Reply
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
648
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

648 Views
Message 141 of 164

@jimc91 wrote:

 

The truth is just not that difficult to uncover...

 

You're right on this one Jim.  You and Breitbart have just demonstrated that if you disagree with a bigoted Conservative talking point, you both will call them a Liberal.  Shepard Smith is far from being a liberal.

 

However, the segment didn't sit well with much of Fox's conservative audience, many of whom called for Smith to be “FIRED for his biased reporting!!!!" and moved to CNN for his “lack of objectivity.” It was hardly the first time Smith has gone against the grain of the network — and, to the chagrin of many Fox viewers, it likely won't be the last.

 

It's hilarious that when Fox viewers claim Fox is "Fair and Balanced" they cite their "contributors"....they NEVER point to Smith.  Now, when he fact checks the Conservative narrative on this issue, they claim he's a liberal and some what him fired.

 

Again, Conservatives never understood "fair and balanced" and once they actually see some "balance", they're outraged.  Bigots suck.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
648
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
633
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

633 Views
Message 142 of 164

@CriticalThinking wrote:

The reason Fox viewers are Fox viewers. is their gullibility and lack of thinking skills, which would enable them to see through the propaganda they recieve on a daily basis. Anything which contradicts their emotional beliefs is considered fake news. "Fake News", what an irony that is coming from a Fox viewer.

 

Remember, they are the same idiots who believed the often repeated story that Hillary stopped the military from responding to Benghazi.


IMHO, the appeal of Fox is Foxbots assert lies that make their viewers feel "comfortable" with their ignorant bigoted ideas.

 

This is very important to Fundamentalists - they are watching their most cherished beliefs be swept aside by the tide of History and are desperate to find some slender reed to grasp before they are forced to admit stuff they fervently believe may NOT be true.

 

So in exchange for the unthinking loyalty of the Fundies, the GOPers never say any of their views are wrong and never support Minorities, Women or LGBT in any of their legislation.

 

81% of Fundamentalists voted for Der Trumper, not just "in spite of" Lemontop's lack of morality and character, but BECAUSE he was attacking things Fundies wanted to attack - minorities, non-Christians, Women and LGBT.

 

Hard to imagine how anyone professing to follow Jesus could do such a thing UNTIL you realize these folks firmly believe once they "confess they love Jesus" they are forever saved, no matter what sins they commit. So if "sin" brings you political power, then by all means sin away - a good definition of neoRepublican morality if ever there was.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
633
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
649
Views

Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

649 Views
Message 143 of 164

The reason Fox viewers are Fox viewers. is their gullibility and lack of thinking skills, which would enable them to see through the propaganda they recieve on a daily basis. Anything which contradicts their emotional beliefs is considered fake news. "Fake News", what an irony that is coming from a Fox viewer.

 

Remember, they are the same idiots who believed the often repeated story that Hillary stopped the military from responding to Benghazi.

Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
649
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
644
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

644 Views
Message 144 of 164

In yet another episode of the neoRepublican soap opera "Days and Days of the Zombie Lie" they try to recessitate a lie that has been dead for a decade. Here's FORBES take on the baseless lies being told by the GOPer Ministry of Propaganda:

 

Concerning the lie the contributions to the Clinton Foundation were a result of "favors" granted by Clinton:

Indeed, Giustra's contributions to Clinton's charitable efforts have continued unabated. In 2007 Giustra, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helú and Swedish mining magnate Lucas Lundin each pledged $100 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative to promote social welfare projects in Latin America and Africa, where mining is an important industry. Giustra has also pledged 50% of his annual mining profits to that same program.

 

Clinton says, "I am proud of my work with Frank, and I am grateful for not just his support of my foundation but for what he has done for so many other charitable efforts all over the world. If Frank ever asked, I would be only too glad to introduce him to any world leader."

Both parties continue to insist Clinton had no role in helping Giustra seal the uranium mining deals--and Giustra blames the Times for the misleading talk of a quid pro quo that its story helped foster. Giustra says this could have been avoided, if not for some blunders in the Times story. Here are the ones that seem to have the most merit.

1. The Times claims that Clinton and Giustra arrived together in Kazakhstan on Giustra's plane on Sept. 6, 2005. But the manifest of the Chartright Air Group shows a flight date for Giustra's jet of Sept. 2, 2005, and the list of seven passengers did not include the former president. In fact, Clinton arrived in Kazakhstan four days after Giustra, on Burkle's plane, and stayed less than a day.

2. The Times says Kazatomprom, the state-owned uranium company, controlled the properties in which Giustra invested. Not exactly true. In the major purchase (Akdala and South Inkai) that cost Giustra $350 million, 70% was owned by Mukhtar Ablyazov, a Kazakh banker; only 30% belonged to the state. Even as to the Kharassan property, which was 70% owned by Kazatomprom, the state company did not sign the agreement by which Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., acquired a 30% interest for $75 million. The seller in the Kharassan deal was Jeffcott Group Ltd., a private company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

Giustra claims that "all of the terms [of the Kharassan deal] had been settled two weeks before" President Clinton's trip. He says that UrAsia and Jeffcott Group exchanged a final version of the agreement on Aug. 25, 11 days before Clinton's trip to Kazakhstan. Giustra maintains that Kazatomprom "was not a signatory to either of the MOUs [memorandum of understanding] signed by UrAsia in September 2005."

3. The Times quotes Kazatomprom President Moukhtar Dzhakishev as saying that Giustra's friendship with Clinton, as evidenced by the Sept. 6 dinner, "of course made an impression" with President Nazarbayev. But a subsequent memorandum written by Dzhakishev in response to the Times story says, "The meeting between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Nazarbayev could not have had any influence on the deal, because UrAsia purchased a share in a uranium deposit from a private company, and a deal between two private enterprises did not require approvals, neither from Kazatomprom, nor from the government."

4. The Times story also recounts that "[Dzhakishev] said Nazarbayev himself ultimately signed off on the transaction." But there is no proof of that. Rather, a bill was passed in October 2005 in Kazakhstan to ostensibly try to block China from acquiring PetroKazakhstan, a Canadian company with oil properties in Kazakhstan. Giustra's "UrAsia was not the intended target of the new law, and it was unclear whether we were subject to it," according to Gordon Keep, a key Giustra aide. But the lawyers for the underwriters insisted that Giustra obtain a waiver from the law anyway. That waiver was granted by V. Shkolnik, the Kazakh minister of energy and mineral resources, on Nov. 3, 2005.

5. The Times reports that Clinton and Giustra met at a fundraiser for tsunami victims at Giustra's Vancouver home in June 2005. Actually, that fundraiser was in January 2005, and Clinton was not present.  The two men did meet in June 2005, but on a philanthropic trip to Mexico and Colombia organized by the Clinton Foundation.

 

Mere facts have no place in the thinkiing of neoRepublicans, so this is not going to shift them back into the real Universe, but for those who have not yet had their brains eaten by the GOPer ZOMBIE LIES, this should assist in rebutting this set of lies from the Right.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
644
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
628
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

628 Views
Message 145 of 164
Fox News’ Shepard Smith drew applause from liberal media outlets Tuesday in a “fact check” marred with mispronunciations and misrepresentations.

 

Smith, one of Fox’s top liberals and who frequently opposes the network’s narratives, spoke at length on his show Shepard Smith Reports after Attorney General Jeff Sessions floated the idea of a special counsel to investigate recent revelations surrounding the 2010 partial sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Russian energy giant Rosatom. The sale was approved by the Obama administration as it included the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian giant.

 

In laying out the widely reported story, Smith mispronounced the name of the Canadian investor at the center of the scandal (calling him ‘Gweh-strah,’ then ‘Gwy-strah’ instead of the correct ‘Joo-strah’); the name of the government body that reviewed the deal (‘Si-fuhs’ instead of the correct ‘Sif-ee-us); and the name of a senior State Department official involved in the review (‘Fernando’ instead of the accurate ‘Fernandez’). Smith also incorrectly describes Uranium One is a South African company. It was Canadian and is now, in fact, a Russian state-owned company.

 

The details of the Uranium One story have received broad coverage from outlets such as the New York Times and considerable attention on Fox News, including a one-hour special hosted by Bret Baier which aired in 2015 on the release of the book Clinton Cash.

 

Among the many things Smith objected to was Clinton’s ability to influence the deal’s approval. “The Clinton State Department had no power to approve or veto that transaction. It could do neither,” he said.

 

 

He correctly states that it was CFIUS — the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — that made the decision. CFIUS is a cabinet-level committee consisting of representatives from several Departments and Agencies, including the Secretaries of the Treasury, State, Defense, etc. Smith claims that State was only one member and that the real decision was the President’s. However, Smith’s claim is misleading. While the final decision technically rests with the White House, CFIUS traditionally, and as far as is publicly known, operates by unanimous consent. Crucially, any one member can block a transaction. Such a “veto” can only be undone by the President, though there is no known case of the President overruling CFIUS since the committee was set up in 1975. In short, the Clinton State Department had the power to effectively gut the deal.

 

Hillary Clinton, in particular, has a history of resisting these sorts of deals. In one high profile case, a Dubai-based company withdrew from a deal that would put it in charge of several major US ports after a major public outcry. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was an outspoken critic of the deal and went so far as to co-author a bill blocking the sale. In the case of Uranium One, an objection from a sitting committee member would have been crippling for the deal.

 

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote.

 

Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

 

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.


Smith never mentions any of this.

 

“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

 

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

 

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

 

So, was Hillary Clinton involved in the Uranium One CFIUS review? Smith says we can take her word that she wasn’t and then trots out former Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say her hands are clean. Smith never bothers to describe to his audience who Fernandez actually is. A quick search of the Podesta emails on Wikileaks reveals him to be a Clinton partisan, writing to Podesta “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” Those words were written less than a week before Fernandez first went public with his declaration of Clinton’s innocence. One would expect Fox News viewers to be interested in such information.

 

But Smith isn’t done with his misrepresentations or falsehoods. He then boldly declares that no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country. A simple look at reporting by the New York Times and The Hill reveals that, in fact, it has happened on multiple occasions. Again, one would expect this to be of interest to Fox News viewers.

 

Fact checks should include all major transactions that relate to the question at hand. One can only wonder why Shepard Smith decided to include misleading analysis while excluding central facts which run counter to the claims he is making.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/11/15/fact-check-shep-smiths-fake-debunking-uranium-one...

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

 

The truth is just not that difficult to uncover...

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
628
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
485
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

485 Views
Message 146 of 164

 


@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:
I thought this video fits the topic.

https://www.facebook.com/goalcast/videos/1520326181377900/

A great "think piece" but FOX????? I'd love to see how you draw a connection.


How to draw a connection?

 

One inescapably draws a connection by being a logical, rational human being who, by habitually reasoning logically and effectively, persists in examining proposed postulates to determine whether they are fact based valid representations of the  real world, or are emotion based invalid attempts to substitute bias, prejudice and illogical rationalization for fact, logic, and real world rationality.

 

Easy peasy...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
485
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
489
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

489 Views
Message 147 of 164

@rk9152 wrote:

@MIseker wrote:
I thought this video fits the topic.

https://www.facebook.com/goalcast/videos/1520326181377900/

A great "think piece" but FOX????? I'd love to see how you draw a connection.


Here is a quick answer to the topic. YES

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
489
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
5
Kudos
532
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

532 Views
Message 148 of 164

@MIseker wrote:
I thought this video fits the topic.

https://www.facebook.com/goalcast/videos/1520326181377900/

Great video, MIseker.....thanks for posting it.  It's certainly a "keeper" worthy of sharing......though I think it would have more impact without the music.  Man Wink

 

In fact, it applies to many of the topics posted by many of the Conservaties here; they don't seem to THINK past what they are told.  For example, an incident will occur and the Left here responds pretty quickly on this forum.  It appears, many on the Right here wait for a news cycle or two and wait to hear what they're told by Fox, Limblah and Hannity before responding.  Truly lame, IMO.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Report Inappropriate Content
5
Kudos
532
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
478
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

478 Views
Message 149 of 164

@alferdpacker—SPOT ON!! BAM!!

 

Gee, I miss having a real president!

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
478
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
6
Kudos
485
Views

Re: Are Fox Viewers Idiots?

485 Views
Message 150 of 164

@MIseker wrote:
I thought this video fits the topic.

https://www.facebook.com/goalcast/videos/1520326181377900/

HOW to think versus WHAT to think...

 

Very un-republican - un-conservative, un-trumpian, un-evangelical, and un-fundamentalist  - where one is obligated to "think" in lockstep, and never independently check to see it the "official answer" is actually factually correct.

 

Liddle donnie never learned HOW to think - he used daddy's money to hire somebody to tell him the answer - and if he didn't like hearing the answer - he fired that person - and kept hiring until he found someone telling him things he liked to hear.

 

Liddle donnie's followers and supporters are content to accept their leader's answers as correct...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
6
Kudos
485
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Top Authors