3/3/09 1:21 PM

'A More Dignified and Deserving Person I Know Not'

J$P Video! Honoring Brit Hume's 35 years in journalism:


From Fox & Friends, January 9 2009




NotSoFast
I realize this is a fan site for for Fox News, and dissenting opinion may not be welcome, because this is probably a fond farewell topic. So please delete it if you only want warm, fuzzy thoughts here. These are quotes from Mr. Hume:
 
"“Malik Obama tells The Jerusalem Post that, if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.”
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/51526.html
 
"Um. That sounds pretty disturbing, Ambassador Crocker - um - that we are confronting with Iran now a situation where - um - I mean, it doesn't appear we have any diplomatic possibility there, do we, to suppress this activity by Iran? Or do we?"
 
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/09/11/brit_hume_suggests_that_diplomacy_with_iran_is_impossible_and_intervention_by_a_nonamerican_military_is_needed.php
 
"[Barack Obama's chances were slim because ]" African-American and radical, that could be is lethal."  
FOX Election HQ, 6/04/08
 
If you disagree with me, please respond without personal attacks, as I am not attacking him, just quoting him.
January 9, 2009, 1:29:10 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
We don't permit personal attacks here. We are not the newshounds, whom I see you laughably use as a source. The only thing you can assume is true on that site is, maybe, if you're lucky, the URLs. Certainly not what is published there.
 
In fact, your citation of a newshound article does not contain the quote you cite! Not that there's anything wrong with Brit's question, but if you're going to do citations, at least come up with reliable sources.
 
Even more pointless is your Jerusalem Post citation. Brit reported a story as the Jerusalem Post did. The paper eventually retracted it as inaccurate, and then Brit did too. So what's your point?
January 9, 2009, 1:38:38 PM EST – Like – Reply


Yes it's me again
When a Houndie gets out of it's element over at spoon fed News Hound site they are lost.

Edited By Siteowner
January 9, 2009, 1:48:57 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
nsf, I just did a quick scroll through the most recent post at your second home and out of 46 total posts, guess how many "dissenting" posts there were? Not a SINGLE ONE!
 
Second thread out of 121 posts, guess how many. Not a SINGLE ONE! $ words for ya, pal. THINK BEFORE YOU POST!
January 9, 2009, 2:04:50 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
I find his (and these) comments disturbing. Have you anything to say about them? Are you denying he said them because I found many many links to the same quotes. Am I to assume he did not say those things then and all the other sources are lying? So far all I see in response to his quotes are personal attacks. I guess I am wasting my time trying to bring up intelligent conversation.
January 9, 2009, 2:13:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
And if you take a look around here, it's just sooooo obvious that the majority just hate debating and rebutting an opposing opinion--- right?....
 
I mean, we just shy away from that sort of thing... We just aren't the argumentative types...
January 9, 2009, 2:20:07 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
Second thread out of 121 posts, guess how many. Not a SINGLE ONE! $ words for ya, pal. THINK BEFORE YOU POST!
Olby Sucks | 01.09.09 - 2:09 pm | #  
 
I guess you are not trying very hard, because I get get lots of responses to me in my posts. Look right now if you want. People do not have to disagree with you to make your posts valid and true. I guess all I will find here are personal attacks when I simply quote Brit Hume. Think harder, yourself Olby. You are attacking the poster and not the post. These quotes are either true or false. If they are true, what is your response? If you think they are false. That is your opinion, and unproven. I made my case.
January 9, 2009, 2:20:38 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"Have you anything to say about them?"
 
Well, I answered you but you ignored what I wrote. What is 'disturbing' about reporting a story from the Jerusalem Post? When the paper retracts the story he then reports the retraction. Why is that disturbing?
 
What is disturbing about asking an either or question of Crocker? We don't have any diplomatic options, or do we? Good question, that elicited a good response. Or do you think reporters should not be allowed to ask that question?
 
As for your laughable quote about African-American and lethal, I don't know if you deliberately stripped out all the context or not. So why don't you tell us why you find it disturbing? Then we'll know.
January 9, 2009, 2:25:27 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
I realize this is a fan site for for Fox News, and dissenting opinion may not be welcome,
 
by nsf
 
Throwing stones from a glass house?
January 9, 2009, 2:26:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Os,
 
You need to grow up
January 9, 2009, 2:52:32 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
So why don't you tell us why you find it disturbing? Then we'll know.
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.09.09 - 2:30 pm | #  
 
So you claim Brit Hume retracted it. You acknowledge he said it. My opinion is/was I find him making the comment disturbing. Retracting something you say does not erase everything. My opinion, take it or leave it.
 
What I find disturbing about his comments to Crockett, and I watched the interview, was that a news reporter, a journalist is suggesting there is no alternative but to start a war. I find that biased and un-professional.
 
As for the comment about about lethality of electing an African-American on a news show. I find that also opinionated and biased, and reinforces stereotypes that black people are violent.
 
The whole point of making my original post was that he has said some things I find disturbing. I read in your FAQ section that opposing opinions are welcome here. I am not attacking him. Since you asked what I thought about it, now I gave you my opinion.
January 9, 2009, 2:53:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
Throwing stones from a glass house?
Olby Sucks | 01.09.09 - 2:31 pm | #
 
I am not the Moderator there. Have I ever insulted YOU there personally? It seems like you have a lot of anger at New Hounds and you just want anyone posts there to strike out against. I am not your enemy, even if you choose to make me one. I do not agree with everything people post on any sight. Are you really saying you do not want me to post here anymore?
January 9, 2009, 2:58:01 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"So you claim Brit Hume retracted it. You acknowledge he said it. My opinion is/was I find him making the comment disturbing."
 
Why is it disturbing to report a story from the Jerusalem Post? Is everyone who reported that story equally 'disturbing' to you?  
 
"a journalist is suggesting there is no alternative but to start a war"
 
False. He summarized Crocker's answer and then asked him if that was true, OR NOT. That's called an either-or question. It doesn't suggest anything other than pressing the subject to clarify and be specific. I want to know why asking an either-or question is 'disturbing'.
 
"As for the comment about about lethality of electing an African-American on a news show. I find that also opinionated and biased"
 
As I suspected. His comment was NOT about electing an African-American, as you claim. It had nothing to do with the results of putting a black President into office. ZERO! It was a discussion of the electoral appeal of an African-American candidate in traditional midde-class areas, areas where Hillary Clinton had performed very well, Obama not as well.
 
Hume's statement was that a candidate like Colin Powell would have no trouble at all attracting such voters. But a black candidate who was also a radical--that combination would be lethal to a candidate's appeal in that demographic.
 
In other words, you have totally distorted what Hume said. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you didn't see the segment in question. I'm going to make another wild stab and suggest that you got your information from the newshounds, who it turns out, by an amazing coincidence, themselves lied about that segment.
 
So the only question is whether you deliberately misrepresented Hume's comment, or whether you didn't know what you were talking about it because you never saw it in the first place. Which is it? Enquiring minds want to know!
January 9, 2009, 3:07:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
Please good people, just carry on. I was hoping someone would perhaps counter with some of his accomplishments and good quotes. I do not hate the man. Celebrate what you feel is along and distinguished (and yes controversial) career.
/no sarcasm
January 9, 2009, 3:07:23 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Notsofast
You have to realize one thing that you cannot come into this site and start spewing Fox News and Conservative venom
Why you ask.
Well
First of all it is the kool aide they drink in here. Fox News by example could call Obama a Magic Negro and they would give you a thousand excuses why it is ok.
Second, This site has four or five posters wholive in a world where Bush is doing a wonderful job and think Palin was qualified to be vice president. You cannot win in here, its like cleaning pee out of swimming pool, no matter how hard you try you can never get it all out. You can talk to a wall and get through better than you can in here.
January 9, 2009, 3:09:29 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Hey, Not So Fast, not so fast. Aren't you going to reply to my post? Explain why you didn't tell the truth about what Brit Hume said? Don't let a little dose of facts chase you away!
January 9, 2009, 3:11:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
"False. He summarized Crocker's answer and then asked him if that was true, OR NOT. That's called an either-or question. It doesn't suggest anything other than pressing the subject to clarify and be specific."
-johnny
 
I call it a leading question.
 
"His comment was NOT about electing an African-American, as you claim."
 
Obama was certainly the leading candidate in the race who happens to be African American. Who else was he referring to?
Colin Powell was never officially a candidate nor publicly said he was interested in being one.
 
"In other words, you have totally distorted what Hume said."
 
Got proof of that claim?
 
"...you have totally distorted ...". "...you didn't see...", "...you got your information from the newshounds...", "...you deliberately misrepresented...", "...because you never saw it in the first place."
 
All not true, but I would welcome proof for your claims, instead of personal attacks.
January 9, 2009, 3:18:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Johnny
 
What makes a Newshound post a lie and some of the place you get you information the truth. Just asking
January 9, 2009, 3:24:25 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
Notsofast
You have to realize one thing that you cannot come into this site and start spewing Fox News and Conservative venom
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 3:14 pm | #
 
I would agree if that were true. Either the quotes are true or they are not. Could you start by addressing that?
 
What is wrong with quoting some of the controversial things he said(and, without name calling or negativity). I did not come here to take the jelly out of your doughnut. If I were you I would celebrate him instead if attacking the first person with questions.
 
My mistake, I read differing opinions are welcome here.
January 9, 2009, 3:25:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
First of all, stop with the 'personal attacks' crap. I never said one word against you personally. I responded to your false and misleading statements about Mr Hume with the facts. I never called you a name or said anything about you personally. So stop saying I did.
 
"Got proof of that claim?"
 
Yeah I do. I SAW the segment. I know what he was talking about. You gave me an eight-word snippet and then made up the claim that he was talking about the election of Obama. When he clearly wasn't. Then you have the chutzpah to suggest that I should prove you wrong? Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the accuser. All you need do, since you never even saw the segment (and I did) is produce the transcript. There are, according to you, 'many links' to this quote. So how about producing one (from a reliable source, not the newsliars) that shows what they were talking about?
 
BTW, a leading question is one that suggests an answer, Like "isn't it true that there are no diplomatic options?" A question that posits two opposite possibilities, like Hume asked, is by definition not a leading question.
 
But let's not get sidetracked on that. You made the charge that Hume was actually talking about Barack Obama becoming President in that quote. When he wasn't. So it's on you to document it.
 
Or do you follow the Fox hater rule of thumb: proof or facts are not required when smearing Fox?
January 9, 2009, 3:25:58 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"What makes a Newshound post a lie and some of the place you get you information the truth."
 
Really, the honesty of the newshounds is not the topic here. It's Brit Hume. But if you enter newshounds into our search box you'll be graced with hundreds of examples of distortions, fabrications, and lies. Rebutted with transcripts, audio, and video. But please don't continue that discussion in a thread about Brit Hume.
January 9, 2009, 3:28:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
See notsofast you cannot win.
 
But Obama won the election and their is not much this site can do to stop that. And we will see if Fox News can try to be fair. But can they do it. Yeah right!
January 9, 2009, 3:29:09 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
"You can talk to a wall and get through better than you can in here."
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 3:14 pm | #
 
I appreciate you candor and honesty. I wanted a little discourse on the topic is all. Thank you.
January 9, 2009, 3:29:20 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I read in your FAQ section that opposing opinions are welcome here.I am not attacking him. Since you asked what I thought about it, now I gave you my opinion.
NotSoFast | 01.09.09 - 2:58 pm | #  
 
No one has claimed that you're attacking him.  
 
It's been suggested that unlike....say... The Jerusalem Post... that NH isn't a generally reliable source of quotes or analysis. But that's not labeling you as an attacker.
 
And you've been asked to clarify, which you did.
 
You think it's suspect for Hume to have even mentioned the Jerusalem Post in the first place. Though he and they retracted the information.  
 
That assumption is likely based upon the notion that the entire discussion of Obama's religious upbringing is tainted and out of bounds in the way that wasn't the case for Mitt Romney or even John Ashcroft.
 
Just as you seem to suggest that Hume is somehow entering forbidden territory for merely POSING a rhetorical question to Crockett when he said, "Or is it?", ie -- what is the answer to the suggestion that there is no viable diplomatic route in keeping Iran nuke-free.
 
As for the "lethality" of electing an African-American. I'd have to see the whole context and I'm not venturing into News Hounds, so is there another source you can link?
 
Did Hume mean that Rev. Wright's radical opinions could hurt an African-American in the hinterlands in an especially lethal way?
 
Do YOU mean that yet another line of discussion is out of bounds (Obama's long association with Wright) in a way it would not be for a Republican who had sat for years under a very fundamentalist activist Pentecostal minister?
 
I ask, because it appears ironic to me that in a discussion where you twice now pre-emptively appealed for tolerance for opposing views, that you seem to draw strong parameters on what is or is not an appropriate topic of discussion on a tv news program-- based upon who it is about and who is asking the questions.
January 9, 2009, 3:32:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
"the burden of proof is on the accuser."
 
Exactly. In my opinion he was referring the the Democratic candidate and not Colin Powell. Note the brackets around that. No I cannot prove he was referring to Obama, but it is far more likely then Powell. He was referring to something, can we agree on that at least?
 
As far as personal attacks, if I used the phrases you used against me, against you, what would you call them?
 
"Or do you follow the Fox hater rule of thumb: proof or facts are not required when smearing Fox?"
 
I do not hate fox, I find them amusing and transparent. I am not smearing Fox, I posted some controversial quotes. These are words out of his mouth. You have my quotes, and for the most part links. How many links would you like before you concede he said them? Granted you did admit he said one thing so bad that he retracted it.
January 9, 2009, 3:37:16 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
But Johnny, you are missing the point.  
It was a comment from Newshounds, which you must have an on going back and forth with.
And if you want to talk about lies, then I could go on the internet and find the same about Fox News, its not a Fox News hater thing it a finding the truth thing, Certain Fox News personalities tried to smear Obama and spread lies, and we all know who they are. One is no longer at the network, Ed Hill, the others in no particular orded are Doocy, Carlson, Kilmeade, O'Reilly, Hannity and Palin lover Van Sustren.
They all in some way tried to distort the truth about Obama, so Johnny as Os says don't throw stones at glass houses, when the house you protect is also dishonest.
January 9, 2009, 3:38:13 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 3:37 pm | #  
 
See notsofast, it all goes back to Obama's associates, another Fox News slam. Didn't work did it?
January 9, 2009, 3:41:32 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
"In my opinion he was referring the the Democratic candidate and not Colin Powell."
 
No that is not your opinion. You never saw the segment. You don't know what he was referring to. What it really is, is your opinion of someone else's opinion. Which isn't worth much around here.
 
So the question remains: are you going to give us one of the many links to this exchange so everyone can see what exactly was said? Or are you going to keep insisting that your made-up context is right, regardless of what was actually said?
 
"It was a comment from Newshounds, which you must have an on going back and forth with."
 
What was a comment from newshounds? I don't know what you're talking about but I want this thread to be about Brit Hume. Is that too much to ask?
January 9, 2009, 3:42:32 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
The original comment that notsofast made, the one from newshounds.
January 9, 2009, 3:46:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
While I am a real Fan of Fox News, I do watch, and I do believe Brit Hume is one of the fairest newspeople Fox News has (Had) and I believe if he did make the comment in question, I believe he must have mispoke.
January 9, 2009, 3:50:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
I mean to say not a real fan of Fox News
January 9, 2009, 3:52:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
They all in some way tried to distort the truth about Obama, so Johnny as Os says don't throw stones at glass houses, when the house you protect is also dishonest.
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 3:43 pm | #  
 
Well, if you have things settled in your mind in this way, then why even bother to appeal to a sense of tolerance from others in the first place. When it comes to all things FNC, you're showing you're a closed book yourself.
 
You have already signed off on a view that within the parameter of a discussion that any of our appeals for context, for better sources, for clarifications as to your point (all valid appeals in any discussion) not just stonewalling, but some sort of squelching of YOUR opinion.
 
Honesty, if you believe there is no "there" there, if your mind is that made up, then why even bother to attempt to discuss it? You're only going to see alternative arguments and counters as attempts to obscure the "truth" or as attempts to malign you.
January 9, 2009, 3:54:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 3:37 pm | #
 
See notsofast, it all goes back to Obama's associates, another Fox News slam. Didn't work did it?
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 3:46 pm | #  
 
That's the rub isn't it. You're trying to control what can and can not be discussed about Obama.
 
Again, it's ironic that within the context of it being implied that alternative views aren't welcomed here, its you who have drawn strong boundaries on what can legitimately be a topic of discussion on a news show during an election.
January 9, 2009, 3:58:30 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
"No one has claimed that you're attacking him."
 
I could argue that point. I do agree I am not attacking him, or anyone else here for that matter. My point is I find some of the things he has said disturbing.
 
"It's been suggested that unlike....say... The Jerusalem Post... that NH isn't a generally reliable source of quotes or analysis. But that's not labeling you as an attacker."
 
I can handle attacks, I am trying to stick to the topic. One quote is from News Hounds, another is from another site. I had hundreds to choose from.
 
"You think it's suspect for Hume to have even mentioned the Jerusalem Post in the first place. "
 
Never thought or said that. I linked he was referring to it.
 
"Just as you seem to suggest that Hume is somehow entering forbidden territory for merely POSING a rhetorical question to Crockett when he said, "Or is it?","
 
Yes, for a journalist on national TV. In my opinion he is subtly justifying an invasion. I am a pacifist, not an Iran lover. I think they represent a significant danger to the world if they continue their path. But starting a war is not the answer. Nor was it in Iraq. The civilians pay the price like they always have. Saying in effect, is there no other way but to go to war with them, is improper for a journalist.
 
"As for the "lethality" of electing an African-American. I'd have to see the whole context and I'm not venturing into News Hounds, so is there another source you can link?"
 
Fair enough. I am bogged down at the moment responding to all the questions. I will try.
 
"I ask, because it appears ironic to me that in a discussion where you twice now pre-emptively [preemptively]appealed for tolerance for opposing views, that you seem to draw strong parameters on what is or is not an appropriate topic of discussion on a tv news program-- based upon who it is about and who is asking the questions."
 
I find his quotes disturbing for the reasons mentioned above. Preemptively appealed? Are you trying to establish my post has be responded to objectively so far?
That is your opinion, I disagree on that point for the most part. I did not come here to fight, I posted that there are questions in my mind about some of the things he has said on national TV. You have responded so far in effect, yes he said that one thing and it was retracted, another was out of context, and the third was incorrect. I will find another link for you.
January 9, 2009, 3:59:32 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 3:59 pm |
 
And for the sake of discussion and arguement I decide to post here. Just to hear how you guys try and stand up for such a biased network, and as a person who watches MSNBC I realize they are biased also. But Fox News is dilussional when its says 'Fair and Balanced"
January 9, 2009, 4:00:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 4:03 pm |
 
Even Obama himself said Fox News was slandering him.
January 9, 2009, 4:04:33 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
While I am a real Fan of Fox News, I do watch, and I do believe Brit Hume is one of the fairest newspeople Fox News has (Had) and I believe if he did make the comment in question, I believe he must have mispoke.
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 3:55 pm | #  
 
Well, since it's Hume who NSF is talking about, then your going off about FNC and this site is even more bizarre.
 
We know you're not a FNC. However, that shouldn't be such a factor that it makes you unable to discuss even a man you respect, without going off on a tangential tirade.
January 9, 2009, 4:05:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
And for the sake of discussion and arguement I decide to post here. Just to hear how you guys try and stand up for such a biased network, and as a person who watches MSNBC I realize they are biased also. But Fox News is dilussional when its says 'Fair and Balanced"
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 4:05 pm | #  
 
That's not for the sake of "discussion". That's for the sake of telling us that we're deluded while you simultaneously accuse US of being closed-minded.
January 9, 2009, 4:07:19 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
I find his quotes disturbing for the reasons mentioned above. Preemptively appealed? Are you trying to establish my post has be responded to objectively so far?
 
That is your opinion, I disagree on that point for the most part. I did not come here to fight, I posted that there are questions in my mind about some of the things he has said on national TV. You have responded so far in effect, yes he said that one thing and it was retracted, another was out of context, and the third was incorrect. I will find another link for you.
NotSoFast | 01.09.09 - 4:04 pm | #  
 
No, I'm flatly stating that we have responded to your post in a fair matter.
 
You reference Hume's show as being a national news show, well, where else do you discuss all sides of an issue?
 
You say that it's your opinion that the military option against Iran should be taken off the table. That's a valid opinion.  
 
But what of other opinions that were being voiced at the time? Are you really suggesting that by allowing Crocket to respond to an opinion that is not your own, that Hume was in essence advocating that opinion?
 
What sort squelching of discussion is that to suggest that there are some viewpoints so out of bounds that even mentioning them is tantamount to agitating for them?
January 9, 2009, 4:23:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 4:03 pm |
 
Even Obama himself said Fox News was slandering him.
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 4:09 pm | #  
 
And that makes it true?
January 9, 2009, 4:26:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


Hoffmann
And that makes it true?
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 4:31 pm |
 
Republican say the media is left leaning.
 
And that makes it true?
January 9, 2009, 4:41:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Republican say the media is left leaning.
 
And that makes it true?
Hoffmann | 01.09.09 - 4:46 pm | #  
 
Then we're agreed.
 
You'd find a such a flat appeal to an authority with a vested interest less than compelling as well.
January 9, 2009, 5:40:28 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
But what of other opinions that were being voiced at the time? Are you really suggesting that by allowing Crocket to respond to an opinion that is not your own, that Hume was in essence advocating that opinion?
 
Yes, exactly.
 
What sort squelching of discussion is that to suggest that there are some viewpoints so out of bounds that even mentioning them is tantamount to agitating for them?
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 4:28 pm | #  
 
I am concerned of the overall Fox push for war that has been going on across the network. Labeling entire countries as terrorists is an excuse to perpetrate violence against not only the political leaders but also the innocent civilians. War is not going to solve anything in the ME. If anything, it will just make it worse. You can see his questioning different ways: "Is war the only option?" Don't you think war is the only option?". He said: "Um. That sounds pretty disturbing, Ambassador Crocker - um - that we are confronting with Iran now a situation where - um - I mean, it doesn't appear we have any diplomatic possibility there, do we, to suppress this activity by Iran? Or do we?"
January 9, 2009, 5:51:17 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Hume responded to the Ambassador's formulation.  
 
When Hume adds, "or is there?", he's essentially asking "you've talked about dead-ends, do you believe there's hope?" and he's giving the Ambassador a chance to clarify.
 
You've already decided that FNC wants the U.S. to go to war with Iran, to the point that Hume's discussion of what was an issue at the time, is the same as advancing the idea. There's no going forward from here.
January 9, 2009, 6:22:10 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
We know you're not a FNC. However, that shouldn't be such a factor that it makes you unable to discuss even a man you respect, without going off on a tangential tirade.
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 4:10 pm |
 
Show me where I was on a tirade.
January 9, 2009, 6:40:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


tony
Even Obama himself said Fox News was slandering him.
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 4:09 pm | # ========================
 
Thats true. And Obama also said that he visited all "57" states. So I guess that makes it true....the USA has 57 states!
January 9, 2009, 6:54:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Thats true. And Obama also said that he visited all "57" states. So I guess that makes it true....the USA has 57 states!
tony | 01.09.09 - 6:59 pm | #  
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Well Tony, everyone mispeaks once in a while, and as Obama said if it wasn't for Fox News then I would be leading but 3or 4 poll points. It was true Fox News was all over Obama, and it is also true that MSNBC was all over McCain. Its ying and yang.  
But Fox should not put itself on that pedestal and say the are "Fair and Balanced"
January 9, 2009, 7:01:00 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
And just like Olbermann should not be taken too seriously as a newsman.
January 9, 2009, 7:13:21 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
In discussion essentially on whether Brit Hume had made biased and even racially inflammatory remarks, you saw fit to devolve into this, and willy nilly question the rationality of what you describe as the entire count of followers of this blog. Thus insulting everyone regardless of their treatment of you.
 
You did this merely because some of us had questioned News Hounds as an accurate source and had asked for another one.
 
Yeah, it's a tirade.
 
-------------------------------------------
 
Notsofast
You have to realize one thing that you cannot come into this site and start spewing Fox News and Conservative venom
Why you ask.
Well
First of all it is the kool aide they drink in here. Fox News by example could call Obama a Magic Negro and they would give you a thousand excuses why it is ok.
Second, This site has four or five posters wholive in a world where Bush is doing a wonderful job and think Palin was qualified to be vice president. You cannot win in here, its like cleaning pee out of swimming pool, no matter how hard you try you can never get it all out. You can talk to a wall and get through better than you can in here.
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 3:14 pm | #
January 9, 2009, 7:14:18 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Well Tony, everyone mispeaks once in a while, and as Obama said if it wasn't for Fox News then I would be leading but 3or 4 poll points. It was true Fox News was all over Obama, and it is also true that MSNBC was all over McCain. Its ying and yang.
But Fox should not put itself on that pedestal and say the are "Fair and Balanced"
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 7:06 pm | #  
 
According to the Pew Institute's study on Obama and McCain's treatment in the media, FNC roughly treated both candidates the same, FNC being slightly more positive towards Obama than McCain.
January 9, 2009, 7:16:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
Well with all due respect Cecelia, do you think some Fox News personalities were a little more hard on Obama than not?. Because I know that Fox And Friends was pretty heavy leaning for McCain, and since I work during the day, and usually get home around the time Hannity and Colmes comes on, so maybe I am not the best person to say, but from where I was sitting they looked pretty biased to me.
January 9, 2009, 7:26:06 PM EST – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 7:31 pm |
 
What Cecelia forgets to tell you is this. The Pew Institute's study is only carried out on the first half of Special Report....Just missing the famous Grapevine...Enough said
January 9, 2009, 7:49:34 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Well with all due respect Cecelia, do you think some Fox News personalities were a little more hard on Obama than not?. Because I know that Fox And Friends was pretty heavy leaning for McCain, and since I work during the day, and usually get home around the time Hannity and Colmes comes on, so maybe I am not the best person to say, but from where I was sitting they looked pretty biased to me.
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 7:31 pm | # 
 
Personally, I know that things can look all sorts of ways to me or to anyone else.
(That's not to say that our opinions are not credible solely because they are based on our own perceptions.)
 
However, when research presents itself, from a credible source, I do examine my formulations.
January 9, 2009, 7:49:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
More disturbing quotes, on you tube, from Fox:
 
I do not hate the man. I feel he has turned from a journalist into a commentator acting as if he were a journalist. There is a big gray area at Fox. Are they a news station or an opinion/entertainment channel. Shouldn't reporters be unbiased?

Edited By Siteowner
January 9, 2009, 8:01:52 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
What Cecelia forgets to tell you is this. The Pew Institute's study is only carried out on the first half of Special Report....Just missing the famous Grapevine...Enough said
HaggisFarmer | 01.09.09 - 7:54 pm | # 
 
It was on the whole of election coverage on both cable and network news, crackhead.
January 9, 2009, 8:04:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


NotSoFast
Just delete the whole message if you will not accept my links or video proof. I am just wasting my time, and you are a censor. Goodbye.
January 9, 2009, 8:07:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
NSF I edited your post because you turned it into a link dump, tossing out a half dozen links to this 'n' that which is not the purpose of this thread. It's not for you to overload it with links. It's for discussion. And we aren't going to discuss a half-dozen different things at once when we haven't finished with the things you brought up. (You said you read the FAQ so I don't know why you think "comments" means posting a bunch of links.)
 
You told us you were going to produce one of the 'many links' to that "lethal" quote that you insisted was Brit Hume talking about the election of Obama. For some reason you want to toss in a half-dozen other clips rather than address your original claim. Let's take these things one at a time before you start tossing a ton of other stuff into the hopper.
 
Now I see that you are going to run away claiming 'censorship' (an incorrect use of the term, but I digress). As I said above, this thread is not a link dump. It's a discussion. You brought up Hume's "lethal" quote and said you would provide the transcript from one of the 'many links' that exist. If you don't want to do that, you can't just move the goalposts to something else, and keep throwing stuff on the wall in the hope that something will stick. We discuss intelligently here, and when people make claims we expect them to back them up, rather than changing the subject to a half-dozen other things. Now if you would prefer to disappear rather than defend your own words, then so be it. We'll never get to any of the other stuff that you wanted so desperately to change the subject to, but that's your choice.
January 9, 2009, 8:08:52 PM EST – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
It was on the whole of election coverage on both cable and network news, crackhead.
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 8:09 pm |
 
Are you telling us that the Pew Institute had folk watching cable news...24 hours a day....for months on end? 
I'd say they'd take a daily sample at a set time....Say 5-5:30pm.
January 9, 2009, 8:22:48 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Are you telling us that the Pew Institute had folk watching cable news...24 hours a day....for months on end?
I'd say they'd take a daily sample at a set time....Say 5-5:30pm.
HaggisFarmer | 01.09.09 - 8:27 pm | # 
 
Oh, you have no idea of what times Pew gathered samples, and they'd most certainly be more random.
January 9, 2009, 8:45:12 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Let's try to confine this thread tothe Brit Hume tribute, OK? I know that some of our special guests wanted to divert it to more generalized issues, but it seems, surprisingly, that they have all left at the same time! So this is a good opportunity to get things back on track.
January 9, 2009, 8:48:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
Oh, you have no idea of what times Pew gathered samples, and they'd most certainly be more random.
Cecelia | 01.09.09 - 8:50 pm | 
 
@ Johnny....last post on this I promise.
 
Cecelia...Johnny's silence over this speaks volumes....He doesn't normally hold back when it come to tackling me.
January 9, 2009, 8:56:24 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Don't take anything from that. I'm busy doing several things and tackling you is not a top priority right now.
January 9, 2009, 9:00:26 PM EST – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
johnny dollar | Homepage | 01.09.09 - 9:05 pm |
 
Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Say No More Squire...
January 9, 2009, 9:10:34 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
Submitted for your consideration...
 
The Pew Study methodology, Haggy:
 
http://journalism.org/node/13441
January 10, 2009, 10:00:36 AM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
"You can see his (Hume) questioning different ways:..."NotSoFast | 01.09.09 - 5:56 pm | # 
 
As evidenced by this thread.
 
Cecelia,
 
I luv you girl and I know ur having fun, but there is a total disconnect between you & NSF- Babab-ooeybaby caused by the view from their superior position and their contempt prior to investigation.
 
If I were a cynical individual, I might think their only purpose was to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound.
January 10, 2009, 5:11:56 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
If I were a cynical individual, I might think their only purpose was to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound.
vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 5:16 pm | # 
 
I posted on Jonnydollars site several times yesterday, and he censored out clips of Brit Hume I submitted on you tube but left in my comments. They were just clips of Hume talking on Fox. His site is a total waste of time. What does it say about a site and forum devoted to fawning over Fox news that will not even allow clips FROM Fox news? They are in effect an anti News Hounds site. The posters behave like children. 
 
Posted by: NotSoFast on Sat 1.10 12:54pm 
 
Bingo, vstol!
January 10, 2009, 5:50:11 PM EST – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Yeah, NSF leaves off the fact that he was exposed as lying about Brit Hume, that he promised to produce a link to prove he was right, that instead of doing that he posted a half-dozen links about something else.
 
Basically his purpose was to come here and slime Brit Hume, and when he got called on his misrepresentations, instead of owning up to it, he wanted to change the subject. Of course I'd be happy to discuss his other Brit Hume quotes--one at a time. I'm not going to spend hours rebutting a bundle of six charges at once. But even doing that is a waste of time if he's not honest. And his actions regarding the Brit Hume 'lethal' quote suggest a certain level of dishonesty. And until he addressed that either by producing his nonexistent link or by admitting he was wrong, I'm not ready to move on to the next rock in his slingshot.
January 10, 2009, 6:14:51 PM EST – Like – Reply


john t
If I were a cynical individual, I might think their only purpose was to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound.
vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 5:16 pm 
-----------------------
 
That's kind of funny since that's what you and olby sucks do at the NH's and run back over here.
January 10, 2009, 6:50:49 PM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 5:16 pm |
 
I am just stating my opinion, I am looking for a debate not a fight, seems to me you are trying to bait me into a back and forth, which I will not do.
January 10, 2009, 6:51:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


Olby Sucks
That's kind of funny since that's what you and olby sucks do at the NH's and run back over here.
john t | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 6:55 pm | # 
 
You'll be running where when you leave here? What's that? newshounds? :lol:
January 10, 2009, 7:26:40 PM EST – Like – Reply


tony
Well Tony, everyone mispeaks once in a while, and as Obama said if it wasn't for Fox News then I would be leading but 3or 4 poll points. It was true Fox News was all over Obama, and it is also true that MSNBC was all over McCain. Its ying and yang. 
But Fox should not put itself on that pedestal and say the are "Fair and Balanced"
Bababooey | 01.09.09 - 7:06 pm | # =======================
 
I love it! When Obama thinks that there are 57 States in the USA he "Mispeaks". If palin were to say it, it would have been a SNL skit.
January 10, 2009, 7:31:35 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
john t | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 6:55 pm 
 
JT,
 
Speaking ONLY for myself. Either cite an example or rescind the slur, por favor.
January 10, 2009, 7:40:31 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
Bababooey | 01.10.09 - 6:56 pm | # 
 
Sounds good. Leaving aside the National Champion Florida Gators, the trials and tribulations of JD (Daly, not $) and that "Fair and Balanced" should be SOP, not something worthy of a journalistic pedestal, what would you like to debate (not bait)?
January 10, 2009, 7:56:42 PM EST – Like – Reply


john t
vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 7:45 pm 
 
Agreed. Yet, inexplicably, I've had a couple posts on this thread deleted.
vstol | 01.07.09 - 5:23 pm
January 10, 2009, 8:23:02 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
I were a cynical individual, I might think their only purpose was to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound.
vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 5:16 pm 
-----------------------
 
That's kind of funny since that's what you and olby sucks do at the NH's and run back over here.
john t | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 6:55 pm 
-------------
john t | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 8:28 pm 
 
mr. t,
 
Is that your example of my" purpose was to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound?"
 
I got no time for the jibba-jabba. 
Don't make me mad, Arrr! 
I'm on a real short leash here, and I'm tired of your crazy rap! 
I pity the disingenuinous fool, thug, or soul who won't admit they're wrong.
January 10, 2009, 9:03:04 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/johnnydollar/qim252914964/
 
Begin at 10:43pm
January 10, 2009, 9:27:14 PM EST – Like – Reply


john t
vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 9:08 pm 
----------------
 
Where do you come up with the claim NotSoFast and Bababooey were just trying to get deleted on here?
 
So, to use your words. If I were a "cynical individual," I would claim the same way about you over at NH's.
January 10, 2009, 9:39:46 PM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
john t | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 9:44 pm 
 
jt,
 
NSF & Babaloo aren't here. If they were, I'd be happy to discuss my post with them, you know, my actual words, 
"If I were a cynical individual, I might think their only purpose was to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound. vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 5:16 pm " 
Words mean stuff, "If I (A)...I might think (B)..." -------
 
You, on the other hand, made a declaritive accusation,
 
"That's kind of funny since that's what you and olby sucks do at the NH's and run back over here.
john t | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 6:55 pm | # "
 
The example you cited is not an attempt "to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound (J$)." It was taken out of context, edited by you and does not support your false accusation. So, my request stands, put up or take back.
January 10, 2009, 10:39:37 PM EST – Like – Reply


Cecelia
As evidenced by this thread.
 
Cecelia,
 
I luv you girl and I know ur having fun, but there is a total disconnect between you & NSF- Babab-ooeybaby caused by the view from their superior position and their contempt prior to investigation.
 
If I were a cynical individual, I might think their only purpose was to get deleted, cry "Censor!" and haul tail back to the pound.
vstol | Homepage | 01.10.09 - 5:16 pm | # 
 
Thanks, Vstol, for wanting to warn me of disingenous folks because of my fondness for debate.
 
I appreciate that understanding very much.
January 11, 2009, 4:25:28 AM EST – Like – Reply


Bababooey
First of all if you don't do personal attack, spew untruths or go off topic, then there should be no reason for your post not to be moderated, so I am not here to get my post deleted and cry censorship, that is compared to a child ringing the door bell and running off and hiding, an I wll have none of that. Maybe you know of these things by experience.
January 11, 2009, 10:40:40 AM EST – Like – Reply


vstol
Bababooey | 01.11.09 - 10:45 am | # 
 
Thanks for ur response. First of all (a second of all will follow), putting double negatives aside, moderation at this site is at the sole descretion of the man with his finger on the button, yet arbitrariousness is uncharacteristic of de deletin' goin' on 'round here.
 
Secondly, perhaps a reread of my 01.10.09 - 5:16 pm would reveal my tongue-in-cheek comment was directed to Cecelia and was....well, tongue-in-cheek.
 
Lastly, when I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
January 11, 2009, 12:04:50 PM EST – Like – Reply