Free for All: 01/28/13

What’s on your mind?


41 Responses to “Free for All: 01/28/13”

  1. This jackhammer is so full of it it’s not even funny. Aside from the inference that the South is “rural”, didn’t one of his apparatchiks just say that rural voters were “irrelevant”? He can take his sudden “concern” and shove it.

  2. TV Newser, “Bill O’Reilly will be interviewing former Secretary of State Colin Powell today, with the interview to air tomorrow. It will actually be O’Reilly’s first interview with Powell.”

  3. So much for Obama wanting to minimize the legitimacy of FOX News.

    Powell AND Clinton on FNC this week. Ouch.

  4. ^That’s funny, Blue!

  5. Anyone else getting the idea that Obama knows he’s losing on gun control, so he’s spinning it in advance? The “righteousness” (and base-fluffing) of his statements aside, Presidents don’t take shots at the press when they’re in a strong position. And they certainly don’t make ridiculous comments about skeet-shooting and hunting.

  6. The fact that we’re not going to do ANYTHING about gun violence at all speaks volumes about the country. It’s one thing to own a gun – but I know a lot of these people and they are rabid in their defense of guns. To them, anything (even background checks) amounts to banning all guns. Every redneck in America thinks Obama is coming to their house tomorrow to yank their guns away.

  7. This is why I criticized the “too soon” logic. A month later and the gun lobby has the advantage again… to the point that even pro-gun people who felt something should be done have gone back to espousing NRA talking points every minute on Facebook.

  8. icemannyr Says:

    Gigi Stone was anchoring on WPIX this AM 4am-7am.
    Is she still with Bloomberg TV?

  9. savefarris Says:

    The fact that we’re not going to do ANYTHING about gun violence at all speaks volumes about the country.

    I would respectfully disagree. I think it says more about the overreach of the gun-grabbers like Feinstein, Obama, Gregory and Piers. Their “solution” wouldn’t have solved the problem they claimed they wanted to solve. And the country took note.

  10. icemannyr Says:

    As if Eric Bolling taking over “Cashin In” and being on “The Five” is not enough he was subbing for Neil then on The Five today.
    FNC has no one else who can sub for Neil?

  11. imnotblue Says:

    The problem is the message gets muddled in grandstanding and politicizing the issue.

    As all those anti-NRA polls show, there are a lot of people willing to go along with tougher requirements in getting guns. But when you have one person who says that, another who says something goofy like, “Let’s limit magazine sizes to 7,” and another saying “We don’t like scary looking guns,” all while denying that there are people who want to get rid of guns 100%, people stop taking you seriously.

    The issue is similar to how the left views the right on abortion. Some nuts want all abortion outlawed, while most others are far more reasonable. But it’s the 100%-ers that are the loudest, and who get the most attention. It doesn’t matter what the reasonable people say, they’re ideas are overshadowed.

    Additionally, the “let’s do SOMETHING, even if it doesn’t solve the problem” mentality, is a tough sell. Convince me you know what will make things better. “Something is better than nothing,” doesn’t excite me.

  12. If “something” means less casualties in a mass shooting because the gunman had to reload sooner, I’ll take it. It’s a reasonable request, but we have a large faction of batshyte loons in this country who reject all restrictions because think they need to match the firepower of the US Military in a war against it. That’s sick.

  13. imnotblue Says:

    If we run our policies based on “if” and only “if,” then before long we’ll have nothing.

    Maybe we should take away the rights of all Muslims, because “if” it prevents one event, it’s worth it.

    Maybe we should limit the speed limit to 35 mph, because “if” it saves one life, it’s worth it.

    And so on… “if” is fear, not reasonable, educated, or helpful. It’s just “something.”

  14. That’s BS. The guy who shot Gabby stopped at 31 bullets..was tackled while reloading. If he’d had to stop at 10, more people may have survived. Math.

  15. imnotblue Says:

    Or he would have had two guns. Or he would have aimed better. Or he would have had more practice changing clips.

    It. Doesn’t. Solve. Anything.

  16. That’s ridiculous. If stopping at 31 gave people time to tackle him, stopping at 10 would have been just as likely. You don’t need a 30-round magazine (plus one in the chamber) to hunt deer or stop an intruder. It has one purpose: Extended combat. I’m not stupid. You lunatics think you need to fight the government.

  17. savefarris Says:

    If he’d had to stop at 10, more people may have survived.

    I sincerely hope you are NEVER attacked by a crowd of 11 people.

    Maybe we should outlaw cars, because “if” it saves one life…

  18. savefarris Says:

    If stopping at 31 gave people time to tackle him.

    Dropping the new clip was what gave people time to tackle him, not the clip capacity itself. Had he had even a modicum of training, he could have changed the clips out before someone could rush him, theoretically giving him an infinite number of shots.

    That’s it, we have to ban index fingers. For the children!!!

  19. ^So much stupid. Yawn. Bye.

  20. imnotblue Says:

    It’s not stupid to disagree with you, Joe.

    And this too, is the reason why the left is losing the debate. The moment they’re questioned, they start hurling insults like children. If they can’t scream “racism,” they’ve got nothing to stand on. And that convinces no one.

  21. Racism. Yeah, that made sense.

  22. imnotblue Says:

    Do you honestly not recognize your whole platform is based around hurling insults, when someone disagrees with you? You have no evidence, just “if” and emotion. Do you really not see that?

  23. icemannyr Says:

    Comical when Bill O’Reilly talks down to his guests then says “I’m a simple man.” because he does not like their answers.
    He’s still mad because Obama got re elected.

  24. Seriously, where is Sao Paulo?

  25. I’ve given you my stance on reasonable gun control measures a dozen times. You don’t agree with it, so you pretend it doesn’t exist, and that all I do is “hurl insults”. It’s boring.

  26. icemannyr Says:

    I had to laugh when Andrea Tantaros just said on Hannity’s show “FNC gives a fair presentation of both sides.”
    That shipped sailed when MSNBC when hard left and they countered going hard right.

  27. FNC’s idea of “fair presentation” is Kirsten Powers agreeing with them, and Alan Colmes trotted out as the Village Idiot.

  28. lonestar77 Says:

    Piers Morgan just said that 40% of gun sales are conducted without a background check. That’s a neat made up stat.

    40% of British people are idiots.

  29. icemannyr Says:

    Let me add I’m not saying FNC has to agree with Obama and all segments they do on Obama should be positive.
    I’m just saying the Obama is the the worst president in the world act that Bill and Sean do since the election is getting old.
    Can we get actual debate of issues and important news stories instead of most of the segments being about the president?

    Secondly for Hannity, far right wing people like Jason Mattera ambushing people like Mayor Bloomberg does not makes them a journalist. Mattera s a clown and doing a debate based on his so called interview with Mayor Bloomberg is comical.

  30. lonestar77 Says:

    The way Morgan just made up a stat that, if were true, would probably scare a lot of people into buying into the anti-gun hysteria, is what’s driving me crazy about this “debate”. The anti-gun people seem to know absolutely nothing about the subject. I guarantee most non-gun owners are under the impression that background checks aren’t required at gun shows. The media continues to spread all sort of falsities. But their falsities and scary pictures of scary looking guns don’t seem to be working.

  31. icemannyr Says:

    Piers is having another circular conversation with Dana Loesch on gun control.
    Dana Loesch does hot help her cause by laughing even if it’s not intentional.
    This is terrible TV.

  32. imnotblue Says:


    What part of, “I’m a simple man” shows anger over Obama to you?

    Methinks you just see things.


    Sorry, buddy. Thought it was you who said: “You lunatics think you need to fight the government.” And, “So much stupid.” That’s how I define hurling insults. Must have been someone else.

    *rolls eyes*

  33. Sean Hannity tonight said FOX is the only media organization on the planet that’s had fair and balanced coverage about Obama.

    Um, making stories up and calling the President “The Anointed One” isn’t “Fair and Balanced”.

  34. You said all I do is hurl insults, as if I’ve never stated a reasoned position on whatever topic is at hand. That’s what you always do. A person gets lied about enough times, they’re gonna get mad. The comments that followed my position today were stupid. You’re a bunch of lunatics preparing for war against your own government. Good luck with that.

  35. I guess I can see why Obama would rather talk about guns, evil Republicans and non-compliant media.

  36. Blue, I’ll explain.

    Bill’s first three segments of the show were on The President and Secretary of State’s interview by Steve Kroft and how it was a soft interview.
    First was the commentary, second was an interview with Britt Hume.
    In the third segment he had Judith Miller in studio and Sally Quinn via remote.
    When both agreed that Steve Kroft chose to not do a tough interview and they did not a big problem with that he got mad and condensing doing his “I’m a simple man.” act.
    That segment was not added to the first two are there.

    Did we really need 3 segments on the CBS interview.
    My opinion is Bill O’Reilly is still mad that Obama was re elected and it’s part of the reason he does three segments like that.

    Remember when he yelled at Juan Williams and Mary Katharine Ham demanding for an answer as to why people voted for Obama? “”
    That segment never was put on either.

  37. @ Ice
    The “simple man” routine is usually followed by a request for a simple answer. It’s the same as, “speak to me as if I’m a child, and give me an easy to follow answer.”

    In regards to the Kroft interview (I didn’t see the O’Reilly segment or the interview), I’d bet it was something along the lines of, “I’m a simple man, so tell me, why would 60 minutes want to do such a soft interview?” The answer being either, “Because they like Obama,” or “Because they don’t investigate like that,” or “Because it was just a story to let Obama get his thoughts out, not debate him.”

    As for the interview itself, Mediaite (ugh) had a story about it from Piers’ show, where Kroft admits that he was soft in the interview, and wasn’t trying to be tough. That kind shoots a hole in the, “Still mad about…” theory.

    Furthermore, is it not possible to be disappointed by Obama’s re-election, AND still have a legitimate gripe against the way the media or Obama handles himself? Or do you judge everything done now, based on what people thought then? If that’s the case, no Republican or non-Obama voter has a legitimate opinion in your view. Did you hole the same opinion during Bush’s eight years… anyone who was upset after either election, was only complaining about him as a result of his wins? That’s a pretty foolish opinion, Ice.

  38. joeremi Says:
    January 28, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    You said all I do is hurl insults…

    Really? Where?

    You mean when I said this:

    imnotblue Says:
    January 28, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    The moment they’re questioned, they start hurling insults like children.

    Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you’re saying I said?

    To restate, you present you opinion, and when questioned on it… you hurl insults. Which you’ve done. And I’ve proven. And you’ve denied. And then tried to lie about. And have gotten caught. Again.

    A person gets lied about enough times, they’re gonna get mad. The comments that followed my position today were stupid. You’re a bunch of lunatics preparing for war against your own government.

    Now by your definition, I should get mad. And yet, I’m not mad… because I’m an adult. And not so sensitive as to fly off the handle every time someone questions me.

    Furthermore, you once again show your ability to hurl insults, not to mention lie about previous comments.

    I’ll wait for your apology now.

  39. Do you honestly not recognize your whole platform is based around hurling insults, when someone disagrees with you? You have no evidence, just “if” and emotion. Do you really not see that?

    You’re a liar. Apology denied.

  40. imnotblue Says:

    And where did I lie?

    Come on, show me. It’s “CTRL + C” and then “CTRL + V” to copy and paste it to me.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: