Puhlease. Olbermann, Maher, et. al. do the very same thing as the ones that you rant against. Olbermann and Maher especially both seem like they have a dozen brooms shoved up their asses on a constant basis. But apparently that's ok because their viewpoints are more aligned with yours which means that their biases in the name of objectivity are allowed, but get out of line like those knuckledraggers from Fox and it's time to sharpen the rhetorical pitchforks!

[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ]

6/18/2009 9:23:36 AM

Oh great, it's WlfpkFailLife again, popping up to give us the wingnut view again.

6/18/2009 9:24:15 AM

LOL too funny. YES brother failboat, show me the way to enlightenment! Pardon me if I don't place my lips on Olbermann's ass beside yours.

Besides, don't you have evil fascist jews to rail against in chit chat, oh ye blessed sage of what's fair and objective?



[Edited on June 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM. Reason : ]

6/18/2009 9:25:40 AM

hmm, another conservative with an ass-fetish....
Take your cues from Rush?

6/18/2009 9:30:57 AM

Sometimes it's better to be thought a fool than to post comments about ass fetishes and remove all doubt.

I have been truly enlightened by 2 great soap box minds. Left wing rhetoric is gospel, right wing criticism stems from ass fetishes, did I miss any other commentary gems of truth through the eyes of a rambling retard?

6/18/2009 9:36:32 AM

Quote :

"Sometimes it's better to be thought a fool than to post comments about ass fetishes and remove all doubt. "

Which is.... exactly what you did:

"both seem like they have a dozen brooms shoved up their asses"

"place my lips on Olbermann's ass beside yours"

6/18/2009 10:37:51 AM

Ok well I do like a nicely shaped ass on a sexy woman so there ya go. Guilty as charged.

6/18/2009 10:43:00 AM

overt, defensive statements defending one's own heterosexuality...... ?
yep, another Conservative mainstay!

6/18/2009 11:02:25 AM

So FailLife, how long before you come out of the closet or get nicked for molesting boys?

6/18/2009 11:10:03 AM

6/18/2009 11:50:39 AM

I guess you two ^^, ^^^ will have to stick to sucking each other's dicks, mine will be unavailable due to my heterosexuality.

6/18/2009 12:18:21 PM

Quote :

"mine will be unavailable due to my heterosexuality.boyfriend stealing it"

Fixed it for you.

6/18/2009 12:29:19 PM

6/18/2009 12:43:29 PM

Quote :

"see, you've fallen into the Fox News trap. They don't have to be "fair and balanced" - they're commentators, and they can comment from any particular point of view they have. That's a false standard that Fox News made up. Now, maybe news shows should strive to be "fair and balanced", but even more ideally, they should simply be "objective and factual". Fox News likes to pretend there are 2 sides to everything, that deserve equal weight, when in fact, a lot of stories are either factually right or wrong, or if there is an opposing point of view, it's a fringe or small minority view that doesn't deserve an equal platform as the consensus view. "

for page 10

6/18/2009 1:41:40 PM

Quote :

" "Mr. Hampton first approached the media," Ensign’s spokesman said by e-mail. "He approached a major television news channel before Tuesday. We learned of this fact before the press conference." So apparently, not only did Fox News know about the affair, but they also tipped off Ensign to the fact that Hampton had told them about it."

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jun/19/text-husbands-letter/

6/19/2009 3:21:35 PM

Quote :

" Here is my story. In December of 2007 in the midst of some very difficult personal issues that deeply impacted my family and marriage, Senator Ensign pursued and engaged in a relationship with my wife. Our families were lifelong friends, our children attend school together to this day, and our homes are in neighborhoods across from each other. My wife was the Senator’s campaign treasurer. There is a tremendous amount (sic) of details and critical facts associated with this story and their relationship that will not be addressed in this letter but are very important and need to be further explored if you choose to meet with me. The purpose of this letter is to establish the framework for discussion and provide enough information to warrant a meeting with you and Fox News. This is the only letter of its kind and no other news stations have been contacted with this information. I have great respect and affection for Fox News and many of your collages (sic). I’m sending this to you because you have a legal back ground (sic) and this story has several legal elements. "

sucks for that guy

guy's wife cheated on him with the senator and he sent the letter to Fox News because he had great respect for collages. also... (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : grammar ninja killing spree]

6/19/2009 3:31:50 PM

From ABC's This Week:

Quote :

"George Stephanopoulos: You know, George, I've always been struck by how--and it's not too strong a word--how obsessed the president and the White House are with FOX News."

And this great response:

Quote :

"George Will: Well, it's the discordant note in an otherwise harmonious chorus, I suppose that's why. But three great love affairs in world history are Abelard and Heloise, Romeo and Juliet, and the American media and this president at the moment."

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7892087

FOX News is Obama's. . .



BUT--in praise of Obama--I saw his speech/routine at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner. I must say, I enjoyed it; he's a very likeable guy. It's a shame that I disagree with so many of his policies.

[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 3:21 AM. Reason : FYI: Relevant quotations above at about -03:47 in the video. ]

6/23/2009 3:15:51 AM

Quote :

"Obama and Chavez May Not Be Happy With Brit Hume's Take on Iran The Obama administration seems at last to be waking up to the reality that its policy of engagement with the rulers of Iran has gone up in the smoke rising from the streets of Tehran. It took a while. At the first sign of post-election trouble the administration was quick to emphasize that the engagement policy was still on. Then the President spoke oh so respectfully of the Supreme Leader of the country, the unelected and autocratic Ayatollah Khamenei. He said Khamenei recognized the concerns the people had about the election. Never mind that the response to those concerns was to order a ruthless and now violent crackdown on their expression. Then came Mr. Obama's assertion that there was little difference between the thuggish Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi. Well the people in the streets certainly think there's a difference. The president has insisted he doesn't want to make matters worse by giving the rulers ammunition to blame the upheaval on the U.S. As if the protesters would react to such a preposterous claim by collectively slapping their foreheads and saying, "Oh my God. Uncle Sam made me do it. Death to America. Up with Ahmadinejad." In fact, this regime will never be the same. Its thin veil of legitimacy has been stripped, and even the White House now seems to know it. — Brit Hume is the senior political analyst for FOX News Channel. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528220,00.html

did i miss something, or was Chavez never mentioned anywhere in the column except in the headline?

6/23/2009 8:45:14 AM

^ Yeah, they screwed the pooch on that one. It was in reference to this, I think:

Chavez: 'We are asking the world to respect Iran'

Quote :

"It is not clear from the report to whom he was referring. Apparently, he is bent on making a gesture of solidarity with the declared winner of the contested election. Chavez indicated that he had spoken to Ahmadinejad during the week to congratulate him. Another report in Cyberpresse mentioned that Venezuela's Foreign Policy Minister had strong words of condemnation for the 'ferocious and unfounded campaign of discredit that was activated by foreign powers against Iranian institutions'."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_postreply.aspx?topic=540676

[Edited on June 23, 2009 at 9:01 AM. Reason : In any event, why don't you just completely ignore my posts above?]

6/23/2009 9:00:42 AM

because i'm not having a conversation with you

this thread is about fox news and how i feel about it

6/23/2009 9:23:04 AM

6/23/2009 9:24:33 AM

Did Brit Hume have a stroke or does he naturally look like Frankenstein's monster?

6/23/2009 12:49:53 PM

Krauthammer + Hume = ??? 50's monster B-movie?

Krauthammer is the only reason I every watch Fox news though, he's the fucking man. Could you have a better name? ever?

6/23/2009 3:25:18 PM

I just flipped past C-SPAN and it was showing Obama's press conference from this morning. I turned to it right as Obama called on Major Garrett, from Fox News.

His question?
"In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were 'appalled' and 'outraged'. ..... What took you so long? ..... to say those words?" ("to say those words" was speaking over Obama as he started his answer)

what a douche. You have a chance to represent Fox News for one question, and that's how you ask it? Loading the statement/question with a week's worth of talking-head Republicans on Fox News criticizing Obama for not doing..... who knows what, really, in response to Iran's elections?

and his follow-up, i think, was "are any diplomats still welcome at the embassy on the 4th of July this year", to which Obama had to remind him that because of previous administration policies (he didn't say that part), we don't have diplomatic relationships with Iran.

6/24/2009 12:16:37 AM

^ That is possibly the worst analysis of an exchange between two people that I've ever seen. Here's how it really went:

1. Obama's position on the uprising in Iran has been evolving--to say the least--as is Obama's typical MO.

Obama toughens his talk on Iran
Tue June 23, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/23/obama.news.conference/

2. So, reporters were right to question him hard on Iran and other issues. But guess what? They didn't question him hard enough on anything:

What Obama didn't mention

Quote :

"A couple of surprising words were missing from President Barack Obama's 55-minute news conference on Wednesday: 'Iraq' — and 'Afghanistan.' Also MIA: 'Korea,' 'Pakistan,' 'soldiers,' 'surge' and 'war' — as well as the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The omissions were partly a result of the short attention span of the press, which did not ask about those topics after the president did not mention them in his opening statement."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24106.html

3. You think those reporters were tough? Please--you know nothing of the old days:

Dan Rather

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrlYRWD_tnA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQLMuEXeGeI&NR=1

Sam Donaldson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKNOu-IM2SE

Quote :

"'If reporters were docile little boys and girls and spoke only when spoken to they wouldn't be doing their job … except handing out a press release,' ABCNEWS' Sam Donaldson said. 'And that is not the job of a reporter, whether it's the White House or City Hall!'"

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=126197&page=2

4. And your last point alleging that Garrett is somehow misinformed isn't even a mischaracterization--it's a plain old lie:

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2009
Transcript: Obama's Press Conference

Quote :

"[Major Garrett] Q: Are Iranian diplomats still welcome at the embassy on the Fourth of July, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think as you're aware, Major, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with -- we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml

6/24/2009 8:50:54 AM

Quote :

"1. Obama's position on the uprising in Iran has been evolving--to say the least--as is Obama's typical MO. "

And? This is a good thing...well, unless you prefer a president that likes to leap before seeing what is on the other side.

Quote :

"So, reporters were right to question him hard on Iran and other issues. But guess what? They didn't question him hard enough on anything:"

Yeah, and your Fox News poster boy failed at this task as well.

Quote :

"3. You think those reporters were tough? Please--you know nothing of the old days: "

I don't see anything in agentlions post that would lead me to think he actually has an opinion at all about the toughness of reporter questions.

Quote :

"4. And your last point alleging that Garrett is somehow misinformed isn't even a mischaracterization--it's a plain old lie:"

How does reposting the transcript have anything to do with whether Garrett is misinformed or not? So Obama giving him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows about the question he asked somehow proves that he isn't misinformed? Are you really that retarded?

6/24/2009 9:05:32 AM

Quote :

"Obama's position on the uprising in Iran has been evolving"

Judging by the article, his position has been consistent. He's not saying anything he hasn't said from the beginning. Were you hoping the article you linked wouldn't be read?

I hope thats as tough as he gets. If he openly supported the protesters against the regime, it would only serve to undermine their cause.

6/24/2009 9:20:22 AM

^^

Quote :

"Are you really that retarded?"

You can suck a dick, you bald-headed, creepy fucking stalker. Fuck off.

^ Wrong. Obama's Iran position has been "evolving" for over a year now--when are those direct talks with Ahmadinejad going to happen again?

Obama's Evolving Position on Iran
Hawkish Stand More Like the Bush Administration's Position
June 4, 2008

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4999088&page=1

Obama Condemns Iran's Iron Fist Against Protests
June 23, 2009

Quote :

"In sometimes testy exchanges with reporters at the news conference, Mr. Obama defended himself, contending that even the moderate tone he had struck previously had been twisted by Iran's government to suggest that the protests had been engineered by the United States."

Yeah, and Iran blamed us anyway--despite Obama passiveness.

Quote :

"'It was the bloodshed' that led to the change in tone, he said."

Yeah, in a "Spock-like" tone Obama called the killing "fundamentally unjust." Wow--don't go out on a limb or anything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/politics/24webobama.html

And so on.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 9:34:38 AM

Quote :

"1. Obama's position on the uprising in Iran has been evolving--to say the least--as is Obama's typical MO. "

Yeah, evolving as the situation changes.

Major's unstated premise what that Obama should have used language like "appalled" and "outraged" from the beginning, which obviously he shouldn't have. Obama's rhetoric has changed (gotten more intense) daily because of, OMG, changing circumstances in Iran!. At first it appeared to be just a botched election, to which Obama said "that's Iran's business to deal with", and he was right. Then the protests started, and he said "That's Iran's business to deal with, the people need to be heard", and he was right. Then the gov't started killing protestors, and Obama said that was outrageous. Seems pretty reasonable to me, no?

Quote :

"So, reporters were right to question him hard on Iran and other issues."

That's fine - they should. And Major Garrett should have asked him about it if he wanted. My point of contention was the douchebaggery he exhibited by framing his question with " ..... what took you so long?"

Want to ask about why he think's Obama's position changed? Fine, how about - "Mr President - you have only recently called the situation in Iran 'appalling' and 'outrageous'. Your tone over the past week, however, has been markedly more withdrawn and hands-off. Do you think you should have used used harsher rhetoric earlier on? Do you think that the regime's actions as early as the beginning of last week qualify as 'outrageous'?"

Quote :

"You think those reporters were tough? Please--you know nothing of the old days:"

as Fail mentioned...... i have no idea what you're referring to. I was not making any point about how "tough" the questions were from Fox News or anyone else.

Quote :

"Yeah, and Iran blamed us anyway--despite Obama passiveness. "

yeah, and....?
At least now when Iran blames the US, we have the upper ground and the whole world can see that it's obviously a lie.

Would you have preferred that we started meddling in the election and protests immediately so that when Iran inevitably blamed us, it would be true?

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 9:59:19 AM

Quote :

"^ Wrong. Obama's Iran position has been "evolving" for over a year now--when are those direct talks with Ahmadinejad going to happen again?"

The article you originally linked referred to only the protests, which Obama has been consistent on. Now you're talking about something else.

6/24/2009 10:07:32 AM

^^

Quote :

"At least now when Iran blames the US, we have the upper ground and the whole world can see that it's obviously a lie."

So, we shouldn't tell oppressive regimes that they're oppressing people because they might call us poopyheads and try to blame us for the. . .um. . .oppression? Do you actually mean this?!

Thank God you weren't in charge during the Solidarity movement. The commies probably would've hanged Lech Walesa.

^ I'm sorry, but Obama's campaign positions on Iran and the unfolding lawn chair that is his policy du jour on Iran--I think--are not mutually exclusive.

6/24/2009 10:26:08 AM

Quote :

"So, we shouldn't tell oppressive regimes that they're oppressing people because they might call us poopyheads and try to blame us for the. . .um. . .oppression? Do you actually mean this?! "

In regions where soldiarity with the US is viewed as solidarity with oppression, then yes.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : not that I'm answering for him]

6/24/2009 10:34:20 AM

^ The protest signs in Iran are in English, dude. Who do you think they're talking to--and begging for even a shred of support?

6/24/2009 10:39:32 AM

There are plenty of opposition parties in Iran that would rather NOT have the US endorce them for fear of losing credibility.

I don't expect you to realize this.

6/24/2009 10:53:38 AM

Quote :

"endorce"

6/24/2009 11:01:46 AM

ohhhhhh, burned
you're [sic] arguement [sic] is completely under mined [sic] now!

6/24/2009 11:22:26 AM

The funny thing is, I put that in there on purpose and he still couldn't resist it.

6/24/2009 11:25:40 AM

If some of you spent as much time addressing the topic as you do trolling or cyberstalking, this would be a better place.

6/24/2009 1:02:00 PM

your point is stupid and is only being made by people trying to score political points in america. it will do no good to show "support" for the mousavi side. at least not publicly. and there are lots of ways it could hurt.

see: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/22/cruel-to-be-kind-in-the-right-measure.aspx

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 1:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2009 1:04:50 PM

Quote :

"your point is stupid and is only being made by people trying to score political points in america."

yeah, it's crazy how many people who, for the last 10 years, have been claiming we should have no contact with, crush with sanctions, or simply bomb Iran out of existence, are now up in arms because we're not jumping right in the middle of this conflict

6/24/2009 1:50:01 PM

Quote :

"The funny thing is, I put that in there on purpose and he still couldn't resist it."

very funny indeed

you do realize that you're just as much of a tool for baiting him and then calling him out, right?

6/24/2009 2:36:15 PM

Yeah, we shouldn't stand up for human rights, voters' rights, a move toward democracy, and so on--it's all crap. Let's just take either side that comes out on top--which will probably be the Islamofascists with their boot heels on top of another woman's neck.



I told you that Big Hat here could be counted on for a Gestapo-style crackdown.

6/24/2009 3:02:35 PM

thank you for your strawman.

6/24/2009 3:04:44 PM

Quote :

"If some of you spent as much time addressing the topic as you do trolling or cyberstalking, this would be a better place."

Please stop cyberstalking me with these comments.

Quote :

"you do realize that you're just as much of a tool for baiting him and then calling him out, right?"

No, I don't think I'm a tool. By this rather tenuous line of reasoning, you're just as much a tool as anyone for pointing it out and trying to be snarky about it. And...I don't think you're a tool.

6/24/2009 3:06:24 PM

Here's one big difference between you and me, Fail Goat:

Quote :

"i dont think anyone is going to agree to let him have anymore active usernames."

Quote :

"we all, as a group, seem to agree that he is a cancer to the site."

gunzz

message_topic.aspx?topic=511651

Quote :

"jesus christ hooksaw is not an alias"

marko

message_topic.aspx?topic=490935&page=4

And just like the cancer that you are to this site I know that the blackness inside of you is eating away like a cancer.

[Edited on June 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : Munch, munch, munch. . . .]

6/24/2009 3:15:27 PM

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make with that.

6/24/2009 3:27:28 PM

Is a Fail GOAT worse than a Fail BOAT?

6/24/2009 3:32:16 PM

Quote :

"And just like the cancer that you are to this site I know that the blackness inside of you is eating away like a cancer. "

Seriously, speak for yourself:

Quote :

"but he still attacks people based on appearance while refusing to reveal his own."

Quote :

"You can suck a dick, you bald-headed, creepy fucking stalker. Fuck off. "

You've been Cyberstalking for years it seems.

6/24/2009 3:35:17 PM

^^ Ask the user who created it--I didn't.

^ Keep fucking with me. You've been warned.

And when last I checked, the topic is FOX News.

6/24/2009 3:43:48 PM

come on guys, we're in our twenties

6/24/2009 3:49:54 PM