budd · July 18, 2013, 08:55:38 AM

I see, consider me schooled then.
I guess it shows that I rarely, if ever, watch the news.

PIE-GUY · July 29, 2013, 11:50:00 AM

idiots being idiots... http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do

VDB · July 29, 2013, 02:01:39 PM

Quote from: PG on July 29, 2013, 11:50:00 AM
idiots being idiots... http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do

Wow....

Of course there's no point in dissecting this too much, but I'll point out the use of that time-honored Fox News tactic wherein they trot out "critics say..." and let those criticisms stand in for FN's underlying bias. Although in this case the host herself really didn't hold back much in that department.