Now to the sane Fox News defender. Some of their reporters work for The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is a Republican leaning newspaper.. There is no surprise there. If they work for the New York Times, or Washington Post, now you have something to point to. You know that these reporters have to look at both sides of an argument. They would also have to get their articles by the editors at these two newspapers.

B. Hume and B. Baer are two excellent reporters. The Five has both progressive, and conservative views. They do, but not in equal proportion. There are four Republicans, and one Democrat. Apparently dividing by two is a problem to hard for Fox News to solve. How is 80%, 20% fair or balanced? The Democrat is constantly being constantly being shouted down from several sides at once. How is that fair or balanced? Does the Democrat get to chose what is being discussed 50% of the time? Probably not. Again how is that fair or balanced? The Five is hardly the gold standard for fair and balanced reporting.

What is the age breakdown of Fox News viewers. Aren't most of them over 50 ears old. Concerning the other stations, maybe the younger viewers are just plain fed up with what is going on in Washington, and not watching the news at all. Who could blame them? Ed Shultz, and Al Sharpton (bigot of all bigots) should not be on the air. If MSNBC is losing viewers because of these two, that makes complete sense.

Who determines what a scandal is? Benghazi is a good example. How many congressional hearing have there been on Benghazi, five? These hearings are no longer about the families of the slain Americans. They are a political attack on Hillary Clinton. How many hearing were there on the Iraq war? Four thousand Americans lost their lives there. What about their families?

President Obama is being attacked on a daily basis by more than a few Fox News reporters. Why not swing back.? What is he, Jesus Christ, so he has to turn the other cheek? They have called him every name in the book, socialist, community organizer (like that is something bad), Kenyan, liar, liar, liar, racist, communist, and dictator wannabe. He probably isn't let Afro grow out, because a crown doesn't look good on an Afro.

In your praise I noticed that you didn't mention the two male reporters on Fox and friends. The president referred to these two as potted plants. That shoe really fits. these two always have a dumbfounded look on their faces.

If you really want to see the fair and balanced news station at its finest goggle "Fox News Hypocrisy".

Joe Biden had his chance in 2008 and couldn't break out of the pack. He finished way behind even John Edwards.

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?

Listen to Hillary Clinton's speech tomorrow on the economy and maybe learn something.

We will have to wait until election night to find out. If Hillary loses, I will bring the champagne to tea party headquarters and we can have a real hullabaloo, celebrating Trump's or Bush's or Walker's or whoever's win.

I hope it's a better party than the ones in 2008 and 2012 when the gang of six showed up to celebrate only to go home in tears.

I have observed on here that it seems the liberal posters take great delight in avoiding issues and ALWAYS have little slick mocking names for anyone in the Republican Party. Most times based on looks or some such thing.

I offer to the conservatives that henceforth Hillary Clinton be called one of the following...

The old lying frump

Big Hill

The Split Tongue Devil


your choice

Certainly should I post on TOTV, will never give her any respect. It just seems fair to do it that way.

Also noticed that the Liberal posters take great delight in making fun of other posters. Perhaps those that post from the other side might take the same tact and instead of being serious about anything, make it your objective to make as much fun of these people as possible.

After all, as they always tell everyone on here, they are the only ones that know anything, thus you cannot certainly hurt their feelings as you would a normal person.

[QUOTE=Guest;1085976]

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?
-------

Very easy to list all the AOWMIC (Angry Old White Men In Congress) policies that support women. There aren't any!!!

Let women have complete rights to their own bodies!

Dear Guest: Democrats have an obsession with historical first's. It seems that it has been lost on them that the focus of the first black president neglected to consider qualifications. There is not one area of government that Obama has touched that is now reeling from his incompetence.

Now Democrats want another historic event by electing the first woman president but again we find their selection short on bona fides and long on irresponsibility, accountability. questionable ethical practices. A Carly Fiorina can run circles around Clinton. Please if you insist on a woman president fin one that can effectively do the job because Obama has created a widow maker for the next elected president

Personal Best Regards:

[quote=Guest;1086002]Dear Guest: What you speak to is the same straw man Oops better replace it with same straw woman argument.

The wage argument is such a false narrative. How do I know because I had been involved for many years in a number of states and working with various companies in these communities who shared information to determine market value. I established job description pay grades performance evaluation programs and monitored them. I worked as an operation manager and the women and men's salaries were determined by performance and annual review did not reveal any such discrimination. by the way I am a white male and I happen to believe in equal treatment and I seldom get angry

You speak of control over your bodies and as I recall roe v Wade has been around for a very long time. I also notice that America is suffering a dangerously low responsible replacement population because of low birth rates.

I will admit that I believe in life over choice but then I can only speak to my personal belief.

You speak of violence against women and I wonder why reality shows draw such a large female audience?

Most of all your argument is weak because it has nothing really to do with deciding on the best presidential candidate. In other words I view the economy, foreign policy, our defense, future sources of energy, etc to be priorities and I also believe that social issues you obsess on should be dealt at the state level


Personal Best Regards:

[quote=Guest;1086043]
Hillary Clinton will be giving the first of many speeches on the economy tomorrow, laying out her vision for the path forward. Sorry, will get back to you with the time of speech.

[quote=Guest;1086002]OK.....OK....OHKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have us convinced there is one plank in the Clinton platform. She is a female.
So post after post after post like the one above the priority is to get a female.....no other traits or characteristics or capabilities not required or matter.
Post after post verifies that Clinton's negative ethics, honesty and peronal issues are of no concern.

We get it.....Clinton....female....OK.

Does this mean there are no real female candidates with honor and integrity and personality in the democratic camp.

We all know that there has to be.

Why is it OK to have a flawed unethical, dishonest shrew-ish female to represent the gender?

For many of us it just does seem right to compromise principals and character to accomplish a goal.

And oh by the way some of us are also weary hearing that the only candidate that understands and adequately serve women is a woman. We all know that is not true as well.

Can you honestly say that Clinton is the best you can do to represent your party and or your gender?

I'll save you the keystrokes....we ALL know she is not. Under normal circumstances with no name on the resume' or track record her resume' would not make the first cut!

Take a look at what a black has done in almost 8 years for the blacks. Ask them if they are any better off.

Ya just gotta have more than race or gender for qualifiers.

Dear Guest: If you read the Wall Street Journal and I have since 1978 you would find that their focus is on anything that affect the economy. In plain English I have seen them take both Democrats and Republicans to task . But I am not here to defend the WSJ. As to the Washington Post and the New York Times as I recollect they have had more than their fair share of journalist who have been proven to falsify their stories

If you were also honest with yourself you would have acknowledged that Obama is such a egotistical personality that unless you agree with him your on his enemies list. But what is lost on you is that the reason he strike back is because they keep catching him with his hands in the cookie jar.

You make reference to the age of Fox viewers and that begs the question do you have an age bias? And haven't you heard from enough alternative sources that many young people have been so disengaged that they have no idea how our government operates who runs our government etc etc etc

If you pay attention to The Five format you would recognize that liberal panel members get to participate in the planning of each day's format.

You reference what and who defines a scandal and claim for instance that Benghazi is just being politicized by the Republicans. But with every Obama Admin scandal the same approach is undertaken deny stall demonize make light of it. Obama Team are artful dodgers but the real credit goes to the liberal media who justify the means and let Obama 's Teams malfeasance go uncheck. There is a ring of truth to the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Clinton Charitable Foundation and Clintons intentionally destroying e-mails from her personal server to hide embarrassing and damaging facts about her Benghazi and her Foundation and the news media and people like you are complicit . Why does Obama & company continue to block such investigation if they have nothing to hide? Doesn't Occam Razor suggest that the simplest explanation is the most likely?

The non sequitur statements about Fox News again is a straw man/woman argument because Fox News is the only news outlet that has said out loud the emperor has no clothes

Personal Best Regards:

Yes, it has been shown once again that the Republicans are running scared of Hillary Clinton.

I heard on Fox News this afternoon that the Republicans are spending over a BILLION dollars in the next few months to "villify" Hillary Clinton. This will be a massive influx of negative tv ads and the ever popular robo-calls.

Yes, this was on Fox News today (Sunday, around 4 pm).

Villify was their wording, not mine.

Gee, you didn't get WHO said it, or in WHAT CONTEXT ?

Could they have been discussing the NY Times article from yesterday..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/us...o-test-it.html

Or perhaps the context was the 25 ADDITIONAL million recently raised through George Soros for the same purpose...

Soros Helps Raise Nearly $25 Million For Hillary Clinton

Or perhaps, and sorry I have no links on this but reports are that Soros is waiting for the Republican candidate to be formulated before his next check that will be for the super packs that do the negative.

Are you really so naive, OR is your intent in implying that only Republicans are raising money for this purpose a bit skewed ?

You have to be that naive to post that

Forty posts and not many specifics about who in the GOP is strong enough to beat Hillary Clinton, in answer to the OP's question.

It seems way too early to tell what may come out between now and the Elections in November 2016.

Right now I would expect Bush vs. Clinton as both seem to have the best name recognition and are trying to pull many into their corners. Trump has a lot of name recognition but he is probably angering many more people than he is convincing to possibly vote for him. Cannot see how he can take back his many ugly expressions of his ideas.

I sure hope that everyone understands how stupid this thread is...1 /1/2 years ahead of an election and a year and 1/4 before a candidate is selected. NOBODY can even get close to responding