Free for All: 01/29/13

What’s on your mind?


64 Responses to “Free for All: 01/29/13”

  1. savefarris Says:

    I’ll give Piers Morgan this: he certainly exposed (however unwittingly) just how in-the-tank Steve Kroft is for Obama:

  2. Chris Cuomo to CNN it’s official as a morning co-anchor and breaking news anchor. Where does Soledad go? Primetime?

  3. icemannyr Says:

    How many AM shows has CNN had?

    I also find it funny only 3 shows are allowed to use the NYC studio the AM show, Erin and Anderson. Any other news hours from NYC like Ashleigh Banfield’s hour have to broadcast from the news room which is goofy and looks terrible when a guest is with her in the news room.

  4. But, see, conservatives only oppose amnesty because we hate minorities.
    RT @philipaklein: RT @sarahkliff: Immigration reform could add 7 million people to Obamacare

  5. Someone tell FNC this far right clown Jason Mattera is not a reporter.
    Ambushing people like the Mayor of NYC and asking if the Mayor wants some soda is what a comedian does.
    It’s even more embarrassing FNC had him on as a guest.
    This is the best FNC can do to promote the pro gun agenda?

  6. Yeah, that was embarrassing. I expected a clip of him from Hannity, not an actual “news” show.

  7. I really hate the, “If politicians have security…” argument. It’s really stupid and illogical.

  8. Politicians and their kids have different security concerns than the rest of us. Get over it. Asking them to give it up is essentially saying that you’d like to see them picked-off in order to make a political point.

    And on a completely different subject, people who think for themselves.

  9. icemannyr I’m glad you think FNC would care. If the way O’Reilly has used Waters to ambush people is any example, though that’s not a “news” program I suppose, they really don’t care how you get to people.

  10. Megyn’s conservative bias is off the charts today and MSNBC is no better with the Liberal Mitchell Reports.
    Can we get one cable news channel that actually does a newscast?
    The only thing close is CNN at 1pm.

  11. Why are conservatives and FNC so scared of Al Jazeera English?
    A conservative guest on FNC just said he hopes the network fails and Megyn said nothing in return.

  12. Why are ALL government folks, i.e. senators, congressmen, etc. exempted in Feinstein’s bill? Because they are so important? i thought their approval rating was lower than bedbugs or something like that. Once again, rules for you can not be rules for me. I get the president, cabinet members, majority/minority leaders in Congress but really – ALL of them? BS!

    Sorry Laura, their kids, wives, are NOT more important than my kids, my husband to my family’s well being. Not that I want any of them to be “picked off” as you say but their families will have a guaranteed pension if something were to happen to them. Many families DO NOT have that guarantee for their continued financial well being. So… stop making laws that do not apply to “ALL”.

  13. @ ice

    Why would Megyn have had to say anything? If she agreed, you’d claim bias. And if she disagreed, you’d ignore it, but others would claim bias.

    Are we at the point where simply showing up for work at FOX is considered “bias” by the left?

  14. I think there’s a big difference between, “more important” and “different safety concerns.”

    Politicians get protection (just like celebrities) because they have wealth, international influence, and can be targeted more easily by deranged people. When I go to the store, nobody cares. I don’t get protested, nobody takes my picture, and nobody targets me for any reason. Not the same for celebrities or politicians.

    I’ve always said, one of the reasons why those folks get paid so much, is because they give up their privacy and anonymity. As such, yes, they are required to have different things than the rest of us. And as long as they have trained professionals around them providing the security, what’s the problem? If you want to hire a body guard, go right ahead.

  15. “Different security concerns”. I get that point, but I also say, in the whole scheme of things, if some celebrity got “picked off” would the well being of our country be at risk? If one member of the Senate or House, in turn, got “picked off” would the functioning ability of our country be affected? Without getting “picked off” Jesse Jackson Jr. became unable to perform his duties and nothing happened. Mark Kirk had a stroke and nothing happened. Mark Sanford fell in love and nothing happened. I could go on and on.

    “Different security concerns”. But why should they be exempted as part of legislation? If someone feels the need to hire personal protection and the people they hire have followed the law as prescribed in obtaining the firearm they would carry, then have at it. No problem. Just don’t exempt them and don’t tell me I can’t purchase a specific kind of gun because it has a “cosmetic” characteristic that’s against some BS set of standards.

    (Please refer to my prior post that I am NOT saying certain people shouldn’t have protection paid for by us as citizens.

  16. I believe there are anchors and reporters at FNC that don’t have a conservative bias. Megyn Kelly is simply not one of them since she started doing the 1pm-3pm show.
    They simply need to say that she hosts and opinion news talk show.
    It’s not a newscast.

  17. She can replace O’Reilly or Hannity. They’re getting stale.

  18. — stale —

    You could pound nails with them, and not in a good way.

  19. ^ That’s pretty bad. If you’re going to challenge an audience, they have a right to respond. The dude who said “Second Amendment” was actually pretty quiet about it.

  20. I don’t know this for any kind of certainty, by it’s just the tiniest possibility that the “heckler” was also a family-member. CNN reported it pretty straight, IMO, but did use the loaded word “heckler”.

  21. lonestar77 Says:

    And, the first time the father asked the question nobody answered. I assume the people in the audience were being respectful. Then, he asked again as a result of not receiving a response the first time.

    Per usual, Piers Morgan has lost his mind over this. I googled his twitter account then read through it and he obviously isn’t backing down. He’d doubling down.

    I don’t go to much but here’s their coverage:

    Calling the people “gun nuts”. Whatever. I have no use for MSNBC….but, I thought I had heard was more news oriented than msnbc tv? Anyone know?

  22. I haven’t seen the new, but my understanding is it’s more aligned with the actual cable network now. My MSNBC home page – which was basic news – was relabeled a few months ago.

  23. lonestar77 Says:

    ^ Thanks.

  24. Fox News broadcasts some awful, awful stuff. It’s been documented here. And Ailes is shameless with his disregard for ethical appearances. He wants to be a player in GOP politics as well as run a news network. Sorry, one or the other, you can’t do both.

    But that Steve Kroft/60 Minutes interview with the President and Sec. Clinton is a textbook example of why Fox was created. And why it’s going to continue to draw viewers.

    Conservatives are often paranoid about the “liberal bias” in the press. Much of it is sloppy journalism and not deliberate promotion of any ideology. Journalists are like most of us; some are good, some are bad, most are in between. And that shows in their reporting.

    But even paranoids have enemies. That’s why Fox came about.

    Sorry, Mr. Prez, you’l just have to put up with it.

  25. lonestar77 Says:

    Fox is a success because all the other outlets are left to far-left. That’s it.

  26. Fox is a success because of simplistic, bombastic programming with hot chicks.

  27. lonestar77 Says:

    Neat summary, Joe. Phonebooks were popular because they had pages.

  28. lonestar77 Says:

    I didn’t see Piers Morgan’s show tonight but I know he was going to have the father on who didn’t actually get heckled. Anyway, was the show as bad as I assume it was?

  29. ^ I’m curious about that as well. I wonder if he managed to be minimally honest about it, or if he went the ‘Lawrence O’Donnell’ route.

  30. I just watched the extended clip. Heslin asked if anyone could answer why people need that level of firepower. The answer he got was much louder, and from more people, than I realized. “Second Amendment” is not an answer to the question. It’s NRA heckling propaganda crap. They were out of line.

  31. Yep, the Second Amendment is “propaganda” and now it’s “heckling”. Why am I not surprised at the sudden change of heart?

  32. lonestar77 Says:

    Ok, Joe.

  33. You can be surprised all you want, and thank you for another round of withering condescension. I saw 5 minutes of a grieving father describing the carnage and heartache of Sandy Hook, then he asked a specific question AS a gun owner about why people need that level of firepower. After no one could explain the need, he acknowledged that, then some a**holes started spouting bullsh!t about “Second Amendment rights”, which had nothing to do with the question. It was an immoral and disgusting display, and you can take a jump.

  34. lonestar77 Says:

    Ok, Joe..

  35. Sorry, LS..I shouldn’t have taken Twitchy’s word for what happened. That crap coming after the father spoke of his son being “torn apart” by bullets was too much. Those people should have done the decent thing and kept their damn mouths shut.

  36. imnotblue Says:

    Didn’t we talk about how you just issue your point of view, demand it be accepted, and when it gets questioned… you hurl insults? Did I already prove that, and watch as you lied about what you said, what I said, and then refused to admit it?

    And then here you are again today, doing the same thing.

    Perhaps another hiatus is in order. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of debate, honesty, and respect. Perhaps you can find a third grader, and have them explain it to you.

  37. I’ve had more than my share of Laura’s disdain for any POV of mine she doesn’t agree with. Dish it, take it. And you can butt out.

  38. The problem with Twitchy is that it’s run by Michelle Malkin, who has no reason to exist aside from bleating about media bias, both real and imagined. Apparently, Anderson Cooper tweeted something about the parent being “shouted down”, which was not true, and AC later deleted the tweet. She chose to view his deletion as “covering his tracks” (despite it having already been seen by thousands of followers), and continued on with her criticism. I have absolutely no doubt that she will mention this hideous infraction during her next scintillating appearance on Hannity, and it will become yet another bit of “proof” of how unfair CNN is to conservatives.

  39. And I’m tired of every anti gun control argument that you can’t rationally counter being labeled as “propaganda”, “talking points”, “lunacy” or whatever. I should have known that once you saw Lawrence O’Donnell, you’d get your mind right. Score one for MSNBC.

  40. I don’t give a damn what you’re “tired of”. Your position against doing ANYTHING about firepower in the hands of civilians is indefensible. It’s lunacy.

    I saw Heslin on Piers Morgan. He described the event exactly the way I did: He supports the Second Amendment, and the people who answered didn’t answer his question. They were out of line.

  41. If you “don’t care” so much, then don’t respond. No one asked or really cares.

  42. Done. Enjoy the place.

  43. It’s always nice to see Piers Morgan using grieving relatives to push his agenda. I’d hate to be used that way, but whatever it takes, right?

  44. So, according to the great mind that is Lawrence O’Donnell, it’s “heckling” because he didn’t like the answer that they gave. That makes so much sense.

  45. lonestar77 Says:

    The absolute number of people being taken by this stupid story is amazing. I can see from propagandist wingnuts like Morgan & LOD but David Frum? And, he just continues to double down.

    The father asked a question, looked around the room and nobody answered. He then asked again (something to the effect of) “nobody in this room can answer the question” and people started saying that their 2nd amendment rights shouldn’t be infringed.

    And that sends the lunatic left into a frenzy. But, not because they care about the father (who didn’t seem too upset by it) but because it’s another excuse to exploit a victim.

  46. Liberals live in an alternate universe. Using victims to advance an agenda and lying about your opponents is fine, but expressing a view that they disagree with is “propaganda”.

    I have already stated that a Universal Background Check seems reasonable, but that there’s no reason to think it would divert any of these people, since they generally don’t have anything in their backgrounds that would keep them from purchasing. I guess that reasoning is “lunacy”. I also don’t think that a bunch of poorly-informed pols banning a bunch of ill-defined weapons will accomplish much of anything other than making liberals feel as though they “did something”, but I guess that reasoning is also “lunacy”. So, whatever.

  47. The problem is, you’re wrong. I dilineated exactly why access to large magazines is making these shootings bigger before someone has a chance to intervene, and all I get is “it won’t make any difference” BS from paranoid lunatics gearing up for war against the government. It’s. Crazy.

  48. I hear an echo. I wonder what that could be?

  49. lonestar77 Says:

    I pretty much feel the same. But, I think requiring background checks between private party sales to family members is absurd.

    And, lets face it, background checks won’t accomplish anything, anyway. It’s not like a criminal is going to submit to a background check. And, it’s not like there won’t be a huge black market for those who can’t legally purchase guns….kinda like there is NOW.

  50. lonestar77 Says:

    “I dilineated exactly why access to large magazines is making these shootings bigger”

    Except that the biggest one was Virginia Tech and that happened with handguns. So, you’re wrong.

  51. That doesn’t mean some of them wouldn’t have been smaller. Loughner stopped to reload at 31, and was tackled. I would’ve preferred he got tackled at 10. But who gives a shyte. Nobody cares what I think. Talk your paranoid BS back and forth to each other, and I’ll move on. Fck it.

  52. lonestar77 Says:

    Eh, I have to prepare for a government attack anyway cuz I’m a crazy, paranoid, lunatic as is everybody who disagrees with joe.

  53. See? A reasonable explanation becomes “paranoid BS”, from the king of bipartisan understanding. What would Tip and Ronnie say?

  54. Tip and Ronnie supported reasonable gun control.

  55. They’re dead. Too bad.

  56. I’m noticing that the format for First Look has changed considerably the past few weeks. Not sure if Early Today has also changed, but First Look has had a fairly universal format the entire time it’s been on the air until now.

  57. ^^^^^^^^^^
    “Many families DO NOT have that guarantee for their continued financial well being. So… stop making laws that do not apply to “ALL”.” — paminwi

    Actually, pam, families do have social security. If a wage earner in the family dies and he has young children, the surviving dependents do receive social security. It is a death benefit for ALL (including you). Congress also has the same social security benefit as everyone else despite the erroneous viral emails being sent around by govt hating conservatives. In addition, all federal employees (like congressman but not limited to congressman) receive a pension based on YEARS OF SERVICE. This type of benefit is common in blue chip companies today although it is frequently being phased out. If a congressman who just got elected serves for like 6 months and then keels over, his pension really isn’t much. Perhaps they have life insurance like many companies offer to salaried employees. So, dial back the paranoia.

  58. imnotblue Says:

    Joe, you have really established yourself as one of the least reasonable, most disrespectful, hypocritical liars I’ve ever seen. You stomp your feet and shout when people disagree, and whine that you’re the victim.

    You’re a bully, and this site was better last week without you.

  59. Nice to hear from you again, Blue. Now fck off. I’m better off without this site.

  60. imnotblue Says:

    That’s probably true.

    I couldn’t imagine you much worse.

  61. Enjoy the echo and prepare for The Great Tyranny. Psycho.

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: