Fox News Sees ‘Violent’ ‘Union Thugs’ Attacking State Senator, But Senator Saw ‘A Lot Of Courteous People’

Michelle "me so hawny" Malkin. OMG that is hilarious. I thought she resembled a blow up doll in that still image of her.The difference, a blow up doll doesn't require near as much air to fill up their head as Malkin does.

take that humor on the road!

The only koolaide I drink Does not have Bill'o, or anything else from Faux in it. Just plain old Jim Beam Black label. In fact, that's what I'm having right now.

...or spit on anyone!

Hey just put it on mute.

Not the point. I am not going to scroll down and click mute on an auto-running ad. I understand they have to generate revenue, but running an audio-video ad automatically is just over the top to me.

I have not had auto-runnings ads on current.

Do you have an Auto-Run blocker? I did, but I think I may have to update it.

You can say nothing happened. You can't read their minds while it's happening. I don't think you could say he was never in potential danger. He was surrounded and then cornered. All it takes is one person to go off. There have been situations on the news (other than Fox) where union people shoved others and or made threats. You have no idea what someone walking along side of him might have been saying.

I want some historical examples of union violence against those who wish to harm them

"maybe, maybe, maybe our propaganda is true; if you just believe it hard enough, maybe its true" ~ you
there have been situations at the school lunch line, county fair, etc, where i was shoved by others. many threats have been given to me by my friends and others such as the police.
keep grasping, you might maybe, maybe find a good straw.

Yes, but I needn't, because Grothman stated it. The fact that he wasn't abused reaffirms the probability. As well, many of us are regularly surrounded by those who don't agree with us and "might" be thinking less than happy thoughts about us, like legislators regularly are. This article's reference seems to be of a relative and comparative one.

Are we debating for debating's sake now?

And you support everyone carrying around a gun I bet?

Grothman doesn't have the option of saying anything other than what he said. He doesn't need to upset Democrats any more than he has.

Why would you assume that? If I went to a right wing board there is plenty I could upset them about. I've been calling a flaming liberal on those boards when the discussion is not about fiscal conservatism and the American dream. I don't walk to anyone's drumbeat.

I do believe in gun ownership even though I don't own a gun. If a civil situation occurred where I had to defend my family and property I would want the option to purchase a gun. My bow doesn't load fast enough.

No, just additional points.

I hope you are keeping score. I've run out of fingers, lol.

uhmm... those people have a soul
it's just being loaned out to the seething overlord, rupert murdoch

lol

I love your avitar.

Ha!! there are some really cool people in Wisconsin,,,, this is great!

Thank you! Wisconsinites, at least the liberal ones, got quite the sense of humor! :)

Thanks! :)

LMAO!!! I love that photo!

Glad you appreciated it! I love to spread the joy! LOL!

priceless

Leen1 you out did yourself on that one LMAO

Thanks Nancy! That pic is classic and I had to post it. :-D

The Fairness Doctrine was not about what a network reported. It was about allowing time for conflicting points of view. The Fairness Doctrine was needed when television was only three networks. People who saw television before cable probably remember a news editorial in the last minute of the late night news. It was kind of a joke alternate opinions were aired at 11:29pm. With the advent of cable news it was determined by a Democratic Congress there was plenty of space on the airways for conflicting points of view without requiring networks to provide individual time and space.

Irony is when a law comes back to bite a party in the butt. When the Fairness Doctrine was ended CNN was the only cable news. At that time they leaned to the left. Ending the law benefitted the Democrats. Now the Democrats have a bulldog locked onto their rears by the name of Fox. The bulldog has more people watching than all the other cable news networks combined.

I gave you one more Up Vote to counter all the down votes you got. I did this because almost all of what you said was true. The only issue I take with your post is the assertion that because millions of people watch Fox News makes what they report true. Just because. Even if everyone BELIEVED a thing were true, that would not make it so.

Fox News has been shown to be liars so many times that it speaks more to the intelligence of the viewers rather than the number of viewers having any reflection whatsoever on the validity of Fox News.

+^d
However, "there was plenty of space on the airwaves for conflicting points of view."
also, you are correct...a new doctrine should be established...one in which no news works for profit and should be forced to mention constantly that it is foreign-owned and its founder and handlers have basically admitted to lying for profit...
News should be public, such as these free websites where everyone can learn and debate. and browse for articles and rate them. giving money to the writers per "like".
that sounds pretty good to me, but it wouldn't really fix the problem we have with our progressively established country that has been swamped up by the conservative and misinformed minority.

Personally I would like people to stop watching almost EVERY "News" channel. They are all biased and report a bunch of bullshit.

I have not noticed that on msnbc. I'm a libertarian, please point their faults that you have noticed.

I wasn't judging Fox News on anything more than their ratings. But don't confuse the evening news with commentary shows.

As I just mentioned in a previous post don't confuse news with commentary. Shepard Smith does the news on Fox. He's a Democrat. Everything else on Fox is right wing commentary. I don't believe MSNBC has news anymore since Brian Williams moved up to NBC. Everything on MSNBC in the evening is left wing commentary. None of these commentary shows are the news. They are slanted commentary on the news based on which side the slant is coming from.

Based on any given news story the commentary/spin from one side will be the glass is half full while the other side is telling you the glass is half empty. An independent person will look at the water level and wonder what the hell each side is trying to sell.

From what I've seen of these shows Beck is insane. But he knows how to entertain and make a buck. Hannity hit a wall and didn't get better. O'Reilly is the most objective of the group. Van Sustern bores me. On the other side Matthews used to be good (even though I disagreed) and lost it a few years ago. He's insane now. Maddow is interesting (even though I tend to disagree with her ...like her snarky style) and the most objective. O'Donnell and Schultz just don't sell. It's why their ratings are so low. The average person isn't going to buy their mad as hell schtick.

They're on commentary shows, not the news. Fox just suspended Gingrich and Santorum. I read they're reviewing suspending each potential candidate. Santorum is irrelevant. He has no chance. I voted for Casey over him. I was surprised Huckabee wasn't out in the first wave. Palin is irrelevant. Nothing is going to help her win. Fox has a lot of people under contract. Their success allows a big roster. They have more Democrats under contract than MSNBC.

You're right. I don't watch these shows very often. I don't want to sit in front of a tv waiting for something interesting. I don't need their opinions to form mine. I do see clips of shows from websites I check out.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/03/02/fox-palm-trees-and-wisconsi...

Here's the video......

Interesting...nothing you mentioned pointed to wrongdoing and misinformation my msnbc.
Yes, I have noticed that they comment on my news. but while msnbc may say: "the glass is half empty," fox goes further to say: "its halve full you satanist liers; and its probably filled with poison!"
The only sensible person on Fox these days(gretta had been) seems to be Shepard.
They're commentary usually doesn't affect me...I am not looking for someone to tell me what to do. the fat small guy on msnbc kinda annoys me for that. I loved keith's pompousness and Rachell's the best and Chris cozzies up everyone (like his conservative friends). Oreily tries at being balanced but fails... I'm speaking mentally, Hanity and Beck are completely mental...the only show worth watching on Fox was Red eye. though their isults got a little bit big sometimes. I love the news on Current, though it usually becomes trivial in peaceful times...and LinkTV (non-corporate news) is the BEST.

duh,
election season is comming up. they don't need any truthful accusations ruining their Australian plot for the destruction of America.
The Democratic political union allows for conservative democrats...unlike the republican political union which would burn if it touched a liberal.

Snarky is part of having a sense of humor. I laugh at the way she takes on the right. The reason Fox has so many potential candidates on their payroll is they have so many pundits from both sides of the political spectrum. This is how they have honest debate when they put four or five people at a table. Fox even has more left leaning pundits than MSNBC because Fox makes money and MSNBC loses money. MSNBC is nothing but a red ink write off for NBC.

I don't watch much of either network. I do see clips on websites from both. I'm going by the ratings. By your logic there are only a handful of intelligent people in the world and everyone else is an idiot. You're wrong. People who think like you are in a very small minority. The rest don't think you're an idiot as you see them. They have way too much respect for mankind. They just see your political views as off base. They're amused by your views.

You forgot George Soros' plot to undermine the financial stability of America. His history is to be there when currency fails and make millions shorting it. He uses the common man as his pawns. Pawns are the first to go on the chess board. The king lives for the spoils.

No, not the one that is being shown here.

Yes it is!!!
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/03/02/fox-palm-trees-and-wisconsi...

Point taken. My concern is that the right will plant someone in the crowd to start trouble. It would be right out of the Rovian play book.

I believe they are doing just that. They have no Moral code to keep them from doing dishonest actions. they are corrupt and they are proud of it.

The way i see it at least the camera guy an the two loudest people work for fox or they are planted by fox supporters.

Haha! Awesome!

Probably not since she became BFFs with Sarah Palin and Greta's husband became one of Palin's paid handlers.

don't be silly. there is a lot of Palin shit on her nose.

I was going to say this same thing, but you took care of it first THANK YOU!

My biggest peave about Fox lately is thier Antoinette-esque 'Let them eat cake!" attitude.

I can't watch them for even a SHORT period of time; they make me wanna exercise the minute amount of rage I have within me on them so bad... that I have to turn the channel.

Its also important to remember that if there is no conflict, FOX "News" will encourage it like they did with the NY Mosque episode and the Tea Bagger meetings. They have no place in a civilized society.

"What were the Fox "News" comments when the Democrats in Washington were being spit on and accosted, during the health care debates? Anyone remember?"

Just like the Fox newscaster in Wisconsin there wasn't video (you can't have it both ways). Eventually some Democrats admitted on television (video) the spitting and racist remarks never occurred.

Warren,

I have searched with Google and can find lots of information about the incident, but no videos. (I am not too good with the search words I guess, I tried health-care spitting Washington) I did see the video on TV, however. I found a number of print articles, about it happening. However, I found only one print article about anything being taken back, and it was a Fox "News" article. I do not trust them at all, so for me, that doesn't even count. How many viewers Fox "News" has is irrelevant.

Could you please direct me to a source, other than one of Rupert's properties, where I can read who took what back?

And I don't understand why someone voted you down for your post. Looks to me like you just want to discuss facts.

Anonymous has already begun to move on Glen Beck. My hope is that they broaden their actions to Fox News in general. They do not forgive, they do not forget, expect them.