Free for All: 01/12/15

What’s on your mind?

114 Responses to “Free for All: 01/12/15”

  1. I want to know where Michelle Obama’s hashtag is for Boko Harem killing 2000 and using 2 children strapped with bombs killing many others.

  2. ^ I want to know why you’re such a rude troll over such a terrible subject.

  3. A prominent representative from the US – either the VP or SecState or SecDef or Clinton (either one) – should have been in Paris for that March. Who doesn’t matter; just a person of note.

    Those images of world leaders – absent anyone from the US – marching was jarring.

    And I’m surprised at Mark Halperin’s response that Obama would have been damned either way, if he went or stayed here. Sure, the anti-Obama crowd attacks him no matter what. But that’s questioning their motives (shocker: the opposition dislikes the person in power) and not their argument. Which is, again, we should have had a presence there.

  4. “And I’m surprised at Mark Halperin’s response that Obama would have been damned either way, if he went or stayed here. Sure, the anti-Obama crowd attacks him no matter what.”

    Halperin right Erich.
    No Obama officials other than the Ambassador to France at the march. Why didn’t he send Biden, Kerry Michelle etc.?
    Biden or Kerry goes to the march. Why didn’t Obama go himself?
    Obama goes and participates. Obama is taking political advantage of the deaths of the Charlie Hebdo victims for political gain. Where was Hillary BTW?

    There were no Republican pols of note (POTUS wannabes, Senators, Governors etc.) at the march: as far as I know. I don’t hear anyone saying anything about that.

  5. Halperin can always be counted on to say something meaningless. The issue isn’t that Obama didn’t show, it’s that no one at Cabinet level was there. There needs to be a reason, and so far the admin has not provided one.

  6. @ fritz

    I’m confused… yesterday, you said the President and his team do things just to troll the right. Today, you’re saying they’re so concerned about what the right might say, they haven’t done anything! Which is it?

    And really, who cares what the right might say? Someone from the White House should have been there… regardless of what anyone “might” have said afterwards.

  7. Fritz: You’re the exact opposite of the Obama critics; an unthinking Obama apologist.

    Halperin’s comment entirely misses the point: There should have been a prominent US person there sent on behalf of the president since the president, in these situations, stands for all of us. Whether Obama or Biden or someone of note sent by the President.

    A Republican official going on his or her own is just that: going on his or her own. The question is somebody symbolizing or personifying the US.

    EVERY President is criticized by the opposition no matter what he does. That’s a given. The question here is whether that criticism has any merit.

    In this case it does.

  8. Ouch.

    Tapper to Jay Carney: The Good Wife Had More Obama Officials Than Paris Rally

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tapper-to-jay-carney-the-good-wife-had-more-obama-officials-than-paris-rally/

  9. Josh Earnest: “It’s fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile.”

  10. Jake ain’t playing. The look on his face was priceless.

  11. WH Press Sec admitted they made a mistake. I don’t know why they don’t do this more often. I can accept that they realized they screwed up. It will help to tamp down the criticism. I would like to know WHY no one went. Particularly Holder. And, what did Holder have to be back home on Sunday afternoon for?

    Personally, I don’t care that the POTUS didn’t go. But, to not have Biden, Kerry, Holder, Ms. Obama – or Bill Clinton or GWB there is inexcusable.

  12. I agree, Lone. At least they’re admitting they screwed up, as opposed to continuing to dodge or deflect. At least that’s something!

  13. Small steps.

  14. At times in the past for events a current President has asked a prior President to go to an event to represent the USA. This could have been an appropriate time to do that.

  15. Owning up to mistakes is smart. As Lonestar asked, why administrations – Democrat or Republican – don’t this more often is a mystery. It defuses criticism; it makes a story disappear (essentially); and it garners some respect since the critics look petty by repeating their criticism and the White House looks bigger than their critics.

    Earnest’s apology does all of this basically. The story will be gone by tomorrow.

    Win/win/win.

    Anyone think he didn’t want to send Hillary (or Bill) for political reasons?

  16. Blue:
    “I’m confused”

    ^^You’re always confused blue.

    I don’t care if the POTUS to or sends surrogates to a photo op in France. The right is going to blame him for something anyway so who cares. Fill your boots.

    Erich:
    “There should have been a prominent US person there sent on behalf of the president since the president, in these situations, stands for all of us.”

    ^^I don’t think so and it’s fine with me that you and others disagree. In two days no will remember this story and conservatives will be PO’d about some other perceived slight or mistake by the POTUS.

  17. imnotblue Says:

    So basically, you write off any criticism of the President or his Administration as being “right-wing,” despite this coming from a wide variety of sources.

    Wow.

  18. Anyone think he didn’t want to send Hillary (or Bill) for political reasons?

    Yes, and it was a good political reason: It would have been perceived as an endorsement of Clinton in ’16, and would have pulled all US coverage away from the actual event.

  19. I guess the President has a rightwinger as his press secretary?

    What other explanation is there?

    How about: they just messed up?

  20. “So basically, you write off any criticism of the President or his Administration as being “right-wing,” despite this coming from a wide variety of sources.”

    I was inarticulate in my comment blue. I personally don’t care if he went to Paris or not and I also don’t care/mind if people (right or left) have a different view on the subject. It’s a free country.

    But those on the far right would have found fault no matter what Obama did (go or stay) so their opinion has no validity to me. Jake Tapper thinks Obama should have gone and I respect his view but disagree with him. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t care if Obama goes to Paris or not but is happy he didn’t go because it makes him look bad to people like Jake Tapper. If Obama does go, it doesn’t matter to Limbaugh, he just makes up another reason (e.g. Obama is just doing another photo op at the expense of the CH victims) to criticize the POTUS. That’s what it’s all about for people like him.

  21. This is the second time I’ve seen this act today: Earlier Josh Earnest kept saying “Extremists who act in the name of Islam”, then Ed Henry would say “Why won’t you say ‘radical Islam’?” Tonight Martha MacCallum did the same thing to Dep. State Dept. Spokesman Marie Harf.

    Fox News is employing supposedly straight news reporters to insist that the administration say the words exactly the way they demand they be said, or the reporters continue to insist the person they’re talking to is “afraid to say it”. It’s dishonest, political, and not a little crazy.

  22. Chris Hayes made a good point tonight that a lot of the leaders in that Paris photo op in support of press freedom have horrendous records of press suppression, including prison sentences and torture, in their own countries.

    I haven’t heard a lot criticism of those leaders for their hypocrisy by those complaining about Obama not attending; although I’ll stand corrected if Tapper and others did mention the hypocrisy of many of the foreign leaders being at the photo-op.

  23. It’s almost comical how checked out Obama’s staff was about this. Although there’s no direct reference in the article, it’s pretty clear POTUS had no clue, either. Amazing.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/paris-march-charlie-hebdo-barack-obama-114206.html

  24. savefarris Says:

    ^

    So … Clint Eastwood was right?

  25. Uh oh, Obama said “Islamist jihadist sympathizers”. Which isn’t exactly “radical Islamist” so Fox will still find a way to complain.

  26. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/russell-brand-compares-fox-news-to-charlie-hebdo-terrorists/

    I love this guy. He’s the gift that keeps on giving. What is it with Fox News living in the heads of liberals? It’s 24/7. And, it’s pretty great.

  27. It’s going to be fun to see all the people for whom Jake Tapper was ‘the good one’ suddenly turn on him, now that his ratings are increasing.

  28. Ah yes, the CNN guy conservatives consider one of their own. Let the ‘Judas’ wailing begin…

  29. Why would Jake Tapper fans “turn on him” over good ratings? He’s been my favorite journalist since forever. I honestly have no idea what you mean. Maybe it’s some sort of dig at FNC and/or FNC fans?

    Anyway, he’s the best in the business. About the only journalist from a MSM organization whom I don’t know with certainty who they vote for.

  30. More from the “I can’t develop a thought without referencing Fox News” file:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-guest-rips-don-lemon-for-racist-dumb-ass-isis-question/

    This numbnut is bashing a CNN anchor but, of course, brings Fox News into it (ding!).

    Are there meds for this disease?

  31. Mediaite should do intermittent stories when Russell Brand doesn’t say something stupid, just for filler. Weekends, perhaps.

  32. The disease is with people who shout FOX HATER every time that wretched excuse for a news channel is criticized. The Fox fan base – and Fox itself – are the biggest bunch of whiners I’ve ever seen.

  33. I honestly love the Russel Brand stories. There always just so nutso. How somebody can hate something that much is a little coo-coo. Especially when that something is a news channel.

  34. Oops, “their”. &%$@#$#@!

  35. oops “they’re”. Sometimes I hate swipe.

  36. There should be an easy abbrev for “their, they’re, there” like there is for “you’re and your”. For space on text/Twitter, and just on general principles.

  37. Well, if you make one up, I’ll use it!

  38. I get why some outlets aren’t showing the cartoons or the current magazine cover. What bugs me is when they try to show them without showing them. Whether it’s pixelated, blacked-out or otherwise covered, that somehow seems worse than just not showing it at all.

  39. Showing a censored version is stupid. I personally think the implied demand that we MUST show the covers in response to the attack is unfounded. Charlie Ebdo quite intentionally produced images that I would just as soon not see on my cable news, and I don’t think it’s necessary to have them there now. It’s each network’s choice, not a MUST. But one or the other. Showing censored versions is trying to have it both ways. Fish or cut bait, people.

  40. First Fox conservatives lose their minds, now Fox liberal Mara Liassen has been in the building too long. I swear, the virus infects ALL of them eventually.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2015/01/fox-news-npr-wonder-obama-administration-refuses-say-radical-islam/

  41. savefarris Says:

    I personally think the implied demand that we MUST show the covers in response to the attack is unfounded.

    It does seem a bit disingenuous to claim the mantle of ‘Defender of Free Speech’ and then bow to pressure. Either show ’em or admit that your cowardice and all that it implies.

  42. Gimme a break, Farris. Refusing to show them in order to protect your staff is not cowardice. Refusing because it’s offensive and not something you would show under other circumstances is not cowardice. The exercise of free speech includes choosing what you want to publish.

  43. Maybe Mara hasn’t lost her mind. Maybe even liberals that love Obama are pis*ed, too!

    Just a thought that not everyone who questioned this decision is Republican.

  44. Not the Paris rally, Pam (which I criticized, too)..FNC’s bizarre fascination with the admin not saying a particular phrase exactly to their liking. They’ve become obsessed with it, even after Obama said “Islamic jihadist sympathizers” this morning. Do Fox viewers even know that happened?

  45. News networks should show the cover because the cover is the story. They often times read the “N” word when it’s part of a story. They show all sorts of insensitive videos and pictures.

    In this case, they’re not showing the covers because they’re scared of Muhammed Bin Wackjobee finding them and blowing them to pieces.

  46. That’s dishonest, LS. It’s easy for you or me to play bad@ss in the face of a threat, but what if it puts our families or employees in jeopardy? What gives us the right to decide that for them? Calling people cowards for protecting other people is crap.

  47. LS: this morning in the first 30 minutes of MJ Jeremy Peters of the NYT said one of the reasons that the Obama administration doesn’t want to use the terms Islamic extremists is because too many Republican pundits and FOX News are asking him why not use those terms.

    What pathetic excuse making for this President and his administration.

    And for joe: please provide a link for the President using the words “Islamic jihadist sympathizes” on January 13th. I have tried to find it and I can’t.

  48. “Jeremy Peters of the NYT said one of the reasons that the Obama administration doesn’t want to use the terms Islamic extremists is because too many Republican pundits and FOX News are asking him why not use those terms.”

    ^^If I’m quoting you correctly, Mr. Peters says it’s “one of the reasons” not ‘the reason’ which is a qualifier that pretty much negates the relevance of the whole comment; as we don’t know what other reasons there could be and how much of a reason, if any, this one was in the decision – if there actually was an actual decision on the subject.

    And because Mr. Peters is stating his opinion (he offers no evidence of the truth of his comment) we have no idea if the reason stated is actually a reason at all or just a guess by Mr. Peters.

    “What pathetic excuse making for this President and his administration.”

    ^^All POTUS’s make decisions on how to frame the discussion of a situation (including what words to use to describe it) for any number of reasons, good and bad. IMO,your conclusion is based solely on your personal dislike of the POTUS and no actual knowledge of the situation.

  49. This wasn’t a story before the admin stupidly tried to give Fox what they wanted by saying “Islam”, and it’s not a story now. It’s a made-up creation of Fox News, a political attack operation which turned terrorist attacks in France into some weirdness about how the president they hate doesn’t talk exactly the way they want him to. It’s madness.

  50. This thing with the bartender and Boehner is a bit scary, no? Seems like something that could easily happen, yet somehow hasn’t. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

  51. Fritz: IMO you are a flack for liberals who can NEVER criticize Obama.

  52. “To not call the attacks Islamic extremism whitewashes from public debate an important detail: These terrorists are invoking a great religion to do evil. It’s an uncomfortable fact—but a fact, nonetheless”

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/call-it-radical-islam-but-don-t-get-carried-away-20150114

  53. ” what’s being invoked here is a special kind of protection for Islamic sensibilities, not a universal rule.”

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/blasphemy-revisited-i/?_r=0

  54. The admin has repeatedly stated it’s extremism in the name of Islam. I have no idea why people keep ignoring this basic fact, then asking the question again. It’s becoming surreal.

  55. To borrow a phrase from Idiot Channel, it’s just like Benghazi: Get answers; ignore answers; say “questions remain”. Mad. Ness.

  56. “Fritz: IMO you are a flack for liberals who can NEVER criticize Obama.”

    ^^Whether or not I personally criticize Obama (I do on occasion) has no relevance to whether or not Mr. Peters opinion that “the Obama administration doesn’t want to use the terms Islamic extremists” is accurate, maybe partly accurate or totally inaccurate. It’s a matter for debate.

    As for me being “a flack for liberals” I totally deny that. I’m a proud liberal but a flack for nobody.

  57. There clearly has been an attempt by this President and the men and women around him to downplay the role or influence of Islam behind these attacks. That may be – I think it clearly is – a tactical measure to derive the terrorists of the pleasure, if you will, of fighting for a great religion.

    In other words, by taking away the religious component you are diminishing the purpose behind the acts. If it’s not done in the name of one of the world’s greatest religions then the acts lose their importance. They’re nihilistic acts and not defensive ones for any great cause.

    No one can seriously think after all of the measures by this president that he’s “soft” on terrorism? Please. You can disagree with his above approach and say it won’t work, that it’s ignoring the true nature of the threat. But to claim he’s soft on the danger is, frankly, absurd. What, do we need to invade Iraq again? How did that first try go?

  58. Brook Baldwin just asked Dakota Meyer about the Administration’s politically correct language and refusal to call Islamic terrorism what it is.

  59. – Islamic terrorism –
    I don’t buy that it’s about Fox, either. Fox didn’t shame them into covering Gruber, Fox didn’t shame them into covering Wendy Davis, and Fox isn’t able to shame them into covering most of their preferred narratives. This is catching on because it’s a real concern, and the President isn’t sufficiently addressing it. That’s the problem.

  60. “That’s the problem.”

    No, it’s not. Fox started drumming this up the morning after the attack, and has beat on it relentlessly since. Then the administration – like idiots – tried to answer it, which only ginned Fox up, then one of their liberals got in on the action.

    It’s not a real story. The MSM – including Fox News – are chasing each other’s tails like fools.

  61. “This is catching on because it’s a real concern, and the President isn’t sufficiently addressing it. That’s the problem.”

    Yes, but do you think it’s because he doesn’t recognize it, i.e., the role of Islam (however twisted) behind the acts, or because he thinks that by diminishing or downplaying the role it weakens the terrorist cause?

    I think it’s more of a strategic decision than a sort of philosophic one.

  62. Uh huh. Because, like I said, the rest of the press is so well-known for taking up Fox’s cause.

  63. I think the way they choose to word it is smart, and Fox is fixated on a different wording because they’re a political operation acting as the opposing party to Obama. Earnest never should have tried to appease them by arguing with Ed Henry for 5 minutes. It just made the stupid “story” more legitimate. They should stop calling on him..he’s not a reporter anymore.

  64. This isn’t just Fox News viewers who have noticed this.

    Ron Fournier? Ross Douthat? Me?

    Okay, one of those is not like the other.

    The President would be wise to explain his thinking here and not let his surrogates explain it.

  65. savefarris Says:

    It’s easy for you or me to play bad@ss in the face of a threat, but what if it puts our families or employees in jeopardy?

    The fact that the rest of the media demurred showing the original cartoons is what made Charlie Hedbo a target in the first place. Had the rest of the media done what they claimed and stood on the side of free speech, they wouldn’t have been attacked for being the only ones who dared showed “The Prophet Mohammed”.

  66. “Yes, but do you think it’s because he doesn’t recognize it, i.e., the role of Islam (however twisted) behind the acts, or because he thinks that by diminishing or downplaying the role it weakens the terrorist cause?”

    I don’t know what the reason is but if it’s the latter, that’s stupefying silly. If a terrorist cuts off the heads of an infidel in the name of Islam, the POTUS not recognizing that fact will diminish nothing. The only thing that would diminish it is if the majority of the worlds muslims continually denounced these acts. And, that ain’t happening.

    If the POTUS thinks he can weaken the terrorist’s cause by refusing to call it what it is, he’s delusional. That excuse should offend all thinking persons.

    Oh, and worldwide terrorism by these Islamist fanatics is on the rise. The POTUS is just riding it out, seemingly without a care in the world. He’s content to pass the problem off to the next guy.

  67. “Extremism in the name of Islam” is calling it what it is. You guys are asking a question that’s already been answered, and pretending you didn’t get the answer. Like lemmings.

  68. Yes, those of us who have complained about Fox in the past are suddenly now “lemmings”. Try again.

  69. That was a bit much. Sorry.

    And this. It’s getting real.
    @CBSNews
    JUST IN: US officials have arrested individual in connection with plan to attack US Capitol; plot involved guns, bombs; was in early stages

  70. Say what you want about Fox, but “core Al Qaeda is decimated” never gets old. This president has been full of it on terrorism for years, and lied his way past the last election. If the rest of the press is starting to notice, then good for them.

  71. savefarris Says:

    Al Sharpton doesn’t know the difference between Razzie nominations and the actual award.

  72. So what happens when a guest tries to show the front page of Charlie Hebdo on a network that has chosen not to show it?
    http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/news-anchor-cuts-off-guest-attempting-to-show-charlie-hebdo-cover/252457

  73. Why the heck would the Rev be expected to know the intricacies of a silly pop culture award? I guarantee you most people have no clue how the Razzies are set up.

  74. savefarris Says:

    Why the heck would the Rev be expected to know the intricacies of a silly pop culture award?

    He had spent the previous 5 minutes excoriating Romney over how out of touch he was and how Huckabee shouldn’t be critiquing pop culture.

    Oh, and there’s the fact that ‘nominations’ and ‘winners’ are spelled differently. The Reality-Based Community in action!

  75. Why the hell were you watching Sharpton’s show? I watch plenty of people I disagree with but he is unwatchable.

  76. Fox News invents the news, and you’re whining about Rev. Al and a silly pop culture segment. Perfect.

  77. icemannyr Says:

    A promo just ran on FNC for Thursday’s “On The Record” and the topic is….

    Why won’t Obama say “Radical Islam”?

    They are literally obsessed with this and doing the topic every show every day.

  78. “They are literally obsessed with this and doing the topic every show every day.”

    It’s a legitimate question. And, it’s weird that they won’t. They’ve always been out of touch with the real world. They wouldn’t even use the word terrorism or war previously. Remember workplace violence and overseas contingency operations? This administration is delusional. They act like the world is actually the way they viewed it from their ivory towers as opposed to the way it actually is. They came in believing the bad things that happened to us were our fault. If only we had a super smart progressive POTUS. They thought Obama’s magical oratory would cure all that ails the world. But, his weakness has made these whackjob psychopathic Islamist fanatics stronger and bolder.

  79. It’s not a legitimate question. FNC’s first reaction to this event was to look for POTUS to say “terror”. He did, so then they whined that it took two hours. Then they latched onto “Islam”. The admin said “extremist” and “Islam”, so they moved onto “radical Islamist”, as if this was now the story of something that happened to another country. And no amount of responding from POTUS or the Press Sec does any d@mn good. Fox News has deemed itself a government in exile, and is attacking this president every hour as an enemy of the country who WON’T SAY EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT WHEN WE WANT.

    It’s not a news story. It’s a 24/7 political attack infomercial. It’s bad for the country.

  80. imnotblue Says:

    IT’S TEARING US APART!

    WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

  81. Zip it, troll. I actually made an effort to explain my POV, you’re just yelling stupidity. Situation normal.

  82. It’s also nice to occasionally point out how incredibly stupid the counterparts on MSNBC are.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/395925/dumbest-57-seconds-ever-tv-jonah-goldberg

  83. ^ Congrats, you managed to watch MSNBC and find something you don’t like that’s more relevant than Rev. Al not knowing how the Razzies work. It’s almost like you take cable news criticism seriously, and aren’t just here to be a partisan goon and shout FOX HATER at people. We’ll take it.

  84. Do I get a cookie?

    The Razzies annoy me. They supposedly “award” the worst movie of the year, when they really “award” the worst known movie of the year. There are plenty of crap movies that never made it out of the gate, and never get their due as “worst”. The Razzies are a sham.

  85. I can’t remember who it was now (Sandra Bullock?) but someone made a big deal out of being nominated and showed up to accept the award. It freaked the Razzie dudes out.

  86. imnotblue Says:

    I don’t understand the whole Razzie issue. At what point did anyone actually expect Sharpton to know what he was talking about?

  87. savefarris Says:

    I can’t remember who it was now (Sandra Bullock?) but someone made a big deal out of being nominated and showed up to accept the award.

    Don’t forget Halle Berry, you racist!

  88. savefarris Says:

    I don’t understand the whole Razzie issue. At what point did anyone actually expect Sharpton to know what he was talking about?

    Noever said it would make the list of 500 Worst Atrocities of Al Sharpton’s career. Just a fun little “Wow, he looks like an idiot. Which is especially funny right after he spent a segment calling other people idiots…”

    I’d love to catalog Al’s other broadcast crimes, but to do so I’d have to spend more time watching his show. Which is a sacrifice I’m not willing to make at this time.

  89. I think narrowing it down to 500 would be tough.

  90. You know, there’s a generation that thinks Sharpton has always been thin.

  91. I guarantee you there’s a younger demo of MSNBC viewers who think Politics Nation and “being that civil rights guy” is the only stuff he’s ever done. “He ran for president??”

  92. That’s a good point… They might actually believe he’s a Reverend too.

    Scary.

  93. My kid is always doing the “Is so-and-so famous for (that thing he did after a 30-year career?)”, and I want to smack him.

  94. savefarris Says:

    “He ran for president??”

    Peter Jennings’ finest hour

  95. savefarris Says:

    “Is so-and-so famous for (that thing he did after a 30-year career?)”

    Robert Redford … isn’t he the bad guy from Captain America 2?
    Paul McCartney … the old dude who did a duet with Kanye?

  96. Remember when GWB said this and was roundly criticized by the left and the media:

    “Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”

    He was 100% correct. How nobody in the current Administration can understand this basic point is beyond be. How many times have we heard “but we got bin laden”? Ok, good. But, as W pointed out, it’s about much, much more than that.

  97. The old McCartney joke was “That guy in Wings, right?” Now nobody remembers Wings…

  98. Ok fine. Snapping at Blue for hollerin’ at me in his ALL CAPS was probably a bad idea. I apologize. Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.. (The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad reference).

  99. No Muslim terrorists here, there or anywhere. Just people who belong to a cult or something.

    The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim
    The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
    The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
    The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
    The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
    The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
    The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
    The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
    The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
    The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
    The Beirut U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
    The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
    The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
    The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
    The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
    The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
    The Beirut Marine Barracks Bombers were Muslims
    The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
    The First World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
    The Bombay, Mumbai, India Attackers were Muslims
    The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
    The Nairobi, Kenya Shopping Mall Killers were Muslims
    The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
    The Sydney, Australia Lindt Cafe Kidnapper was a Muslim
    The Peshawar, Pakistani School Children Killers were Muslims

  100. …quietly hums ‘Kumbaya’…

  101. Pam’s list kinda looks like the “R” symbol from Romney 2012. Or, maybe I’m off my rocker.

  102. savefarris Says:

    Now nobody remembers Wings…

    Tony Shaloub’s finest work

  103. savefarris Says:

    Notably missing from wipam’s Slalom of Death:

    The LAX Y2K Bomber
    The Times Square Bomber
    The Fort Hood Shooter
    The Jakarta Bombings in 2009
    Benghazi (I mean, c’mon…)

  104. — looks like the “R” symbol from Romney 2012 —
    Ha! Took me awhile to figure that out…

  105. savefarris Says:

    All this talk about the Rev’s transgressions, he obviously thought he needed to add to the list:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/al-sharpton-blasts-appalling-lack-of-oscar-diversity-in-time-of-ferguson/

  106. Fox and Dish have a deal. Which never had anything to do with censorship or ‘taking something away from you’ ’cause Fox are serial liars.

  107. Just looked on my phone and doesn’t mirror an “R” so the phone people Prob think in nuts.

  108. savefarris Says:

    You’re so right, joe. Fox is the only company ever who has played hardball and manufactured facts during a negotiation…

    http://www.ibtimes.com/dish-network-comcast-sportsnet-dispute-comes-down-wire-sports-fans-caught-middle-1731505

  109. Yeah, you’ll have to Google harder than that to figure out how a news channel using on-air personalities to claim censorship is a common negotiating tactic. They pimped Billo and Megyn out to lie to their viewers.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: