• Dec 19th 2010 at 5:16PM
  • 184
And you thought Fabio got the rough treatment when he went on Fox News. Try being Olivier Chalouhi, the first non-celebrity to take delivery of a Nissan Leaf.

Chalouhi braved the right-wing media machine to talk about his car, but the conversation turned almost immediately into a "bash the unions" segment instead of a real discussion about electric vehicles. There was also a lot of Japan-hating. One example: The host asked, "Why in the world are we paying Olivier $7,500 to buy a Japanese car?" The response (from one of the right-wing commentators), "Because we have a lame-duck Democratic administration that believes in this stuff." That's pure fantasy, since the history of the plug-in vehicle tax credit goes back to October 2008. Not that reality has any real connection to Fox, anyway. The Fox representatives also laughed about how much they enjoy putting gas into their cars, which just makes one's head hurt.

Chalouhi posted the following to the MyNissanLeaf forums about the experience (edited a bit for clarity):
I did check with Nissan Corp before accepting the interview, and yes it was a pure evil setup from Fox.
I wanted to return the question to them with the foreign oil angle, but they wouldn't give me the speech back.
Sorry about that guys, I should have known better, but I don't watch TV, I don't have cable, and I'm not from the U.S. The sad thing is that I'm sure that some Americans will watch this and think, "heh, he's right, why am I paying $7,500 to this guy?" (heh, not only is the car Japanese, but I'm French :p) ok, I'll stop here, I don't want to be dragged into political discussions... The car is great ! That's what matters
The video is unembeddable, so you need to head on over to Fox to watch it. We apologize. Actually, no. Blame Joe V. for the tip.

[Source: Fox]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 4 Years Ago
      Global Warming is a Scientific issue, not a blogger issue, and the Scientific community has determined, thru peer reviewed journals, that it is real, and will have devastating Economic Costs.

      Secondly, 2010 was the warmest year on record, the last decade was the warmest decade on record, glacier's are in full retreat Globally.
      And finally, Russia's Heat Wave that killed 2000 people, and $15,000,000,000 of wheat, and Pakistan's floods that cost $17,000,000,000 in damage, and killed more then 2500 people Were Predicted by the Climate Models.

      Let me ask you, when the US get's it with a $15,000,000,000 heat wave in our Southern Farm States, what are you going to do then? South Western states are already seeing drought conditions, and Georgia as well. How much do your Lying Eye's have to See before you believe the Scientific Consensus?

      This country wasn't built by people pretending problems don't exist.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Read Mike, Read...

        "MAN-MADE" global warming does NOT exist! Your government-sponsored U.N. "scientists" don't count. There is warming, there is NOT man-made warming.

        It sounds like you've got a LOT of catching up to do...
        • 7 Months Ago

        The first three paragraphs of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ably and accurately summarize global warming. Instead of making a stream of inaccurate wrong mischaracterizations, please say exactly what part of that you disagree with. The American Academy of Science has twice reviewed the science behind "those wacky U.N.-sponsored climate group-thinkers" and concluded in 2010 it is indeed"settled facts", read http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=22

        The next ice age will indeed be a huge problem for the human race. But the onset of the next one might be 500 years from now, more likely 1000, but could be 16,000 years or even more away. I urge you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials Meanwhile, climate models predict temperature increase of "a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century". That's the pressing problem we need to address and have a very limited time frame left to do so.
        • 7 Months Ago
        mylex, when you talk about your gov. philosophy I can understand where you're coming from.

        When you dispute co2 production and global warming, you've got no basis in fact:
        Peak Oil, Peak Coal, Peak Water, Peak Fish and Global Warming all have to do with a human population explosion in the last 200 years, and global industrial production.

        "Coal is mined commercially in over 50 countries. Over 7,036 Mt/yr of hard coal is currently produced, a substantial increase over the past 25 years.[11] In 2006, the world production of brown coal and lignite was slightly over 1,000 Mt, with Germany the world’s largest brown coal producer at 194.4 Mt, and China second at 100.6 Mt.[12]

        Coal production has grown fastest in Asia, while Europe has declined. The top coal mining nations (figures in brackets are 2007 estimate of total coal production in millions of short"

        • 7 Months Ago
        Mike, please. Most of what you've said about liberals is true, but some things are a bit ridiculous.

        First, liberals are not for American jobs regardless of what they intend. If you knew anything about wage theory and the economics of employment, you'd know that. 15.3% FICA tax and 10-15% Federal income tax rates for people making $75,000 and under is not pro jobs. Creating a tax system with a very narrow base on the wealthy is not pro jobs. Minimum wage is not pro jobs. Pro union is not pro jobs. Liberals are pro-increasing-nominal-wages. Not such a hot idea unless it's 1960 and our biggest economic competitor doesn't want capitalist jobs.

        Liberals want to wave the magic wand of jobs, but every time they try, things get much much worse. The latest green jobs deal has been the worst of all. $140 oil was supposed to give us a vibrant green energy sector with 3-4M new green jobs! Uh, we got 10% unemployment, and record national debt and federal deficits b/c oil popped the credit bubble. The Republicans said as much which is why we wanted drilling referendums and to open ANWR to spook off the speculators and the Chinese mercantilists. No, that was just the evil big oil companies talking so Democrats went on vacation early instead (Is there a law against drilling and taxing? I'm confused). Also, back in the day, liberals thought that inflation created jobs in the long term. Oops, that led to stagflation. Do you know what the biggest pro-job, pro-little-person policy is? FULL EMPLOYMENT at low wage earning jobs. Wanna know how liberals achieve full employment? They pay people not to work or they hire them at twice the market rate for a Federal job. Will the Democratic party kindly join the rest of us in the 21st century? This isn't the 1950s.

        Global warming is a crock too. The earth is getting warmer which could lead to weather patterns that destroy the planet. Okay, sounds reasonable, what do we do? If we reduce carbon dioxide, temperatures will go down and weather patterns will stabilize. LOLZ, wut? Did you just say if we reduce carbon dioxide we can control the weather? Please excuse me, I have to go laugh until I cry. The earth has been getting warmer for tens of thousands of years, and history actually suggests that it is global cooling that causes global famine, disease, and destitution, not warming.

        Anyone who says that global weather apocalypse is the compelling reason to reduce CO2 emissions might as well be reading from the book of Revelation. The church of climatology is not for me, and I'll ask you to respect the separation of church and state. We are supposed to be making better products that pollute less and increase the standard of living. Same thing we've been doing for a long time. Maybe we need to double our efforts, but the church of climatology is not the compelling reason.
        • 7 Months Ago

        What is the point of reducing CO2? We need to reduce global temperature. Why do we need to reduce global temperature when recent history suggests that global cooling is extremely dangerous? b/c we have to stabilize weather patterns to avoid fire and brimstone. What?! I really hope you are not telling people that you intend to control weather patterns.

        If you don't understand that human beings are always pushing to make better products that are more efficient and pollute less, I can understand why you'd need to resort to the church of climatology. It really isn't necessary. You can get the word out about the possible damaging effects of CO2 and the benefit of green energy without apocalypse stories or patently absurd claims that green energy will stabilize the climate. We cannot guarantee climate stability at all. Not even a little bit.

        If we were actually intelligent, we'd unleash the power of the American private sector and mobilize it to create green energy b/c if the climate doesn't change, we are going to need powerful industries to help the US adapt. We choke the private sector with everything from public healthcare and public retirement to threats of cap and tax and gasoline excise. If we want new technology, we need to accelerate private industry not stifle it and then pretend that self-flagellation atones for American per capita greenhouse emissions.
        • 7 Months Ago
        mylex, I'm sorry, but I don't have the faith you do that global warming will be a benign issue, since it's already produced $15,000,000,000 in damage to the Russian Wheat crop this year, along with Pakistan floods and Chinese mud slides. And again the SouthWest is in drought conditions, there's a global drought actually, with Georgia also in drought.

        Also, there's the issue of the "right" on the one hand saying Global Warming isn't real, and on the other Rushing all over the World to Acquire Water Rights. To me that's the smoking gun. Your "leader's" know it's real and are preparing to make Big Money.

        Lastly, we're going to get another 2 Billion people on the planet in the next 30-40 years, with world resources already tight. If nothing's done we will pollute ourselves into extinction.

      • 4 Years Ago
      Potpie said, "And 2010 is the warmest year on record? And exactly how long have we been keeping records? 100 years? That's a gnat's eyelash in the history of the earth."

      Potpie, you ever heard of ice cores? Look it up because I don't have time to explain first grade science to you. Look up petrified wood as well. One of these have physical characteristics that allow scientists to check Co2 levels and one of these allow climate change to be ascertained, these records go back tens of millions of years. We are over 325 ppm Co2 content never before reached and never in such a short time.

      ABG should alarm us to the FUD that the unsuspecting public is going to be bombarded with from here on out. There is much money at stake for the status quo and they will not give up their cushy profits easily. Thank you ABG for this article, as the godfather believed, so to, do I, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Make no mistake we who drive and promote EV's are the enemy of Fox news and all others that are controlled by the oil economy and its largess, in turn they are my enemy. They choose to fight EV's every step of the way and I choose not to help them bankrupt this country by burning oil using the 20% ICE heater the auto corps churn out for profits in maintenace and repair.

      As Chis M mentioned I also truly believe Fox should do more research on their stories. I did not know they were so incompetent. If they spend air time on it they should at lest know what the Leaf costs. Leaf costs approx 33k not 60k as the new anchor indicated , and I do use the label "news anchor" loosely in this case, they should also know the subsidy amount if they are so concerned about the 7.5k the tax payers get to keep in their pocket, instead, they asked the guy three times. Being halfway informed before doing a interview at one time was a intricate part of reporting, now it's all about ratings and creating arguments as quickly and uniformed as possible. If you must start interviews like this you need experts to set the facts straight and the facts were absent much like the experts. I saw no experts, I knew far more about the subject than any of them.
      • 4 Years Ago
      @mylexicon, I don't know if I agree with your nefarious political ends of liberals. I think that all interested parties, myself included, have some type of agenda, though. Mine is more of an energy independance view. Further, I just would rather spend money on getting to that goal of independence, than funding extremists.

      Corporations have their agenda in place also, with the profit motive being their driving force. The free market philosophy is fine, as long as it is driven by responsible people, both ethically and financially. I just worry that we would be missing some great advancements that we have today without some government oversight, and subsidies (highways, phone networks, etc.

      I consistently try to work for the best, and prepare for the worst situations. I wish all the interested parties would do the same.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Fair enough, I just see far too many arguments about pumping water downhill. The abuse of reason is so egregious that I automatically assume that the intentions are nefarious. Washington's only methods of enforcement are economic ruination, imprisonment, or death. Those are the biggest negative externalities on earth and free-market negative externalities pale in comparison to the certainty of government punishment. Government externalities have extraordinarily regressive effects on mankind and they should be used sparingly. Sometimes I forget the politicians have simply lost touch with reality and they don't even see the "business end" of the machine they've built.

        I could perhaps get behind government involvement for infant industry protection or for national security purposes, but neither of those motivations permit demand subsidies. Demand subsidies drive prices up (Washington is hoping that economies of scale will reverse the trend) and affect primarily wealthy buyers. Hybrid tax credits are inequitable and unnecessary at best. People complain about Bush tax cuts while they give upper class individuals $7,500 CREDIT to buy new golf carts (okay, that's hyperbole, but if you're poor, an electric vehicle is just a toy for "the rich").

        Also, I think you'd be saddened to find out how much corporations are anti-free market and how much the establishment has an inborn skepticism of modern economic theory like supply-side economics (neoliberalism). The establishment does not want upstart competitors taking their turf whether it is US companies or foreign competitors. They hop in bed with the government at every available opportunity assuming there are few strings attached. The reason personal computing, internet and the long-tail (internet niche vendors) have taken off is simply b/c they were not competing against any entrenched businesses with Congressional support. Green energy doesn't have it so easy. They are competing with the biggest industry on earth which is why information, not government intervention, is the only thing that will prevail.

        If we attack the establishment via the government we are giving them a really good chance to beat us b/c they know how to work over people in Washington. If we use good information to change consumptive habits without government incentives, the establishment is mainly powerless.
        • 7 Months Ago
        The free market philosophy is fine, as long as it is driven by responsible people,
        both ethically and financially.

        Twenty years ago you'd be a Republican for holding that view, today you're a Liberal. Glad you joined the club.

        This is what Liberals stand for today:
        - The US continuing to be one of the most powerful nations, for good, in the world.
        - Jobs for Americans.
        - Investment for the Future of This Country.
        - Recognize and Solve Problems today, before they become Catastrophes tomorrow.
        - Control of Wall Street Fraud.

        Republican's have become the party that justifies Destroying this Country and all Jobs in this country, with Protection for All Monopolies, and no Investment in an American Future.

        It's sad to see there are so many still Fooled by the "Republican" Agenda.
        • 7 Months Ago

        Liberals claim to hate Republicans, so it's ironic how much liberals love to paint themselves Republican, isn't it? Everything in your post is absolutely backward. Its no secret that this is how you prey on and recruit anyone who is not yet familiar with these terms and the political views of each.

        Republicans/Conservatives are 100% pro-America. America was founded Republican.

        Democrats/Liberals despise America, everything America stands for and are for Socialism & Communism.

        "The free market philosophy is fine, as long as it is driven by responsible people, both ethically and financially." - This is a Republican view; Democrats hate free market.

        More conservative views that you claim are liberal:

        - "The US continuing to be one of the most powerful nations, for good, in the world." (as liberals are hell-bent on destroying everything American and taking America and all industrialized nations back to third-world status, this might not have been your best claim.)

        - "Jobs for Americans." (liberals are constantly taxing business owners more and more at each opportunity. They do not want would-be employers to be able to higher people.)

        - "Investment for the Future of This Country." (liberals despise those who invest. They continuously lie about how "the rich sit on their money." liberals do NOT want money invested; they want money handed out - as long as it is not THEIR money!)

        Not "have become:" liberals ARE "the party that justifies Destroying this Country and all Jobs in this country, with Protection for All Monopolies, and no Investment in an American Future."

        "It's sad to see there are so many still Fooled by the [Democratic] Agenda"

        Seriously Mike. Get some facts. Anyone can look this stuff up for themselves. They really don't even have to look. All they have to do is go to any liberal media: MSNBC, Gawker, DailyKos, Huffington Post, ABC, CBS, HBO, Comedy Central, Media Matters, Talking Points Memo, The Young Turks, etc.; every single one of them preaches HATE for America, free markets and anyone who dares to stand up for America, like the Tea Partiers, the Truthers, the Birthers.
        • 7 Months Ago
        @ joe

        No, subsidies don't have to be given to the wealthy b/c demand subsidies are not the only form of subsidy. Producer subsidies do not drive prices up if they are used wisely and they generally put less pressure on prices anyway. No subsidy is best of all.

        The government is just too wuss to commit large amounts of money upfront. A $7,500 credits on $40,000 vehicles doesn't really match the "we love the middle class" mantra. If oil does spike back to $140 per barrel......I guess the wealthy and the upper middle class have been taken care of by the government even though they can afford $5 gas. Everyone else is screwed all over again. Yay, government. Always looking out for us.

        P.S. trickle down doesn't work b/c everything that trickles down gets consumed by higher FICA taxes. Check out the historical data since the 1980s. In 1981 FICA was 10.7% and it stopped at 30,000. Now it's 12.4% and FICA tops out at 106,800. ABSOLUTELY GUTTED BY SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE.
        • 7 Months Ago
        "Hybrid tax credits are inequitable and unnecessary at best. People complain about Bush tax cuts while they give upper class individuals $7,500 CREDIT to buy new golf carts (okay, that's hyperbole, but if you're poor, an electric vehicle is just a toy for "the rich")"

        Short sighted thinking.

        The tax credit is given to the consumer only to pay the automaker. The automaker then uses this increase in revenue to produce more volume and larger production capacity to offer cheaper EVs to the masses.

        Yes, I don't agree with giving this incentive to Tesla buyers.... but yes for automakers like Nissan and GM who are planning to drive down costs in the future.

        Subsidies MUST be given to the rich... cause the rich are the only ones with the power to invest in the future. (if you give it to the mid/lower class, they will NOT use it to invest in more EVs for the future). You know, "trickle down" economics! Isn't that a conservative idea?
      • 4 Years Ago
      I am wondering if these guys are some of the smarter guys Fox has working for them. If so they are doomed. Bada bing bada boom, it is just so much easier bankrupting this country by borrowing from China to pay terrorist in the middle east for my oil, why are we giving out tax breaks for EV's. All the tax breaks should continue to go to foreign terrorist countries via oil subsidies. Sad to think people believe this is respectable news reporting.
      • 4 Years Ago
      I think American news in general is just terrible these days. I see lots of yelling matches. Experts are called in, they are only given two seconds to say anything and the host is asking the opposing expert's opinion to get a heated argument going. It's sad, and the reason why I don't tune in.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Don't worry, f*ck F*x, you have the best deal. Let them worry about $4 a gallon gas prices when they drive their escalades and F150's.
      • 4 Years Ago
      By great Teslas ghost, where did all of these trolls come from.
        • 7 Months Ago
        Well said! Trolls indeed!

        Most of these posts make the folks at Fox News look like intellectual giants!

        The Fox news commentator was really out of line by attacking Olivier Chalouhi. As a private individual he is entitled to claim all the tax benefits he can legally obtain.

        Isn't this the conservative philosophy?

        I'm sure the Fox commentators exercise their right to tax-minimisation practise.

        The real point of the commentator was lost when he tried to introduce to many disparate issues, confusing himself and his audience.

        It's perfectly valid to criticise the government for offering tax-payer funded credits to a foreign corporation in preference to a US product, but in this case there is no US rival.

        A more valid criticism could be why the government hasn't provided sufficient incentive to a US corporation to produce a Leaf-like vehicle.

        The Fox commentator's error of judgement (and poor taste) was to attack the wrong target. In attacking Olivier Chalouhi, rather than praising his choice and eliciting from him a regret that no US made product is on sale. It would have hight-lighted the Obama administration's lacking in faith US workers and Industry to provide Olivier Chalouhi with the choice of a US-made alternative.

        To the rest of those trolls attacking EV's per se, you just don't get it, do you!

        No matter how efficient the ICE becomes the primary source of its energy will soon become unavailable. Investment in a dying technology is pointless for a nation as innovative as the US industry was one renowned.

        IMHO, it is essential that the US Government provide adequate incentives for a US made range of battery-extended EV's. The emphasis of such incentives should be directed to those EV's where the ICE component is a small diesel designed to run on bio-diesel. Ford already has a range of suitable vehicles in production or production ready. All it needs is a really worthwhile and efficient government incentive program to kick-start make the initial investment economically viable.

        Such a program would dramatically boost the US economy and reduce dependence on foreign oil supplies.

        For those who haven't noticed, the USA and its western allies are already locked into the opening stages of a long trade and influence war of with the PRC and it's sphere of influence. This is not a war of morality, good v evil, but a war of resources.

        For the first time in 250 years, the US finds is at a disadvantage.

        Crippled by debt, demoralised with internal dissension, beset by crazies, forced by history to expend vast amounts of national treasure defending western values abroad, while being forced though lack of those same resources, to neglect domestic infrastructure and social improvements, the US is a giant being eroded by pygmies.

        The PRC, is unburdened by the moral and philosophical obligation to play the world policeman. Nor is the yuan the world currency. The PRC can deploy the full power of it's government and private enterprise in unison for common purpose, unfettered by the UN or moralistic regulations. Nor does the PRC worry about domestic criticism, elections, world opinion, debt, labour costs, industrial action, etc..

        In dealing with resource rich but badly governed third world nations the PRC, is aided by a policy of non-intervention in its trading partners domestic politics, human rights record or other such considerations.

        The PRC also has the advantage of an ambitious and hardworking middle class of potential consumers. This middle-class already exceeds the entire US population and is growing at astonishing speed.

        In contrast US society is in decline, social decay and uncertainty have shaken the confidence of the most confident nation on earth.

        Like it or not, US allies need the leadership of a confident, competitive, US. The world needs the US gift of organisation , economic optimism and innovative genius.

        EV's incentives are a small beginning, in the quest to provide US industry with a competitive edge.

        • 7 Months Ago
        Fox news has long been seen as favoring conservative republican beliefs. See term “Media Bias”. Now, I don’t see “republican” as a dirty word. I have friends & family that are republican. They have a curious set of beliefs, and are just as clueless as I on this unfathomable monster that we call the US economy. I do see republicans as advocates of business, and business interests. Where would this stance on electric cars come from? What is the biggest business in the world right now? How many Republicans hold stock in oil? If there were no Saudi prince major shareholder in the Fox News parent company, I do not think that the interview would have been any different. The touchey feeley “save the polar bears” thing just doesn’t work for them. The smarter approach in arguing with republicans is “domestically produced power (energy independence)”. Another one is “the volatile nature of oil prices in the age of peak oil”. How smart is it basing the success of an economy on such a violate commodity? Biofuel burning EREVs, hydrogen vehicles and BEVs are what we will be driving in the future. We need to be developing and spreading this tech now. This planet cannot keep up with the demand for oil. We can prepare for it now, or suffer the consequences.
        The Chinese? Make sure that your kids learn Mandarin. China won’t be able to keep the value of their currency down forever, and cheap labor is disappearing with the rise of their middle class. In time, our industries will be able to compete on a more level playing field. They don’t seem to be able to touch our manufacturing tech now (unless they steal it), and they certainly can’t touch our quality (they will in time). That doesn’t seem to matter in the present, as they can produce product for a fraction of the cost. What will this mean to America? Very little. Just fer fun look up how much our countries manufacturing contributes to the GNP. We’ll get a few more jobs down the road, but don’t expect China to go away. We will be playing 2nd to them, or they will be second to us. One thing is certain. Chinas voice will be important in the coming world.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Why stop at FOX News? CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, they're all in it for the money. They're all in show biz. There's no real news reporting anymore. They're all trying to out do the other for the ratings. I can hear it now "this news alert just in, the world will end tomorrow. More after this commercial break".
        • 7 Months Ago
        Comparing Fux "news" to those channels is like comparing the TB bacteria to those that reside in your mouth. The latter may stink a bit but the former is downright poisonous.
      • 4 Years Ago
      As hard as it may be to do, put yourself in Fox News' place. (Faux News, lol, you think of that one yourself?)

      What do we have today? A press release from Nissan USA covering the first LEAF electric golf cart delivery. Who is this guy? Let's see, a French-speaking guy with a Middle Eastern name living in suburban San Francisco. Eligible for a bunch of Federal Tax money for buying this thing, you say?


      Get this guy on camera stat!!!
        • 7 Months Ago
        Any legitimate news outlet would do their research first. Faux Spews knows that would be too risky - they might actually learn something that goes against their agenda.
      • 4 Years Ago
      There are idiots on both sides of the fence. This video is certainly an example of one side. I'd like to believe if we stop paying attention to extremists (either side), they'll fade away.
        • 4 Years Ago

        Apparently it's not Fox making people "dumber." Learn English.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @nrb: Interesting reply, especially considering that your avatar (an ostrich) is known for sticking its head in the sand and hoping that bad things will "fade away".

        Sad truth is that there's too many people out there who DO believe this extremist nonsense, and as long as they have an audience, people like the clowns on fox news will continue to spout misinformation to the masses.
        • 4 Years Ago
        TrippulG3, that's kinda funny. In the case of entertainment (pretending to be news), I think it does apply though. If people didn't watch, it would just go away.

        The problem is that extremism sells. Meritocracy doesn't.
        • 4 Years Ago

        You are very slow...
        • 4 Years Ago
        watching fox news will make you dumber and dumber by the day.
        • 4 Years Ago

        What "extremist nonsense" are you referring to?
        • 4 Years Ago
        No they won't, and we need to point out their BS.

        There are probably millions of people who watched this, and now have the same exact attitude towards EVs. People are getting dumber and dumber by the day.
      • 4 Years Ago
      FAUX NEWS is completely off my radar and
      has been for years.... too many fools & lies!
      • 4 Years Ago
      @Ian Bruce

      "Since you've crowned yourself the 'all-knowing'..."

      That is just typical liberal cowardice for you. You know you're about to bring up arguments which you know you can't win, so you try to shift the focus to hate, pinning future readers against who you're arguing with and blinding them from your fictitious B.S.

      Feel free to link to your proof that any of the issues you bulleted are "misinformation." Prove that "they are all completely and demonstrably false."

      "If you answered "true" to any of of them, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. They are all completely and demonstrably false."

      Well, obviously you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're just whining about Fox to be whining about Fox. Had you any sense at all, you'd look this stuff up, instead of claiming that you know Fox is "deliberately misinforming its viewers."

      No doubt, you likely get your info from MSNBC, Huffington Post and the like. Talk about misinformation...
        • 7 Months Ago
        Says the nutcase who likely voted for Obama...
        • 7 Months Ago
        Your very presence spews ignorance to any one around you. It's people like this retard who would have followed McCarthy back in the day and still go on their witch hunts looking for the buggy man behind everything that faux news or any other right wing and some times "left" puppets will tell them.

        People like you are just puppets keeping the wealth exactly where it has been for centuries and you go right along with them voting and acting against your own best interest but you're to stupid to even know it.
        • 7 Months Ago
        @Dave D & Ian Bruce

        [my original reply to this either did not save or it was deleted. so...]

        "It is not even hard to prove what Ian said. Case in point:
        - the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts...FALSE"

        Key phrase there being "Ian said" not 'Fox said'. Most likely none of what Ian tried to pass off as claims from Fox ever came from Fox. It's just his left-wing spin that he probably got from someone else, who got it from someone else... The whole liberal movement is made up of no more than third-rate, timid followers, so none can be expected to lead with facts.

        A new case in point:
        - the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts...FOX NEVER SAID IT!

        "You are simply arguing because you support the views of Fox News and not bothering to look fto check their facts"

        You might consider doing some fact checking yourself, Dave. Because you just searched Google, grabbed the first liberal blog you found and posted the link. Unfortunately for you and Ian, the search result just below the one you chose to link to was a Fox News report that debunks Ian's claim entirely.

        Have a blast, you too. Don't choke too hard.

        "The House legislation includes an estimated $544 billion in federal spending and $275 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses."


        1 Shot, 2 Kills
        • 7 Months Ago
        ..says the blabbering, brainless Palin worshipper. How much Meth have you had today?

        • 7 Months Ago
        Seriously, Nick. Don't be such a baby.

        You've attacked me, Palin, Beck and Fox, but you have provided no base for you attacks. Well, other than just you being a liberal coward.

        Facts That You Have Provided:


        Wait. What's wrong here? Oh, right. You haven't provided any information at all. You have only whined that all too familiar mommy-they-dont-like-me lefty whine.
        • 7 Months Ago
        It is not even hard to prove what Ian said. Case in point:
        - the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts...FALSE

        You can find the contents of the stimulus package in nearly any source. Here is an example:

        " Much of the $275 billion in tax cuts would go to middle-income families in the form of $1,000 tax cuts ($500 for individuals). An array of business and other tax cuts would make up the remainder. "
        ( http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-01-15-obama-stimulus-plan_N.htm)

        You are simply arguing because you support the views of Fox News and not bothering to look fto check their facts.
    • Load More Comments