Free for All: 02/25/15

What’s on your mind?

79 Responses to “Free for All: 02/25/15”

  1. Truly pathetic!

  2. Classy like Sean Hannity’s coverage of Zimmerman?

  3. but….but Fox!

  4. Sure her comments were awful and Hannity said nothing awful.
    Spare me the selective outage .

  5. savefarris Says:

    There’s awful, and then there’s a near-incitement to violence. MHP better hope and pray no one lays a finger on Mr. Zimmerman lest she be indicted herself.

  6. And that’s how people get the title of. “FOX hater.”

  7. “A near-incitement to violence” is what Hannity did during the Bundy Ranch standoff.

  8. x2

  9. “And that’s how people get the title of. “FOX hater.””

    I would say it refers to someone who spends all day whining about every little thing uttered on Fox News while being unable and unwilling to point out anything good.

  10. Bill O’Reilly began his show tonight going after “Obama haters” while reading some e-mail he received from viewers calling Obama a muslim, etc.

    Yet, my twitter feed tells me that BOR began his show “hating on Obama”. It’s a very odd obsession.

  11. savefarris Says:

    “People should be gathering up their papers, make sure you can show you are a long standing resident of the United States,” Obama said at a town hall meeting hosted by the Spanish-language TV network Telemundo.

    Wait, didn’t he sue Arizona for proposing the exact same thing?

  12. At least Al Jazeera has the decency of retracting incorrect stories without being dragged kicking and screaming, unlike Fox ‘News’ with the ‘no go zones’. Not only that, Tantaros and Hannity still have not apologized for perpetuating that lie. I believe John Bolton blabbed about them even after the apologies from those who were not guilty and wasn’t confronted.
    Advice: learn the language if you’re going to talk about French matters. It might f*cking help.

  13. The O’Reilly saga is starting to pick up some steam as the week progresses with a number of his past documented statements now being challenged. I expect by the weekend there will be some real pressure on the network to deal with their O’Reilly problem.

    The thing is it’s not pressure from outside FNC he has to worry about but rather from the inside. Not all the staff are like Hannity, Bolling or Pirro. There are a number of hosts and reporters (Shep, Kelly, Greta etc.) who are non-partisan or at least want to convey that image; who were willing to let Bill deal with his embellishment problem without getting involved but are not likely to be as forgiving with Billo threating reporters.

    This now becomes a problem for the network. Just imagine if it were Ed Schultz threating a reporter at FNC or The National Review. You don’t think there would be an outcry from the right wing media demanding he be fired at once? It would be an outrage lollapalooza.

    I don’t think Bill will be fired or even suspended (this is FNC were talking about here) but I do think he will have to apologize for the threats; even if it’s only the fake ‘if anyone was offended’ variety.

    I can’t really imagine what Bill would have to do to actually get suspended; let alone fired; but I do expect there will be more exaggerations/lies coming out over the next week so who knows.

  14. YouTube has interesting videos:

  15. The kids’ mistake was assuming the low brow programme was actual journalism:

  16. Low brow programme refers to The O’Reilly Factor just in case it needs to be stated.

  17. savefarris Says:

    The O’Reilly saga is starting to pick up some steam as the week progresses with a number of his past documented statements now being challenged. I expect by the weekend there will be some real pressure on the network to deal with their O’Reilly problem.

    The thing is it’s not pressure from outside FNC he has to worry about but rather from the inside.

    Aaaaand …. wrong:

    http://deadline.com/2015/02/bill-oreilly-victim-mother-jones-media-matters-cbs-news-fox-news-channel-1201381538/

  18. “Aaaaand …. wrong:”

    ^^Aaaaand …. right:

    FNC says Billo is victim here isn’t news. It’s spin.

  19. Low brow! These segments are just like Kimmel, Letterman, etc with a political bent. The kids teacher is a liberal of major proportions and the fact that he wasted his students time debunking something that WAS NOT journalism, pretending that it was, is an example of liberal indoctrination of the little snots at an early age.

  20. Jihadi John has been identified and what do you know, he’s not some poor schmuck who couldn’t find employment.

  21. Costello about to do a story on CPAC. This should be entertaining.

  22. savefarris Says:

    FNC says Billo is victim here isn’t news. It’s spin.

    You claimed there would be “pressure within”. Which, if they’re publicly defending him, means your read on the situation is 180%.

    —————————————————————-

    Since Corn is so interested in going through every reporter’s output with a fine tooth comb, I wonder if anyone is ever going to get around to evaluating his dodgy work in Plame-gate.

  23. Well, the report on CPAC was pretty straight down the middle. Well done, CNN.

  24. @farris

    We know nobody will… or if they do, it won’t be of any major concern, and certainly won’t get any significant coverage.

    Heck, we all remember the Journolist scandal, and that was “journalists” openly conspiring to push a certain ideology and hurt those who disagreed! But it was “no big deal,” and most of the people involved have found new work, with little impact to their careers.

    We are not talking about a level playing-field here.

  25. “You claimed there would be “pressure within”. Which, if they’re publicly defending him, means your read on the situation is 180%.”

    ^^The story is still in early days and what I said Bill’s threats to reporters could cause some less partisan FNC hosts and reporters, like Shep or Greta and maybe Kelly, to lobby the network to get O’Reilly to apologize for those threats.

    I have no illusions BOR will ever be disciplined for embellishing his war stories. That’s not going to happen. I doubt if he was accused of being a serial killer they would even suspend him. It’s FNC and Bill O’Reilly were dealing with here.

  26. “CNN Anchor Nails GOP Rep.: YouTube Wrong to Post ISIS Videos, but Fox News Is Okay?”
    Simply answer is doesn’t matter if the intent was news or recruitment, it’s the same f*cking video. Because it’s on Fox’s website, the recruitment video magically turns into a non-recruitment video?
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-anchor-nails-gop-rep-youtube-wrong-to-post-isis-videos-but-fox-news-is-okay/

  27. *Simple answer is it doesn’t matter

  28. “I doubt if he was accused of being a serial killer they would even suspend him. It’s FNC and Bill O’Reilly were dealing with here.”

    Weren’t you saying something previously about something being juvenile…

  29. “Weren’t you saying something previously about something being juvenile…”

    ^^I said you calling me and everyone else who disagrees with you a “hater” was juvenile. – and it is. It’s just name calling when you don’t have any real answer to someone’s comment.

  30. savefarris Says:

    I doubt if he was accused of being a serial killer they would even suspend him.

    You may have a point. After all, MMFA did accuse him of murdering George Tiller…

    Just kidding. You’re being hyperbolically obtuse. Though I have a feeling you know it.

  31. As I told you before fritz, I wasn’t calling you anything. I was joking around. Hence the cutesy, sweet smiley face.

    Take a breath I’ve said numerous times that I think you’re a good dude. It seems as if you’re trying to pick a fight.

  32. “It seems as if you’re trying to pick a fight.”

    ^^You keep referring back to the juvenile/hater comment and they just aren’t the same. Making a sarcastic comment is just par for the course here (you do it all the time) and it’s not the same as calling someone a name.

    Having said that I have no problem with you or your comments (I rarely agree but that’s not news) and hope we can move on.

    I do have a real problem with posters here calling every criticism of a politician or media personality a product of ‘haters’ and will continue to call out the use of the word in future. It’s either that or start calling all the right wing commenters here MSNBC or CNN haters which to me is – well – juvenile.😉

  33. Don Lemon interviewed a llama on CNN Tonight.

  34. ^ I honestly don’t know if that’s a joke

  35. So, Eric Holder thinks people disagree with him because he has dark skin and advises young people coming to Washington to read Malcom X. But, yeah, we’re the racists.

    Such garbage. Holder is an activist and a terrible excuse for Attorney General. He’s got a strong dislike for white people but it’s cool cuz he’s a black liberal. So, he can be a racist.

  36. ^^I’ve never quite understood why it’s OK to call black person a “racist” because it’s perceived, by the accuser, they’ve “got a strong dislike for white people”; and yet it’s outrageous and a cheap shot to call a white person a “racist” when they are perceived, by the accuser, to have a have ‘a strong dislike for black people’.

    Republicans can get rid of Holder anytime they want by voting in his replacement. But it just drives them crazy that they have to vote for the person Obama wants if they want to rid themselves of Holder. There’ll be a lot of nose holding going on when they finally do take that vote.🙂

  37. fritz:
    I don’t know a ton about Loretta Lynch but from what I’ve read/heard there hasn’t been a ton of opposition from Republicans. From the little I know about her, I have no issues with her nomination and eventual confirmation. She doesn’t strike me as someone who is more interested in far-left activism than she is in carrying out the role of AG. Basically, she’s no Eric Holder. He’s been an absolute disgrace. I wish her the best of luck.

  38. Wow, Andy. That’s uhm, I don’t know what it is. I’ve always been a defender of Lemon but it gets harder and harder by the day.

  39. “there hasn’t been a ton of opposition from Republicans.”

    ^^Well she been delayed a couple of months but in the world of Obama nominations that’s almost instantaneous. I expect after she’s been made AG and Holder is gone she will be just as disliked by conservatives and Republicans, as he was – probably before she arrives at her new office. I wonder long before some one here calls her a racist. I give it a week but I’m an optimist.🙂

  40. Looks like house Republican conservatives may have sandbagged Speaker Boehner. They did a procedural/test vote on the DHS funding earlier today and it passed easily with only votes. Now there doing the real thing and many of those votes have apparently melted away. Now they’ve delayed ending the vote and who knows what happens next.

  41. ‘with only votes’ >> should read ‘with only Republican votes’. Sorry.

  42. Well, you’re free to project whatever you want. You seem to think that Holder and Lynch are identical people. I don’t. And, I couldn’t care less what color she is. As long as she takes her job seriously and doesn’t see her primary role as being the Al Sharpton of the Administration. And, I’ve seen nothing to suggest she will.

    Holder deserves all the criticism he gets. He’s been a disgrace. But, as is typical for someone like him, he thinks he’s criticized because of the shade of his skin. That’s an absurd excuse. And it shows that he believes his white critics are some sort of anti-American racists. As opposed to being free thinking people who disagree with the way he’s conducted his job.

  43. “Heck, we all remember the Journolist scandal, and that was “journalists” openly conspiring to push a certain ideology and hurt those who disagreed! But it was “no big deal,”

    Blue with the “What about Fox News!!??” diversion.

    The discussion is about what O’Reilly did or said and not whether it’s fair or unfair to him. He is the most powerful/highest rated guy on cable news and not some obscure print journalist that nobody ever heard of.

    There should be a level playing field when the players are equal.

  44. “The discussion is about what O’Reilly did or said and not whether it’s fair or unfair to him.”

    Correction. I should have said the discussion is first about what he said or allegedly said and whether he was dishonest.

    The discussion about whether he is being unfairly targeted is a fair one but that should come AFTER the determination of whether the charges are true.

    As the saying goes, “Before impugning an opponent’s motives,
    even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.”

  45. “Before impugning an opponent’s motives,
    even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.”

    ^^Excellent point Erich. Many conservatives were more than happy to attack Brian Williams before the charges against him were proven, mostly because they perceived him to be a ‘liberal elite’ MSM personality.

    O’Reilly should be given a chance to prove the embellishment charges against him are false as well but left wing critics are more than happy to assume the stories are embellished because they think of BOR as a self promoting narcissist.

    The only difference is that Williams apologized for his embellishments, when challenged, and was given a 6 month (without pay) suspension. BillO has only answered his accusers with bluster and excuses. In fact he has threatened some of those making the accusations. He should, at least, apologize for the threats – real or not.

  46. “I couldn’t care less what color she is. As long as she takes her job seriously and doesn’t see her primary role as being the Al Sharpton of the Administration. And, I’ve seen nothing to suggest she will.”

    ^^Let’s see how you think when she says or does something with which you don’t agree.🙂

  47. “^^Let’s see how you think when she says or does something with which you don’t agree. ”

    Well, that’s cute but nothing about me suggests I won’t give her a fair shot or won’t develop my opinions about her based on facts.

    Holder was a joke from the beginning. Unless I missed where Lynch was instrumental in the Marc Rich pardon or where she has a long racialist history, she starts off head and shoulders above Holder.

  48. “…BillO has only answered his accusers with bluster and excuses.”

    This is a popular taking point in the left now, but it is factually incorrect. In other words, a lie.

    O’Reilly addressed the substance of the attack, brought on current and firmer colleagues to discuss it and support his version of events.

    To say otherwise denies what actually happened, in favor of supporting the liberal attack machine.

  49. @ Erich

    By that logic, the question (for example) about Obama’s birth certificate should have been asked and re-asked by the media, and he should have answered it, THEN we could question the motives of those who helped push the story.

    For some reason, that’s not how it happened.

  50. “Looks like house Republican conservatives may have sandbagged Speaker Boehner. They did a procedural/test vote on the DHS funding earlier today and it passed easily with only votes. Now there doing the real thing and many of those votes have apparently melted away. Now they’ve delayed ending the vote and who knows what happens next.”

    ^^I was right. The Republican Tea Party crowd sandbagged Boehner with the early vote and when the real vote came down they defeated the bill.

    Next comes more votes that will also fail and eventually a clean DHS funding vote that will be won with the backing of the Democrats. The question that remains is whether that will be the last straw for the Tea Party gang and will they mount a takeover of the Republican Party leadership in the House?

    It may be fun, for us liberals, to watch the self destruction of the House Republicans unless you work for DHS and have just been furloughed.

  51. “For some reason, that’s not how it happened.”

    This is how it happened except for the liberal partisan press who, I admit, argue that ANY question about Obama’s background is racist or xenophobic or “othering.”

    The problem for the “just asking questions” element is they didn’t or wouldn’t accept the answers.

    O’Reilly clearly, to me, exaggerated what he saw and where he was. And did so on several occasions. In almost all of these examples it was about decades old stories and again, for me, I am more forgiving IF he had admitted error.

    But he doesn’t admit mistakes; for him every criticism is a conspiracy and he treats it as a war.

    In any case, the or “a” larger question is what standard do we use when we judge these anchors/commentators/hosts? It’s a new breed of journalists and we’re searching for a standard to hold them to.

    But there has to be some standard, no?

  52. “Let’s see how this is going to play out:”

    ^^I doubt they will be any fallout at all for O’Reilly. It’s now been proven he embellished a number of his past reporting stories and even made up a few out of whole cloth. It doesn’t matter.

    The thing is his fans, viewers, coworkers and employers just don’t care. And those that do care aren’t important to his fans, viewers, coworkers or employers. The only things that can force FNC to deal with the O’Reilly are a revolt by his coworkers, a loss of sponsors, and or a big drop in ratings. None of those things are happening at the moment are I don’t think they will happen in the future.

    Shame, embarrassment, honor, dignity and/or truth just aren’t words that come to mind when you say Bill O’Reilly. Brazen, bully, blowhard and liar seem more apropos.

  53. Outsider Says:

    Of course, a significant segment of that audience likes being lied to.

  54. ^cheap shot outsider AND NOT TRUE!

  55. It’s looking like the beginning of the end over at MSNBC. The new Comcast overlords know that the liberal shtick is never going to catch up to Fox News. Older viewers won’t switch and millennials lack the attention span to tune in. The game itself has changed. It is no longer about going mano a mano with Fox for the same ad dollars. The big picture for Comcast is about bundling various content creation and delivery platforms, in which MSNBC plays a small part. Online convergence is the driving force here. “Shift” is an early pilot program for this. Expanding Mika’s women thing and hiring a food personality are also to lay the groundwork.

  56. Outsider Says:

    It’s not a cheap shot. the anti-Muslim hysteria on that network shows it and Brigitte Gabriel and Pamela Geller are so highly revered at that place.
    Or what about Bob Menendez’s underage prostitution story. Or Obama was willing to pay for a Muslim museum out of his own pocket? The reason why Fox pulls this crap is because there are enough people who want to hear this, true or not.

  57. “anti-Muslim hysteria”

    lol.

  58. Outsider Says:

    It might be funny to you but most people don’t find it funny that pundits and hosts at a big name news org like FNC are propagating hate and prejudice. No, it’s not criticizing the extremist elements or even the religion itself that’s the problem, it’s the need to demonize all Muslims.

  59. Such silliness.

  60. ^^Outsider lists some interesting examples

    “the anti-Muslim hysteria on that network shows it and Brigitte Gabriel and Pamela Geller are so highly revered at that place.
    Or what about Bob Menendez’s underage prostitution story. Or Obama was willing to pay for a Muslim museum out of his own pocket?”

    of his point

    “The reason why Fox pulls this crap is because there are enough people who want to hear this, true or not.”

    in his post; and you dismiss it out of hand;

    “lol. Such silliness.”

    instead of making a strong counterargument you would expect to one of your posts. It just tells me you have no serious answer to his original point:

    “a significant segment of that (FNC) audience likes being lied to.”

  61. imnotblue Says:

    @ fritz
    “It’s now been proven he embellished a number of his past reporting stories and even made up a few out of whole cloth.”

    Well, no… it hasn’t been proven. You may believe it (because you really really want to), but “proven,” no. Not by a long shot.

    @ Outsider
    “…Brigitte Gabriel and Pamela Geller are so highly revered at that place.”

    Evidence? I’ve never even heard for Gabriel. And I’m pretty sure only Hannity talks to Geller.

    “Or what about Bob Menendez’s underage prostitution story.”

    What about it? That they reported the Daily Caller’s story, made it clear it wasn’t proven, and addressed it when the story fell apart? And whom talked about it so often?

    “Or Obama was willing to pay for a Muslim museum”

    Wasn’t that just “Fox & Friends,” and didn’t they address it on-air and apologize for it?

    Speaking of people who don’t mind being lied to… a trait of the FOX Hater.

  62. “instead of making a strong counterargument you would expect to one of your posts. It just tells me you have no serious answer to his original point”

    That’s the m.o. of the left. Make crazy claims and force people to defend them. “you’re a racist, woman-hater” – now prove to me how you’re not.

    I’m not going to dignify such a stupid accusation with a serious “counterargument”.

  63. “I’m not going to dignify such a stupid accusation with a serious “counterargument”.”

    ^^OK. I’ll remember that the next time you or one of the other FNC fan boys here demands I defend MSNBC over some idiotic accusation you’ve made and are insulted when I laugh at your silliness.🙂

  64. Outsider Says:

    Yes, only liberals hate Fox. It’s not possible many conservatives are sick of Fox and the antics there that are embarrassing them.

    Blue, it’s called YouTube and you can find it yourself. Like most people, I just watch. I don’t think to myself, ‘hey, I need to record this just in case someone needs evidence.’
    So F&F aren’t part of Fox? They jumped right into that stupid lie like the no-go zones because it fits a certain narrative. Why did they do it? Because that’s what a segment of that audience wanted to hear.

  65. Well fritz, if I say something silly about MSNBC or CNN, you’re free to laugh out loud at it.

    I’m still not going to have a serious conversation with the “so, how long have you been beating your wife”, guy. Cuz, I think he’s silly and un-serious.

  66. imnotblue Says:

    @ Outsider

    I took a look before I posted… and like I said, Gabriel and Geller are infrequently on FNC. Similarly, the Menendez story was reported as being an “investigation,” and when his name was cleared, that was reported too.

    F&F are part of FOX, but can you really attribute the actions of one program to an entire network? This reported a false story, as ALL the networks have done, and then corrected the record soon after.

    The issue with FNC is that the haters have a strong preconceived notion of what happens and what “they” believe. Little events then become pieces in that puzzle, instead of the anomaly. The same happens for those who hate MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other networks.

    But in the end, most of it isn’t true. And those who pay attention know better than to believe the Hater’s spin.

  67. I had never heard of Garbriel. But, I rarely watch Hannity & I think INB noted she appears on Hannity. As for Pamela Geller, the name rings a bell but I have no idea who she is.

  68. I also have a terrible memory so there’s that to factor in.

  69. savefarris Says:

    The Ed Schultz remix you never knew you wanted.

  70. I’m a CNN fan but they have been truly awful the last 2 days. They are pretty much 100% against Netanyahu and seem really hurt that he spoke before Congress.

  71. Chris Matthews went a little bonkers (speaking with Thomas Roberts) with his analysis of the Bibi speech. Complete with takeovers of US foreign policy and all kinds of other craziness that you would expect from someone who gets tingles up his leg at the sound of POTUS’s voice.

  72. I’m watching The Following on Netflix and just saw former FNCer Laurie Dhue. She was playing…a reporter.

  73. “Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton’s home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.” (From the AP)

    Really? What the he*l is physical hacking?

    That system could have been hacked from anywhere in the world and having the Secret Service standing guard outside her house would not have prevented that.

    And she did this to protect her emails from the GOVERNMENT WHO SHE WORKED FOR? WTF is going on here! and if liberals are happy with this they have to have a screw loose.

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: