'Democratic Politicians Reading Off the Left-Wing Hymnals'

posted: Mon - October 1, 2007 at 08:32 PM       j$p  send 

On the Mark
I listened to a bit of Rush today, something I seldom do. He is still squealing. Must be feeling some pain. Couldn't listen to Gibson. I was out of Mylanta. Liked Harkin's comment about Rush: "Maybe he's on drugs, again."
October 1, 2007, 10:47:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Llbean
You did listen. You're on this site. You care about it obviously. It's the worst sort of coward who claims not to care about things he/she goes out of their way to comment on.
October 1, 2007, 11:04:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Zone Daiatlas
Maybe Rush Limbaugh should talk about how Sen. Harkin's is a fake war hero on the radio tomorrow. That will shut Sen. Harkin up...
 
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/017246.php
October 2, 2007, 12:21:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

On the Mark
Perhaps, Rush should do that. Rush's own service would certainly add substance to the discussions.
 
More importantly, why this effort on FOX to rehabilitate Rush? I recognize the ideological draw, but this all seems to be a bit over the top. It's not as if FOX has some history of aggressively protecting First Amendment Rights. Is this a "if he goes down, we all do," phenomenon, or a "if we bring them down, we rise" phenomenon? It all has an "ookey" feel to it. While I might disagree with much on FOX and I might find certain FOX personalities, O'Reilly and Gibson, in particular, creepy, I don't think FOX has the same flaw Limbaugh does; i.e. throwing out a tremendous volume of words with very little thought. I don't actually think Limbaugh intended to be anti-troop. He was just being a blowhard and went to far. Not the first time, and I bet not the last .... As such, this shrill defense is puzzling and troublesome.
October 2, 2007, 7:44:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

BERT CONVY
*
 
Where, I ask you is the difference between the false claim they have made against Rush and what the Hillary media arm, Moveon.org did by sliming a soldier hero of this country (General Petraus) with their General Betray us pile of dog poo.
 
Bill Clinton did a hit job on the Swift Boat Vets (who spoke the truth about the record of the traitor John(_!_)Kerry in his fluff piece with George Steponhispuss), Where is dirty Harry Reid's phony indignation of The Rapist and Chief for His attacking veterans on national TV?
 
By the way John Murtha also looks too fat to have ever been a marine... Hmmmm? 
 
Hillary: don't elect her...JAIL HER! 
http://www.wyomingway.com/hillary_clinton.htm
 
*BERT
October 2, 2007, 8:40:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Scott
Rush's own service would certainly add substance to the discussions.
On the Mark | 10.02.07 - 7:49 am | # 
 
And your hero's BJ Clinton, I see nothing Shillary, the spawn of BJ and Shillary and George Soros' military records are what? 
 
You losere's are just that, LOSER'S. Vote us in and we'll end the WAR. Peolosi sure doesn't seem to show her face on TV bragging anymore. HMMM, why is that demonnut's? Next year, the UPS philosphy to save money by telling their driver's not to make left turns since turning left cost money will end once and for all this demonnut party. GO RIGHT! EVEN UPS SAYS LEFT IS HORRIBLE!
October 2, 2007, 3:30:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

On the Mark
What fun!
 
Listened to a bit of Sean Hannity a few moments ago. A combination of rants and his (in)famous "I am about to tear up" routine.
 
So, I suppose that settles the matter. The FOX people seem to think as Rush goes, they go. I don't think that's at all true, but why stop the fun?
 
Of course, the great irony is they are all worked up over supposed slander, both accusations and innuendo, yet Rush is the King of Accusation and Innuendo, Hannity, the Dauphin, Gibson, the Would Be Prince if He Hadn't Been Born to Commoners. Just remember the awful, awful things they all said about Max Clelland!
 
Rich beyond words. And such fun!
October 2, 2007, 3:58:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
i'm sorry to break this to you but you were not listen to Fox. You were listening to ABC radio.
October 2, 2007, 4:02:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

On the Mark
Yes, I realize I was listening to ABC. Hannity is not on the air in this locale, nor is O'Reilly. I listened in the car, through the scratchiness of a remote station. I used the phrase "FOX people" by design, to cover that. I don't know that I have ever listened to FOX radio programming.
October 2, 2007, 4:38:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
Well, perhaps you can report back when you've listened to the radio programs of Alan Colmes and Judge Napolitano, also "Fox people".
October 2, 2007, 4:55:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

On the Mark
Hate to disappoint you, but I have exceedingly low opinions of both Colmes and Napolitano, and I have no interest in what they have to say on any topic. When it comes to FOX, I am interested in Barnes, Kondracke, Krauthammer and Williams. I have tremendous respect for all of them, and I value their opinions and analysis. Van Sustern when she's not doing her "White Girl Gone Missing" shtick is fine. Not really anyone else. Don't have any particular problem with Smith except on a stylistic basis, which is simply a matter of taste. I think he's a decent newsreader. Not all viewing decisions are informed by one's own political beliefs, and I try to seek out something more than simple affirmation of my own beliefs. Some of us to try for the ever illusive "fair and balanced" presentation in our news and commentary.
 
I will say that that I do sometimes watch the Twit Trio early in the morning, but just for laughs. That anorexic woman who dresses like a cocktail waitress and puts on make-up with a shovel is always good for a few laughs.
October 2, 2007, 6:07:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
So you won't listen to Colmes or Napolitano on the radio, because you have low opinions of them. But you did listen to Hannity. Do you have a high opinion of him? Or did you just listen to pick up a few tidbits from someone you consider an easy target? I don't exactly get your argument here, but then everyone's listening preferences are highly personal.
October 2, 2007, 6:40:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Puck
I used the phrase "FOX People" by design.
 
Okay, so we have to print 'FOX' every time, not Fox, or FNC. But 'FOX'. Obsession?
 
Get over it! It's just a radio division, or cable news outlet, you have other choices. But it bothers you. Interesting.
 
Also using the phrase "FOX people by design". Is that like, you don't like to go to a resturant or club because THOSE FOX people might be in there?
 
What happens if you walk into a buisness, airport, motel or travel center and you see the Fox News Channel on and you realize you could be in a whole roomful of those FOX people?
 
WOW! I wonder if you could tell me, how to spot a FOX person? You must be such a brilliant person being able to spot FOX people at a lunch counter. Or a bus. (Could my children be going to school with them?) Is there anything being done? Are we going to be putting these FOX people in camps? Where do they come from? Can we deport them? soon? I hope so!
 
Get use to it 'on the mark' (SIC). The right is pushing back. I guess you all don't like it when those FOX people do that.
 
You know I heard some of you're folks have been mixin' with FOX people, yup!
Last time that FOX president spoke, a lot of you're people tuned into FNC to watch the democratic response. You all better put a stop to that!
 
What's next? Back in the day we had ways of dealin' with those FOX people. But that damm FCC had to go and ruin everything. Things were nice and quiet while we had that 'Fairness Doctrine' in place. Now we got them FOX people gettin' all uppity and s**t.
 
Yeah dude, we see where you're coming from.
 
And before I go....How many stations is the MIGHTY AAR down to these days?
October 2, 2007, 11:05:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

On the Mark
Talk about an obsession, Puck! Most unhealthy. Rather clearly, by "FOX people", I was speaking of people who work, on-air, for FOX. Newsreaders. Commentators. If I were to say "PBS people" or "NPR people" I wouldn't be speaking about listeners or viewers, not even the Board of the Pugh Charitable Trust. 
 
And as for FOX, I am merely using the style used in FOX promos and advertising. I think I may have even seen it on this site.
 
Calm down. You're so worked up you're going to have a coronary, and you're making yourself look a bit unhinged. You have to understand that most of the people in the world don't understand this FOX worship on the part of a few. You're all rather like teenage girls and Elvis in the 1950's, teenage girls and the Beetles in the 1960's, gay men and Bette Midler in the 1970's.
 
Rush will survive. O'Reilly was propser. Hannity will do well. Gibson will muddle through. They just all have a powerful odor of desperation now.
October 3, 2007, 5:47:02 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

WCW
What's hilarious is that as FOX tries to spin Limbaugh's indefensible smear against US soldiers into an attack on Media Matters, they just keep discrediting themselves and Rush even further (if that's possible). 
 
Also digging himself deeper into his own cesspool is Limbaugh, whose latest statement makes it clear he really is referring to US war veterans who question the war as "phony soldiers": 
 
"I was talking about a genuine phony soldier. And by the way, Jesse MacBeth's not the only one. How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians?"
October 4, 2007, 10:47:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Phony Soldier
This is just getting pathetic. Media Matters has made fools out of Rush by pointing out that he edited his own transcipt. Hey, Johnny, why don't you log onto the Fox News Channel's website and check out their video vault for Hannity & Colmes to prove my point. 3 segments with conservative Clarence Thomas, 3 segments with Republican Fred/Jeri Thompson, 2 segments with Ann Coulter and 2 segments with Republican Newt Gingrich.
 
Notice no Democratic segments? At all? This is why you can never have an actual debate regarding Media Matters material. They make you look like a fool (that and the fact that your own conservative compatriots openly admit all the time that Fox is a right-wing outlet). You can't debunk Media Matters, you never have and you never will.
October 4, 2007, 1:09:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
I don't know what the H&C "video vault" has to do with Rush Limbaugh or Media Matters. It's not where I would go to do research on anything, but if it works for you, great.
 
I have already debunked Media Matters multiple times, over and over, and caught them in fraudulent and outright false statements. The most recent was when they lied on national television. QED.
 
If MM made fools of Rush because he edited a transcript (as I have said here before, in case you have memory loss problems, not a good thing), then Gibson made fools of MM by showing THEY edited THEIR transcript (and audio clip) of Rush by leaving out Rush bringing up Jesse Macbeth right after the phone call ended. Once again, and I'll say it slowly so everyone can understand it, they are both guilty of the same thing. The fact that Rush pulled an edit trick in defending himself doesn't absolve MM from pulling an editing trick in attacking him.
 
Oh, and "phony", aka Rawker, Rawkins, and a few others. tell me why I should take one word you say seriously when I caught YOU lying about me. Remember:
 
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/johnnydollar/E20070918133739/#238125
 
Funny, after that, you disappeared, only to re-emerge with a new name. Perhaps you'd like to address your previous dishonesty while you are posting your talking points. An apology would be a good start.
October 4, 2007, 1:29:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Phony Soldier
Actually, no, Johnny, the entire Rush LImbaugh debate has actually made a fool out of you and anyone who claims Fox News is fair and balanced.
 
Take this, for example, something highlighted by a conservative website: Newsbusters:
 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/10/03/fnc-shows-democrats-criticizing-troops-who-said-not-rush-limbaugh
 
Now, who is featured in this segment? Conservative host John Gibson, interviewing conservative Republican Jonah Goldberg and former Republican Senator Rick Santorum, with the headline for viewers to see stating, "Embarassed Democrats target Rush Limbaugh".
 
Now, do you really think ANYONE is stupid enough to believe that two Republican guests with that kind of biased headline is anything other than BLATANT Republican bias and Limbaugh ass-kissing by Fox News, and that their attempt to change the discussion by pointing out irrelevant statements made by Democratic politicans is going to fool anyone? Literally, Barack Obama could have stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and given a speech entitled "Let's behead our soldiers, burn them alive, piss on them and bury them upside down", and that still wouldn't have any bearing on whether or not Limbaugh was insulting American soldiers, it would only be more extreme, obviously.
 
Honestly, Johnny, do you really think ANYONE is stupid enough to believe a segment hosted by John Gibson, with a former Republican senator and a Republican columnist with that kind of headline is anything other than blatantly biased, especially on a news channel run by Roger Ailes, a former GOP political consultant? No one is that idiotic. It's flatly biased and YOU KNOW IT.
October 4, 2007, 2:48:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Phony Soldier
Until you can make a serious case for that segment on Limbaugh being "fair and balanced", do yourself a favor and dump OlbermannWatch, because it's pretty pathetic for you to whine about "LIBERAL BIAS" when it's obvious that you embrace Republican bias.
October 4, 2007, 2:50:59 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
Sorry, I don't give credit to anything you say until you address your lie that I linked to above. OK?
October 4, 2007, 3:03:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Phony Soldier
ROFL. I'll take that as a "I can't win this argument". Johnny, this is the reason even other Republicans and conservative bloggers don't take you seriously when you claim Fox News isn't "their" channel. You can't even respond to the argument, much less win it.
October 4, 2007, 3:15:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

johnny dollar
As I've said before, it's a waste of time to argue with a liar.
October 4, 2007, 4:15:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

WCW
Hey, if you're a phony soldier, how did you just kill Johnny?
October 4, 2007, 5:21:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---

Fox Fan
Quick to question and slow to answer, Phony and WCW. Typical.
October 4, 2007, 10:03:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

---