Bridg,

all you need to know is that "foamie" is a bitter old angry man's attempt at being "cool" by making what he thinks is a funny contribution to the pool of internet memes.

and it is funny, i'll grant him, in a "laughing at you, not with you" kind of way.

i mean, i dont know for sure, but i think even most of the conservatives here find him rather painful.



[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 9:33 AM. Reason : page 5 of more hilarious hooksaw]

10/15/2007 9:32:35 AM

foamie isn't even defined in urbandictionary

hooksaw: fail




[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 11:15 AM. Reason : fail]

10/15/2007 11:14:25 AM

^^^ Obviously, you do give a shit--and you brought up "foamie," not me.

^^ Hey, everybody, joe_shithead is trying to show us--again--how smart he is by using the word "meme." GG!

^ Coming from you, that's a badge of honor.

10/15/2007 1:11:52 PM

Quote :

"i mean, i dont know for sure, but i think even most of the conservatives here find him rather painful. "

That's because he makes them all look bad.

10/15/2007 1:19:57 PM

^ My badges of honor grow exponentially.

10/15/2007 1:58:37 PM

only an out-of-touch old fucker would think "meme" was an uncommon word on the webernetz

10/16/2007 7:55:26 AM

yeah, i was kind of about that.

just surprising that a grad student in English would go and play the "cool to be ignorant" card.

meh

:-/

10/16/2007 2:14:05 PM

the liberals are out to get up

a turrists in the house next door and a liberal living across the street. better get out the 12-gauge civil war in amoungst us

10/16/2007 2:23:30 PM

Hooksaw is a fucking idiot

/message_topic.aspx?topic=487455

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 2:51:34 PM

^ that thread was so full of stupid, i can't figure out what the hell was going on there. I also cant figure out what it has to do with Hooksaw. maybe you can give us the executive summary?


(though the baby powder comment WAS pretty damn funny)



[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 8:21 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 8:20:57 PM

^^^ Will you stop posting that fucking stupid "turrists" bullshit? It makes you look like a dumbass.

^^ Fuck you, motherfucker--find somebody else to troll.

^ He's probably referring to whole I-Me controversy. And, yes, the thread in question was a stupid thread started by a stupid person: herpball. You'll notice that I didn't participate in it--hell, I didn't even know about it.

In any event--back on topic--here's the latest liberal media outrage. The following comments are from LTG Ricardo Sanchez (Ret.), who had some harsh words for the Bush administration, but most media outlets didn't even report his harsh words about the media itself (sorry about all caps; that's from the transcript):

Quote :

"THIS IS THE WORST DISPLAY OF JOURNALISM IMAGINABLE BY THOSE OF US THAT ARE BOUND BY A STRICT VALUE SYSTEM OF SELFLESS SERVICE, HONOR AND INTEGRITY. ALMOST INVARIABLY, MY PERCEPTION IS THAT THE SENSATIONALISTIC VALUE OF THESE ASSESSMENTS IS WHAT PROVIDED THE EDGE THAT YOU SEEK FOR SELF AGRANDIZEMENT OR TO ADVANCE YOUR INDIVIDUAL QUEST FOR GETTING ON THE FRONT PAGE WITH YOUR STORIES! AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR MEASURE OF WORTH IS HOW MANY FRONT PAGE STORIES YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF YOU WILL COMPROMISE YOUR INTEGRITY AND DISPLAY QUESTIONABLE ETHICS AS YOU SEEK TO KEEP AMERICA INFORMED. THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS WHOSE EFFECTIVENESS WAS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF INTELLIGENCE REPORTS HE PRODUCED. FOR SOME, IT SEEMS THAT AS LONG AS YOU GET A FRONT PAGE STORY THERE IS LITTLE OR NO REGARD FOR THE 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' YOU WILL CAUSE. PERSONAL REPUTATIONS HAVE NO VALUE AND YOU REPORT WITH TOTAL IMPUNITY AND ARE RARELY HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR UNETHICAL CONDUCT. GIVEN THE NEAR INSTANTANEOUS ABILITY TO REPORT ACTIONS ON THE GROUND, THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY REPORT TAKES ON AN UNPRECEDENTED IMPORTANCE. THE SPECULATIVE AND OFTEN UNINFORMED INITIAL REPORTING THAT CHARACTERIZES OUR MEDIA APPEARS TO BE RAPIDLY BECOMING THE STANDARD OF THE INDUSTRY. AN ARAB PROVERB STATES - 'Four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity.' ONCE REPORTED, YOUR ASSESSMENTS BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE. OTHER MAJOR CHALLENGES ARE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO BE MANIPULATED BY 'HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS' WHO LEAK STORIES AND BY LAWYERS WHO USE HYPERBOLE TO STRENGHTEN THEIR ARGUMENTS. YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCURATELY AND PROMINENTLY CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES AND YOUR AGENDA DRIVEN BIASES CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT. ALL OF THESE CHALLENGES COMBINED CREATE A MEDIA ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES A TREMENDOUS DISSERVICE TO AMERICA. OVER THE COURSE OF THIS WAR TACTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT EVENTS HAVE BECOME STRATEGIC DEFEATS FOR AMERICA BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS POWER AND IMPACT OF THE MEDIA AND BY EXTENSION YOU THE JOURNALIST. IN MANY CASES THE MEDIA HAS UNJUSTLY DESTROYED THE INDIVIDUAL REPUTATIONS AND CAREERS OF THOSE INVOLVED. WE REALIZE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NEAR REAL TIME REPORTING ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU FACE IT IS DIFFICULT TO REPORT ACCURATELY. IN MY BUSINESS ONE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS IS THAT 'THE FIRST REPORT IS ALWAYS WRONG.' UNFORTUNATELY, IN YOUR BUSINESS 'THE FIRST REPORT' GIVES AMERICANS WHO RELY ON THE SNIPPETS OF CNN, IF YOU WILL, THEIR 'TRUTHS' AND PERSPECTIVES ON AN ISSUE. AS A COROLLARY TO THIS DEADLINE DRIVEN NEED TO PUBLISH 'INITIAL IMPRESSIONS OR OBSERVATIONS' VERSUS OBJECTIVE FACTS THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CHALLENGE FOR US WHO ARE THE SUBJECT OF YOUR REPORTING. WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT YOU ARE CORRECT AND ON THE MORAL HIGH GROUND ON A STORY BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONS YOU PROVIDED IS THE ULTIMATE ARROGANCE AND DISTORTION OF ETHICS. ONE OF YOUR HIGHLY REPECTED FELLOW JOURNALISTS ONCE TOLD ME THAT THERE ARE SOME AMONGST YOU WHO 'FEED FROM A PIG'S TROUGH.' IF THAT IS WHO I AM DEALING WITH THEN I WILL NEVER RESPOND OTHERWISE WE WILL BOTH GET DIRTY AND THE PIG WILL LOVE IT. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR STORY IS ACCURATE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS INTENDED. THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS STATES: ...PUBLIC ENLIGHTENMENT IS THE FORERUNNER OF JUSTICE AND THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY. THE DUTY OF THE JOURNALIST IS TO FURTHER THOSE ENDS BY SEEKING TRUTH AND PROVIDING A FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES. CONSCIENTIOUS JOURNALISTS FROM ALL MEDIA AND SPECIALTIES STRIVE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC WITH THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY. PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY IS THE CORNERSTONE OF A JOURNALIST'S CREDIBILITY THE BASIC ETHICS OF A JOURNALIST THAT CALLS FOR: 1. SEEKING TRUTH, 2. PROVIDING FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES 3. THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY ALL ARE VICTIMS OF THE MASSIVE AGENDA DRIVEN COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SUPREMACY. THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR. MY ASSESSMENT IS THAT YOUR PROFESSION, TO SOME EXTENT, HAS STRAYED FROM THESE ETHICAL STANDARDS AND ALLOWED EXTERNAL AGENDAS TO MANIPULATE WHAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEES ON TV, WHAT THEY READ IN OUR NEWSPAPERS AND WHAT THEY SEE ON THE WEB. FOR SOME OF YOU, JUST LIKE SOME OF OUR POLITICIANS, THE TRUTH IS OF LITTLE TO NO VALUE IF IT DOES NOT FIT YOUR OWN PRECONCIEVED NOTIONS, BIASES AND AGENDAS. IT IS ASTOUNDING TO ME WHEN I HEAR THE VEHEMENT DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MILITARY'S FORAYS INTO INFORMATION OPERATIONS THAT SEEK TO DISSEMINATE THE TRUTH AND INFORM THE IRAQI PEOPLE IN ORDER TO COUNTER OUR ENEMY'S BLATANT PROPAGANDA. AS I ASSESS VARIOUS MEDIA ENTITIES, SOME ARE UNQUESTIONABLY ENGAGED IN POLITICAL PROPAGANDA THAT IS UNCONTROLLED. THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT THE STRENGTH OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR FREEDOMS REMAIN LINKED TO YOUR ABILITY TO EXERCISE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS - I ADAMANTLY SUPPORT THIS BASIC FOUNDATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND COMPLETELY SUPPORTED THE EMBEDDING OF MEDIA INTO OUR FORMATIONS UP UNTIL MY LAST DAY IN UNIFORM. THE ISSUE IS ONE OF MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND STANDARDS FROM WITHIN YOUR INSTITUTION. MILITARY LEADERS MUST ACCEPT THAT THESE INJUSTICES WILL HAPPEN AND WHETHER THEY LIKE WHAT YOU PRINT OR NOT THEY MUST DEAL WITH YOU AND ENABLE YOU, IF YOU ARE AN ETHICAL JOURNALIST. FINALLY, I WILL LEAVE THIS SUBJECT WITH A QUESTION THAT WE MUST ASK OURSELVES--WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ETHICAL STANDARDS OF THE PROFESSION IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT OUR DEMOCRACY DOES NOT CONTINUE TO BE THREATENED BY THIS DANGEROUS SHIFT AWAY FROM YOUR SACRED DUTY OF PUBLIC ENLIGHTENMENT?"

http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2007 11:52:02 PM

GODDAMMMITTT I CANNTTT REAAD THISS ALL-CAPS BULLSHIT!!!!!!1

even though i want to




...

im going to run this text through a perl script to make it lowercase. maybe i'll repost it then.



[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 12:03 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 11:57:50 PM

^ That would be helpful--it's in the transcript that way. And the paragraph breaks are as is, too.

10/17/2007 12:15:36 AM

^^^I'd have liked it if he followed basic guidance in writing a persuasive argument -use and citation of specific examples. Although I agree with him, the fact that his open letter reads more like a rant than a well constructed persuasive argument is probably one of the reasons it didn't get picked up that much.

The phrase "show me" comes to mind.

10/17/2007 10:34:20 AM

^ That's a fair point.

10/17/2007 11:01:46 AM

caps or not I appreciate his dim view of the sanctimonious media. He could add examples, like about every NYT story leaking our counter intelligence efforts, there have been a few. But, I think it is clear that the media cares more about headlines then our success in combating terror. Bad news is good news.

10/17/2007 5:19:46 PM

'New York Times' Sinks Even Further
By: Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin

Quote :

"As readers of this column know, I now spend less time checking on the mainstream media and their incredible anti-American, anti-military, biased and dishonest journalism. My lack of interest arises because their dark and degenerate disloyalty to America and fraudulent journalism are so obvious that further discussion and documentation would serve no purpose. However, when the mainstream media hits a new low, I think it is appropriate to remind the public how it is being misled and abused by media outlets it may rely on. When The New York Times and Los Angeles Times displayed their treasonous propensities by revealing national security secrets on their front pages, I thought that was a new milestone in journalistic malfeasance. Now I find that The New York Times, considered one of the most important and influential papers in America, has dropped even further into the journalistic sewer and cesspool where it has long resided. This all started on last Thursday when the press secretary of the president of the United States and the U.S. Navy announced that the late Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy Seal, of Patchogue, Long Island, N.Y., would become the first Medal of Honor recipient for combat in Afghanistan. Lt. Murphy led a four-man reconnaissance mission looking for a key Taliban terrorist leader. Lt. Murphy's unit came under attack and was heavily outnumbered. Lt. Murphy was wounded, but still crawled out into the open to make a radio call for help and continued to fight. The call led to the rescue of one Seal, but Lt. Murphy and two others were killed. President Bush is scheduled to present the Medal of Honor (also called the Congressional Medal of Honor) to Lt. Murphy's father at the White House on Oct. 22. So how did the Times cover this story the next day? It totally ignored it. Other New York City papers, including the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the New York Sun and Newsday gave the story major coverage. For example, the Post had a large headlined story, 'Slain L.I. Seal's Valor,' with a picture of Lt. Murphy in uniform, a picture of Lt. Murphy with his fiancée, and a picture of the Medal of Honor. Earlier this year, I reported on how the Times had hit another new low in reporting on the awarding of a Medal of Honor to Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham of Scio, N.Y., in a special ceremony attended by President Bush and Cpl. Dunham's family. When a terrorist threw a grenade at Cpl. Dunham's feet, he jumped on top of it and used his helmet to shield it. He saved the lives of other Marines but lost his own in the process. At the time, it was obvious that Cpl. Dunham's incredible patriotism, bravery, and sacrifice demanded a major story - and certainly a major story in a paper in his home state of New York. Instead of a major story with pictures, the Times devoted one small paragraph of 11 lines and 87 words to Dunham's heroics. I thought that was a disgrace. But now, as I've suggested, the Times has sunk even lower by ignoring the Medal of Honor to another heroic son of New York, Lt. Murphy. It has gone from downplaying our greatest war heroes to ignoring them altogether. How low can the Times sink? Is there no limit to their dishonoring America's heroes and supporting America's enemies? When it comes to slanted and biased journalism, there seems to be no limit to how far the Times will descend. It's hard to imagine a major newspaper like the Times, so infected with anti-Americanism and anti-military hatred, that it would totally ignore this story, the awarding of the nation's highest award for valor in combat. The very day that the Times ignored the winner of a Medal of Honor, it had ample room throughout its paper to run stories critical of the American military and its efforts in Iraq. One story was headlined 'U.S. Attack Kills 34, Including 15 Civilians.' Another story also concerned the killing of civilians by U.S. Marines: 'Marines to Conduct Inquiry Into the Killings of Afghan Civilians in March.' Still another story involved a claim of extra-judicial killings by a security firm, Blackwater, used in Iraq: 'Blackwater USA Is Sued by Iraqis.' The lead front-page story in the times involved questions about the CIA's detention and interrogation programs: 'C.I.A. Watchdog Becomes Subject of C.I.A. Inquiry.' A big photograph dominates the top of the front page about nine people killed in a bombing in Kirkuk, Iraq. If there is the slightest misstep by the American military or a setback, the Times is likely to make it a front-page story and obsess over it. But if there is some victory or hero to be celebrated, the Times has no time or space for that. If America's Islamofascist enemies were publishing the Times, it would look very much like it does today. It is little more than a propaganda arm of America's enemies and those who are invested in our defeat. This journalistic disgrace on the part of the Times even moved the New York Post, which covered the Murphy Medal story so well, to run a story the next day headlined, 'The New York Crimes: Medal of Dis-Honor for the Gray Lady [i.e., the Times].' The story lead with this: 'The posthumous award of the nation's highest battlefield honor to a Long Island war hero has became another black mark for the Gray Lady. The New York Times carried not a whisper of news yesterday about the bestowal of the Medal of Honor on Lt. Michael Murphy of Patchogue - the first time the honor has been given for action in Afghanistan.' The Post also ran an editorial that was right on target: 'By now, most folks know exactly how much the New York Times despises the U.S. military. How it detests any mission that involves U.S. troops - whether to protect Americans by killing terrorists or to help stave off a bloodbath in the Middle East. And the paper works tirelessly to promote its anti-war, anti-military agenda - even in its supposedly objective news pages. So while Bush's announcement [of Murphy's Medal of Honor] merited stories and appreciative editorials in the Post, the New York Sun, the Daily News and even the front page of the liberal Newsday, it shouldn't be all that surprising that the Times didn't publish a single word about Murphy's well-deserved honor.' The Post issued the most damning indictment of the Times: 'Indeed, it would be hard to cite a news outlet more responsible for sagging U.S. morale - and emboldening America's enemies - than the New York Times.' This is a long-running disgrace at The New York Times, and its dishonesty and fraudulent journalism has even been meticulously documented in an excellent book by Bob Kohn, Journalistic Fraud: How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted. It has a long record of being wrong on the most momentous issues of recent history. One of its reporters won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting that covered up Stalin's genocidal slaughter of his own people. Another reporter won notoriety for friendly coverage of dictator Fidel Castro. And the Times also helped downplay (if not cover up) the Holocaust. In fact, it had more front-page stories on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal than it did on the Holocaust. When I read the Times and see how it helps our enemies and demeans our heroes, I can only echo the famous Joseph Welch question and ask, 'Have you no decency?' And I must answer for them: 'No.' Please remember the kind of journalism the Times and the mainstream media do the next time you think of buying one of their publications or listening to one of their broadcasts. The Times doesn't seem to know who America's enemies are and what side of the war against Islamofascism they are on. But we'd better know who our enemies are, and the Times is definitely one of them."

Herb Denenberg, a former Pennsylvania insurance commissioner and professor at the Wharton School, is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin.

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18918646&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

Anyone that tries to defend this disgraceful inaction by the NYT is a fool.

10/24/2007 1:28:41 AM

Quote :

"So how did the Times cover this story the next day? It totally ignored it. Other New York City papers, including the New York Post, the New York Daily News, the New York Sun and Newsday gave the story major coverage. For example, the Post had a large headlined story, 'Slain L.I. Seal's Valor,' with a picture of Lt. Murphy in uniform, a picture of Lt. Murphy with his fiancée, and a picture of the Medal of Honor. "

Most people won't dispute the times is left leaning.

But it seems to me that 4 of the 5 major newspapers covering the story hardly helps you to show that the overall media is liberal.

10/24/2007 1:45:57 AM

^ Ah, the "fool"--right on time.

10/24/2007 1:49:58 AM

Did you mean that as a compliment?

The Fools in Shakespeare's plays were often right.

10/24/2007 1:52:25 AM

AHA, moron is the man...

Seriously, hooksaw, do you not read the shit you post?

10/24/2007 2:11:16 AM

^ First, you're a fucking idiot--GTFO.

^^
1. I didn't start this thread.

2. Your post was so nonsensical that I didn't even know where to begin--but I'll try:

Quote :

"Most people won't dispute the times is left leaning. But it seems to me that 4 of the 5 major newspapers covering the story hardly helps you to show that the overall media is liberal."

What is your point? That a left-leaning paper would not report that a heroic soldier was awarded the Medal of Honor? Well, one, The New York Times--the "newspaper of record"--didn't. And so what that "4 of the 5" covered the story at issue? It's big fucking news for a number of reasons and there's no way around that. The fact that the Times ignored this important story is big news, too, and tells us much.

3. The mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal evidenced by individual instances of bias that collectively indicate a type of groupthink. I mean, the majority of the media members do not get together every morning at the Lib Bar in Greenwich to plan their left-wing bias for the day--they don't have to (see the former part of this paragraph).

4. The point in the relevant post was that this important story about an American hero was totally ignored while the Times spewed its typical blame-America garbage. It's unforgivable.

In any event, do you deny that the story at issue was newsworthy and should have been covered by the Times? Yes or no?

[Edited on October 24, 2007 at 2:19 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2007 2:16:19 AM

Quote :

"most of the conservatives here find him rather painful"

yeah, i tend to kinda skip over it and pick back up on the thread when his posts and everyone else's responses are over.

10/24/2007 2:22:57 AM

^ I'm not losing any sleep over that.

PS: And how about addressing the post at issue? Should The New York Times have covered the story of a Medal of Honor awardee? Yes or no? So why didn't they?

[Edited on October 24, 2007 at 2:30 AM. Reason : .]

10/24/2007 2:28:35 AM

Rarely am I to be the first to defend market forces but here goes. If you don't like what they post (or don't post) then stop reading their fucking paper. If enough people have that much of a beef then they will stop buying subscriptions and the paper will either change or tank. Perhaps they feel an overwhelming bias in the other direction coming from Faux News, Bush & Co., as well as the AM talk echo chamber. I read a great deal of the article you posted and several times it mentioned inaccuracies and distortions by the NYT yet listed none. It only harped on and on ad nauseam boo-hooing about a story that was widely covered by other news outlets.

10/24/2007 2:50:17 AM

I've been sitting here wondering if W was able to wipe that ugly, insulting, permanent smirk off his face and award the Medal of Honor with any honor at all.

10/24/2007 2:57:46 AM

^^ and ^ Make me want to puke. You are disgusting and I won't respond to you further.

Touting Military Misdeeds, Hiding Heroes

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20060612.asp

10/24/2007 3:09:56 AM

^What's so disgusting about what I said?

The good people who serve in the military deserve better than Bush & Co.

10/24/2007 3:52:34 AM

Quote :

"On Friday we noted Rep. Fortney Hillman Stark Jr.'s foul comment on the House floor that "kids" are being sent to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." We suggested it would be smart for Democrats "to renounce extremists in their own midst, thereby reassuring Americans that the Democratic Party does not stand for the views of Fortney Hillman Stark Jr." Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done that--sort of. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports: "While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand--providing health care for America's children," Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said. Pelosi criticizes Stark's remarks as ill-mannered and tactically unwise, which they certainly were, but it would be better if she went a step further and said they were wrong. The Chronicle emphasizes the tactical aspect of it, thereby betraying its own political bias: What Pelosi also meant: Stark had handed Republicans an easy way to distract the public from what Democrats view as a winning stance on the popular children's health bill. . . . The GOP spin machine went into hyperdrive. House Republican Leader John Boehner's press aides alerted reporters to Stark's comments. The National Republican Campaign Committee issued a press release, titled: "Democrat Disgrace: Pete Stark Drags SCHIP Political Circus to All-Time Low." This is a common occurrence in partisan politics: Someone on one side says something obnoxious, and the other side opportunistically seizes on it. It happened when Trent Lott opened his mouth at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, and when George Allen called an opposition operative "macaca." In those cases, though, the press's emphasis was on the underlying remarks, not on the Democrats' exploitation of them. It was natural for Democrats to try to make hay of Republican misstatements, and that did not mitigate the obnoxiousness of the original remarks. The same is true of Stark's comment and the Republican reaction to it--but the emphasis given by supposedly nonpartisan reporters is quite different. "

no, wait... I got it for ya... "but its diiiiifereeent mommy!!!"

10/24/2007 7:21:37 AM

Quote :

"Should The New York Times have covered the story of a Medal of Honor awardee? "

Are you suggesting that the government or some independent body should regulate what stories are in every newspaper? Are you arguing that the NYT should not have journalistic freedom?


You sir, sound like a communist!

10/24/2007 7:27:38 AM

1. Concerning "Faux News," provide proof that Fox News faked something or STFU.

2. Concerning the "government or some independent body. . .regulat[ing] what stories are in every newspaper," I did nothing of the sort and you, of course, know it. I have suggested and continue to suggest that all media outlets report the news in a complete and objective manner. Unfortunately, many do not. Please provide proof that the story at issue is not major news and should not have been covered--and if you try, I'll shred you. FYI.

3. The New York Times is a hate-filled, commie rag--the publisher and editors should be ashamed of themselves. And those here that defend their inaction should be ashamed, too--but you have no shame, do you?

10/25/2007 2:10:42 AM

Wow, I think i'm going to start calling you kook-saw. You're starting to let this place get to you.

10/25/2007 2:28:06 AM

^^

1) Here's just 1 example: http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/260407Rosie.htm

3)Actually calling The NYT a "hate-filled commie rag" discredits anything you say about it. No publication that big is actually a hate-filled commie rag.

10/25/2007 2:33:46 AM

^ To be fair, that's a minor infraction compared to what CBS pulled.

Fox's news itself isn't all that bad (i'm not a fan of their sensationalist style), but their commentary, which seems like most of their broadcast, is extremely misleading, and chock full of flawed or incomplete information. O'Reilly alone could fill a thread with all of the crap he spews.

10/25/2007 2:38:02 AM

^^^ That's fine. I'll just call you douche bag or some such. How's that?

^^

10/25/2007 2:39:35 AM

^ That first link was a joke. But seriously, didn't they claim that Barack Obama was a muslim? He went to a muslim school in the Phillippines, but that is far from actually being one. This is just one off the top of my head.

10/25/2007 2:42:11 AM

^ I'm familiar with the story, but how about quotations? Links? Do you even know how evidence is established here?

10/25/2007 2:44:18 AM

^^^ Fine by me. You pretty much do that anyway, so nothing will change from my perspective.

10/25/2007 2:50:13 AM

They say he was "raised as a Muslim." It begins at about 1:55. There's some stuff you may not want to watch before that. Sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms

[Edited on October 25, 2007 at 2:59 AM. Reason : Don't know how to embed video.]

10/25/2007 2:58:50 AM

Hooksaw owned again.

10/25/2007 8:01:16 AM

^ Oh, bullshit--STFU, you fucking bald-headed idiot.

10/25/2007 6:08:45 PM

Quote :

"Fox's news itself isn't all that bad (i'm not a fan of their sensationalist style), but their commentary, which seems like most of their broadcast, is extremely misleading, and chock full of flawed or incomplete information."

Indeed, they don't even call themselves journalists. Calling themselves journalists would mean they would have to uphold some kind of standards - have at least some "journalistic integrity".

Some well-know commentators rant for hours, with no guests or opposing opinions - and then talk about the bias in the "mainstream" media. Newsflash: When you have the biggest marketshare in daytime radio, you are mainstream. These people just use the term "mainstream" to make themselves look like the underdog. It's a ruse (more deception). In the Raliegh area you hear more from these commentators than you hear from anyone else.

10/25/2007 11:24:17 PM

Just can't let this go either.

Epic, epic failure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1/2_Hour_News_Hour

10/26/2007 1:58:15 AM

^

Quote :

"See also * The Colbert Report "

lol.

10/26/2007 2:00:56 AM

^ Yeah... a wildly successful show that Fox News tried to imitate and failed... epically.

10/26/2007 2:07:18 AM

Colbert's rampant success is thanks to the fact that he's not an actual conservative and the entire show is in fact mocking the neo-conservative viewpoint... A concept I am sure everyone here grasps. Apparently it slipped by Fox News.

10/26/2007 2:17:33 AM

CNN MEMO: USE FIRES TO 'PUSH' 'PLANET IN PERIL' SERIES; DON'T 'IRRESPONSIBLY' TIE TO GLOBAL WARMING

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm

"Planet in Peril"--now there's objective journalism for you.

[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 5:52 AM. Reason : .]

10/27/2007 5:52:14 AM

^ That's the worst source I've ever seen. Where the hell did you find that shit?

10/27/2007 1:11:14 PM

^^ somehow i'm a bit underwhelmed by your "evidence".

a corporation is trying to sell their product? oh no. what next?


(^ matt drudge is legit, although his uncited "developing..." snippets are sometimes suspect. they have been known to quietly disappear if not borne out by evidence. still, Drudge Report is generally reputable)



[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 6:37 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2007 6:33:21 PM

Arsonist or performance artist?
By Dorothy Parvaz, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Quote :

"It's one thing to set fire to The Man at the Burning Man festival a few days early -- at least the effigy is built to be burned, albeit at a specific hour. But Paul Addis, the guy who bummed out thousands of burners by torching The Man before festival participants were ready for it, was arrested Sunday on suspicion of trying to torch a historic cathedral in San Francisco. Here's a slice from the story: San Francisco performance artist Paul Addis, out on bail in the Burning Man charges, was taken into custody on the top steps of the Grace Cathedral around 11:40 p.m. Sunday, police spokesman Sgt. Steve Mannina said Monday. Addis had an ammunition belt of small explosives strapped around his waist, he said. Police were tipped by a caller who said they overheard Addis talking about a plan to set fire to the local landmark, Mannina said. No fire was set and there was no damage to the Episcopal church, a French Gothic structure that sits atop the city's Nob Hill. On the one hand, I can understand the power of the image to someone who sees the church as an oppressive institution. On the other hand...it's still arson. And given how fires can get out of hand, there's a chance that this little stunt could have damaged other property and hurt some folks. Perhaps he should have settled for painting a picture of a burning church rather than trying to destroy an actual historic landmark. That wouldn't be performance art, I guess (unless he created the painting in public or something), but at least it wouldn't be a felony."

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigblog/archives/124693.asp?source=rss

What fucking foaming left-wing moonbats the alleged attempted arsonist and this writer of the article above are.

11/1/2007 6:18:36 PM