Fox News racist or just hates Obama?

[slingblade]

Why are libs hung up on the name FOX "NEWS?"

Why are you so hung up on the label "libs?" You seem to need name-calling and labelling to make your points. This reveals a decided weakness in the arguments and the reasoning that forms them.

You are mildly entertaining, though. And you have a bit of froth on your lips, just....there. No, other side. Down a bit. Oh, never mind.

 

[Gene L]

This is stunningly goofy. I agree, it's frustrating when correspondents ask to be spoon fed common knowledge. But I've got news for you: What a given pundit may or may not have said several months ago is not common knowledge.

And meanwhile, you're positively indignant that people aren't sharing your and Cicero's hissy fit over an incident that you and he won't even bother to document -- an incident I'm unaware of. (I know, my posts make it seem as if I'm omniscient. Alas.)


But in Gene reality, what does this matter anyway? Making stuff up is part and parcel of vigorous journalism. Right?

So, the terrorist fist thing IS an insinuation against Obama, while "sounding like a warmonger" is not an insuniation against McCain? Ah, the world you live in!

I'm not trying to excuse anyone for anythign they said. It is what it is. While I don't accept the "Baby's Mama" or Babies' mama" or the terrorist fist as anything significant, if you do, fine. However, from repeated attacks against McCain on MSNBC, which can be seen each night, to claim such a high ground for Mathews and Olbermann while ditching whoever it was on Fox is kind of blind.

You have constantly accused me (by insinuation, perhaps, or actually, as in your post I quoted) as stupid and a liar. I am neither, just for the record.

And hey, work your way up to niscient and I'll consider you for omniscient.

 

[Gene L]

This is stunningly goofy. I agree, it's frustrating when correspondents ask to be spoon fed common knowledge. But I've got news for you: What a given pundit may or may not have said several months ago is not common knowledge.

And meanwhile, you're positively indignant that people aren't sharing your and Cicero's hissy fit over an incident that you and he won't even bother to document -- an incident I'm unaware of. (I know, my posts make it seem as if I'm omniscient. Alas.)


But in Gene reality, what does this matter anyway? Making stuff up is part and parcel of vigorous journalism. Right?

WARNING: the following post contains metaphors! Enter at your own risk.

So, the terrorist fist thing IS an insinuation against Obama, while "sounding like a warmonger" is not an insuniation against McCain? Ah, the simplistic world you live in! In one paragraph you condemn spoon feeding, and in the same paragraph (or maybe the next one) you abstain from looking it up for your self. So, what is the public to make of you?

I'm not trying to excuse anyone for anythinn they said. It is what it is. While I don't accept the "Baby's Mama" or Babies' mama" or the terrorist fist as anything significant, if you do, fine. However, it is a reach. You argue against the mote in Fox's eye, while ignoring the beam in MSNBC's.

Repeated and silly attacks against McCain on MSNBC, which can be seen each night, I submit as evidence. To claim the high ground for Mathews and Olbermann while throwing Fox under the bus is a form of myopia.

You have constantly accused me (by insinuation, perhaps, or actually, as in your post I quoted) as stupid and a liar. That I make up stuff, which is simply not so, and any unbiased reader can readily peruse these posts and see that it is not I who am the goat.

And hey, work your way up to niscient and I'll consider you for omniscient.

 

[varwoche]

So, the terrorist fist thing IS an insinuation against Obama, while "sounding like a warmonger" is not an insuniation against McCain? Ah, the world you live in!

It's clearly an insinuation against McCain.

And thanks for asking Gene, and for not knee jerking to self-serving conclusions. (Earlier I discovered that communication w/Gene works better if I pretend it's opposite day.)


(ETA opposite day clarification: It's clearly an insinuation; I mean that part.)

 

[Gene L]

Feeling passive aggressive? Heck, say it, I've got tough hide.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I hadn't noticed him doing so, but maybe he is more subtle about it. Anyway, I have not made a point of doing it to either side...if their are "sides", but in this case it struck me.

TAM

It's a standard MO, I am surprised that you are numb to it.

Maybe it's like me going deaf due to hearing turbine engines roar for so many years.

DR

 

[Cicero]

You're not answering the question, which is ...

"Beginning to look like a slut" and "being a slut" are now the same thing?

Well?

Of course it is the same thing. I noticed you did not answer how you would react in my scenario. Why is that?

Just as when E.D. Hill in bad taste, jokingly asked if Michell's knuckle knock with her husband was a "terrorist" sign, libs went ballistic and made no distinction about the fact Hill was using the interrogative, not the affirmative in the comment. Why are libs attempting every Yoga positon to excuse KO?

Olbermann calls McCain "crazy" in no uncertain terms, and says in a veiled attempt to camouflage the "warmonger" label, by using the "beginning to look like" preface, that if McCain looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, he must then be a "warmonger." To which KO's echo man Eugene Robinson, of “The Washington Post" replied, "He Does."

So both KO and Robinson accuse McCain of having all the characteristics of a "warmonger." Nice.

E.D. Hill's show was cancelled for her joke. Olbermann's "Countdown" is still on MSNBC as far as I know.

 

[Cicero]

Why are you so hung up on the label "libs?" You seem to need name-calling and labelling to make your points. This reveals a decided weakness in the arguments and the reasoning that forms them.

You are mildly entertaining, though. And you have a bit of froth on your lips, just....there. No, other side. Down a bit. Oh, never mind.

This is fascinating. You have no problem with the rabid anti-conservative comments and attacks on personalities made by MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, Keith Olbermann and Raychill Maddow, who admittadly have a limited audience, but much larger than JREF website, but you upbraid me for using the term "libs" when discussing the bias at MSNBC?

I guess this means that MSNBC's crew have "weak arguments and the reasoning that forms them."

 

[varwoche]

You have constantly accused me (by insinuation, perhaps, or actually, as in your post I quoted) as stupid and a liar.

Wrong yet again.

Here's what I have written, hold the insinuation: You're extremely evasive, grossly inattentive, biased in the extreme, and you spew presuppositions like there's no tomorrow. (Oh yeah, and you're a grammatically challenged grammar challenger. )

You're welcome for the feedback. Now can we get back to the subject, namely Fox News? I answered your question even though it was posed as a self-serving presupposition. Now maybe you can answer the question that's been posed to you numerous times in various forms, in a straight forward manner, without equivocation and without indulging in tu quoque:

Is it withing the realm of vigorous journalism to tout baseless smears facts be damned, ala the madrassa smear?

 

[Snide]

Another liberal distinction without a difference.

False.

If a son or daughter's mother were described by a third party as "beginning to look like" a slut, they would have a different reaction then if this person just referred to their mother as a slut?

If I'm that third party, I most certainly would! Are you kidding??

But then, I actually think.

Why can't libs learn to accept defeat gracefully?

No libs lost here. Why can't you learn how to think?

 

[joobz]

So, the terrorist fist thing IS an insinuation against Obama, while "sounding like a warmonger" is not an insuniation against McCain? Ah, the world you live in!

This is again extremely bizarre since it is clear what my distinction is.

If hannity was to say that Obama eats babies, I would make funny of hannity..but wouldn't hold it against fox.

I hold fox responsible for things that their news casts say. Baby-moma and the terrorist fist jab came during newsanchors. It just so happened that the one news anchor may or may not have had the news anchor hat on at the time.

This is clearly a different issue and one that you seem to enjoy ignoring. In much the same way you claimed how disgusting an attack ad by MoveOn was. But you've failed to explain why that attack ad was
1.) disgusting
2.) relevant to this discussion.

 

[joobz]

For the record:
I take Olberman's view as it is. It is a veiled attack against McCain as a Warmonger. We could pendantically argue the difference between saying it out right and saying it indirectly, but it doesn't change the tenor of what Olbermann was saying.


My problem is that it is a false comparison. There is a difference between talking head accusations and anchorman accusations.

If you had an example of MSNBC's newscasts making equally horribly illfounded accusations towards McCain, then there would be a point. Except the point wouldn't deminish Fox New's failing. It would simply mean that two news agency's are equally faulty. However, I will patiently await such data before making such a judgement.

 

[NotJesus]

... Raychill Maddow...

Please learn to spell 'Rachel.'

 

[Cicero]

Please learn to spell 'Rachel.'

My apologies to him.

 

[Cicero]

False.

If I'm that third party, I most certainly would! Are you kidding??

But then, I actually think.

As the person making the offensive remark, your "thinking" would be accompanied by a fat lip.

Instead of pretending KO didn't make the implication, why not just accept the obvious as joobz has. Or is the obvious beyond your mental acuity?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Oh great, another FOX News is bad but Cicero says otherwise thread. How I missed it? I don't know!

 

[Gene L]

This is again extremely bizarre since it is clear what my distinction is.

If hannity was to say that Obama eats babies, I would make funny of hannity..but wouldn't hold it against fox.

I hold fox responsible for things that their news casts say. Baby-moma and the terrorist fist jab came during newsanchors. It just so happened that the one news anchor may or may not have had the news anchor hat on at the time.

This is clearly a different issue and one that you seem to enjoy ignoring. In much the same way you claimed how disgusting an attack ad by MoveOn was. But you've failed to explain why that attack ad was
1.) disgusting
2.) relevant to this discussion.

It is less bizarre when you read back and realize I wasn't addressing you at all. Sorry, cowboy.

I don't have to explain the obvious, in that the attack ad was (1) disgusting, or

(2) relevant to this discussion. I carefully read the forum rules, in addition to a number of threads, and no where did it say I must walk a chalkline of orthodoxy.

Nope, I won't let you set the paramaters of the discussion. You are ONE strange person if you feel that you're the boss of me, or that you, yourself, are relevant to the purity of the thread.

I'm way too cool for that.

 

[GreyICE]

Oh great, another FOX News is bad but Cicero says otherwise thread. How I missed it? I don't know!

Remember, an offhand comment, "starting to look like an older, crazier, Barry Goldwater" and a blatantly racist term which is probably one of the most derogatory put downs I can think of are actually the same thing.

I mean does Cicero know what the phrase Baby Mama means? At all?

 

[Gene L]

I mean does Cicero know what the phrase Baby Mama means? At all?

I don't know about Cicero, but I don't have a clue as to what "Babys mama, baby's mama, or babies' mama" means. Nor do I understand what Obama meant when he brushed his shoulder at a comment (or statement, whatever) made by Sen. Clinton. Remember? I think it's an urban gesture, and one with which MSNBC understood, but not me.

What does "baby mama" mean?

 

[joobz]

It is less bizarre when you read back and realize I wasn't addressing you at all. Sorry, cowboy.

I was simply giving you a chance to actually have a productive discussion. What you do with that opportunity is your own choosing.

I don't have to explain the obvious, in that the attack ad was (1) disgusting, or

Actually, you do becuase I am not certain what YOU are call disgusting.
Is it disgusting that McCain is willing to war for 100 years?
Is it disgusting to highlight the human side of such a policy?
Was it taking McCain out of Context? Really, Ido not know what YOU think in this matter.

(2) relevant to this discussion. I carefully read the forum rules, in addition to a number of threads, and no where did it say I must walk a chalkline of orthodoxy.

I ask relevance because we are discussing Fox news and their bias/insults made during news casts. mentioning an attack ad by a PAC doesn't even begin to make sense in this regard. You might as well mention your favorite knitting patterns for as much bearing it has on the topic.

For the record. The referencing of MSNBC's potential bias is at least on topic. I think it a poor argument, but it is at least on topic.

Nope, I won't let you set the paramaters of the discussion. You are ONE strange person if you feel that you're the boss of me, or that you, yourself, are relevant to the purity of the thread.

It's unfortunate you interpret my posts in such a way.

I'm way too cool for that.

I can see you choose to avoid hard questions instead of debating them. Oh well, I guess you'll simply continue touting your 'liberals are bad' claptrap.