Our Man Ailes

jmick

jmick

Active Member
Anyone else see this on the Limbaugh show a couple of days ago when the Elder Bush referred to Scott Ailes (CEO of Fox News) as our Man Ailes? Maybe Scott McClellan was on to something when he accused Fox news commentators of taking talking points from the White House.
No need to own the media when you control it
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2710436
Anyone else see this on the Limbaugh show a couple of days ago when the Elder Bush referred to Scott Ailes (CEO of Fox News) as our Man Ailes? Maybe Scott McClellan was on to something when he accused Fox news commentators of taking talking points from the White House.
No need to own the media when you control it

Before you start accusing people, McClellan back off his talking point claim. Said it was a mistake because his claim was unfactual.

But he was a good source of dirty dirt on Bush. lol
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...mcclellan.html
I wonder what else that guy was lying about?
BTW did you see this
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...01702713742569
They are in the tank for someone but it isn't the republicans...
 
jmick

jmick

Active Member
McClellan backed off because he's a nancy boy and didn't stand up to O'Reilly when it got heated. Really, the guy has zero cred.
I believe the NY Times gave McCain a reason as to why they wouldn't run his piece and offered him an opportunity to rewrite it so they could publish it (something to the effect that it was of little or no value).
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2710479
McClellan backed off because he's a nancy boy and didn't stand up to O'Reilly when it got heated. Really, the guy has zero cred.
I believe the NY Times gave McCain a reason as to why they wouldn't run his piece and offered him an opportunity to rewrite it so they could publish it (something to the effect that it was of little or no value).
I wasn't refering to the McCain piece, the more important piece of info is the 100 to 1 donation rate of people in the media to Obama.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Who is Scott Ailes?
So when McClellan says something bad about Republicans or the non liberal media he is the golden boy but when pushed he retracts his statement he is a wuss?
Yeah, the New York Times told McCain he needed to include a timetable in his plan for Iraq. Since when does a publication dictate the details of an OpEd? There is a reason why the times subscriber base has evaporated so much over the last few years. Lack of credibility.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2710479
...I believe the NY Times gave McCain a reason as to why they wouldn't run his piece and offered him an opportunity to rewrite it so they could publish it (something to the effect that it was of little or no value).
Believe what you wish...
The actual reason was mccain's plan didn't agree tp the NYTimes' demand of a cut-and-run timetable. McCain was told until he had a timetable his piece would not be published.
how's that for the "fairness doctrine"?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
I thought the NYT decision was great, they endorsed the guy, then started telling him how to write an oped. It is their paper they can make the decisions. I just hope McLaim figure out his "friends" who helped build his "maverick" status were just using him and he was their puppet. If only vietcoms had used that tactic instead of beating the heel out of him, they would have got him to do whatever they wanted...
He seems to be getting the picture however, his last two adds were pretty funny and effective. Because all you really can do is laugh at some of obama's supposed ideas.
And can someone PLEASE EXPLAIN to me how raising taxes on oil companies will actually lower costs?
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
We all know Fox and Republicans are in bed together... I don't see why there is so much flack for the guys comments. Fox is highly skewed on all topical stories and coverage.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2711645
I haven't looked at it, but assume O'Reilly is against Big Oil... So is that to say that Rebulicans are for Big Oil?
Is that the best you can do? Seriously?
No O'reilly thinks there is a massive conspiracy blames it echoing liberal sentiments. He is advocating more government controls.
Do I think that Republicans (I don't get the rebulicans joke) are for promoting domestic business growth, yeah, if not they should be and that includes oil companies. Are you saying the dummycrats (I get this joke) are apposed to growth of domestic business?
Why would you be against an American company that provides thousands of well paying jobs to all levels of education. The funny thing is the oil business is one of the few places a guy with a GED and go in and make 80 grand a year with 6 figure earning potential with experience. Not to count the energy that allows us to drive cars, materials to make things like plastic. Imagine your life without plastic. Are you saying you and democrats are opposed to this.
Why worry when oil companies make "to much money" but stress when GM loses money? Why villify the very thing that has been the fuel of our economic success?
That is funny you ask "So is that to say that Rebulicans are for Big Oil?" As if it is a bad thing that something in america is successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top