^ Address the post, joe_shithead. Otherwise, you can piss off.

9/22/2007 3:20:25 AM

The New York Times slams. . .itself!

The Public Editor
Betraying Its Own Best Interests
By CLARK HOYT
Published: September 23, 2007

Quote :

"FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq. But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."

Quote :

"Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse? The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake. The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.' Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was 'rough,' he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print. By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal media.'"

Quote :

"[Catherine] Mathis [vice president of corporate communications for The Times] said that since the controversy began, the newspaper’s advertising staff has been told it must adhere consistently to its pricing policies."

The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?ex=1348200000&en=2a0a62cfdfcad9e8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

ROFLMAO! You gotta fucking love it!

[Edited on September 25, 2007 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2007 1:15:43 AM

yup. I agree with you hooksaw. Really, I do.

MoveOn fucked up big time.

and the NYT screwed the pooch.

and -- in the finest liberal tradition of promoting free speech and open debate -- an editor at the NYT had the intellectual honesty to publicly say "we fucked up".

thanks for bringing that to our attention. it restores my faith in the NYT a good deal.

9/25/2007 2:44:06 AM

Quote :

"So the President, behaving a little bit more than usual, like we’d all interrupted him while he was watching his favorite cartoons on the DVR, stepped before the press conference microphone and after side-stepping most of the substantive issues like the Israeli raid on Syria in condescending and infuriating fashion, produced a big-wow political finish that indicates, certainly, that if it wasn’t already — the annual Republican witch-hunting season is underway. “I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. Military. “And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. “And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like Move-On-Dot-Org — or **more** afraid of irritating them, than they are of irritating the United States military.” “That was a sorry deal.” First off, it’s “Democrat-ic” party, sir. You keep pretending you’re not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect. Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry? But most importantly… making that the last question? So that there was no chance at a follow-up? So nobody could point out — as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight — that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place! Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman — and now you’re complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone? Eleven months ago the President’s own party — the Republican National Committee — introduced this very different kind of advertisement, just nineteen days before the mid-term elections. Bin Laden. And Zawahiri’s rumored quote of six years ago about having bought “suitcase bombs.” All set against a ticking clock, and finally a blinding explosion… and the dire announcement: “These are the stakes - vote, November 7th.” That one was ok, Mr. Bush? Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you? The Republican Hamstringing of Captain Max Cleeland and lying about Lieutenant John Kerry met with your approval? But a shot at General Petraeus — about whom you conveniently ignore it is you who reduced him from four-star hero to a political hack — that merits this pissy juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television? Your hypocrisy is so vast, sir, that if we could somehow use it to fill the ranks in Iraq you could realize your dream — and keep us fighting there until the year 3000. The line between the military and the civilian government is not to be crossed. When Douglas MacArthur attempted to make policy for the United States in Korea half a century ago, President Truman moved quickly to fire him, even though Truman knew it meant his own political suicide, and the deification of a General who history suggests had begun to lose his mind. When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief General, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition - as he did… when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864 and nearly defeated our greatest president. Even when the conduit flowed the other way and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures — after four years of fearful servitude — rose up against McCarthy and said “enough” and buried him. The list is not endless — but it is instructive. Air Force General LeMay — who broke with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis — and was retired. Army General Edwin Anderson Walker — who started passing out John Birch Society leaflets to his soldiers. Marine General Smedley Butler — who revealed to Congress the makings of a plot to remove FDR as President — and for merely being approached by the plotters, was phased out of the military hierarchy. These careers were ended because the line between the military and the civilian is… not… to… be… crossed! Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man. And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career. The upshot is — and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement — he betrayed himself more than he did us. But there has been in his actions a sort of reflexive courage, some twisted vision of duty at a time of crisis. That the man doesn’t understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops, is not so much his fault as it is your good, exploitable, fortune. But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of ‘the planted last question’ at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond. That, sir, is not only un-American — it is dictatorial. And in pimping General David Petraeus, sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it. You did it again today, sir, and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed. It is a line — thankfully only the first of a series — that makes the military political, and the political, military. It is a line which history shows is always the first one crossed when a democratic government in some other country has started down the long, slippery, suicidal slope towards a military junta. Get back behind that line, Mr. Bush, before some of your supporters mistake your dangerous transgression, for a call to further politicize our military."

From Olbermann.

9/25/2007 8:02:13 AM

Quote :

"Kate Couric has unloaded on the subject of Iraq. At the National Press Club, she said, 'Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war.' I'm sure everyone in that room would! And here's Katie on the atmosphere following the 9/11 attacks: 'The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying "we" when referring to the United States and, even the "shock and awe" of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the "Today" show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, "Will anybody put the brakes on this?" And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in. The idea that 'anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic' is just garbage. It’s merely something that liberals tell themselves in order to feel martyr-ish. They want to be victims of McCarthyism, even when none exists. And if she thinks it's a journalistic sin to wear a lapel flag or to say 'we' when referring to the United States — her journalistic values are way out of whack. Here's a woman who thinks it’s necessary to be neutral between the United States and al-Qaeda, or the United States and Saddam Hussein. But she apparently feels no compunction to be neutral between the Democratic party and the Republican party. And, incidentally — as far as war is concerned — she would really have hated her news division, CBS, during World War II. They were actually and demonstrably and demonstratively on the American side. In my ideal world, major-network anchormen wouldn't express their views on politics and policy. They would remain above it all, in splendid Olympian fashion. At the same time, if we're going to have partisan media, we might as well let it all hang out, instead of pretending. You've heard my line a thousand times: The anchorman of CBS News should attend Democratic fundraisers (as Dan Rather did). The Supreme Court reporter of the New York Times should march in pro-abortion rallies, and then report on them (as Linda Greenhouse did). The U.N. Human Rights Council should have the most murderous regimes on it. It's all an aid to clarity. And Katie Couric has recently made things all the clearer."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNiNTA0NTdkNjc3NzAzMGFiODRlODc0ZGYwYWZkOWU=

9/27/2007 12:18:31 PM

Katie Couric

the weathervane of national politics

9/27/2007 1:36:25 PM

^

Quote :

"(CBS) Katie Couric is anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, 60 Minutes correspondent and anchors CBS News primetime specials. Couric is the first female solo anchor of a weekday network evening news broadcast. Couric completed a 15-year run as co-anchor of NBC News' 'Today' on May 31, 2006. While at NBC, Couric was also contributing anchor for 'Dateline NBC.' She was a 'Today' substitute co-anchor from February 1991 before taking over the job permanently two months later. Couric joined NBC News in 1989 as deputy Pentagon reporter before serving its first national correspondent in June 1990, which included two stints covering the Gulf War. Couric has covered most of the major breaking news events over the past 15 years, including the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center; the Columbine tragedy in Colorado; six Olympic Games, including the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing; the funeral of Princess Diana; the Oklahoma City bombing; the Timothy McVeigh execution; the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings; and the end of millennium coverage, which she co-anchored with Tom Brokaw. Couric has interviewed an extraordinarily diverse collection of newsmakers, from presidents and prime ministers to captains of industry and cultural icons. She has interviewed Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush when he was a presidential candidate, along with all of the major presidential candidates over the past several elections. Couric has also sat down with Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Sandra Day O'Connor and First Ladies Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Reagan, Rosalynn Carter, Betty Ford and Lady Bird Johnson. She has interviewed major world leaders including Kofi Annan, Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah (in his first U.S. television interview), Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres. Other Couric interviews include Bill Gates; Tricia Meili, the Central Park Jogger; the last interview with John F. Kennedy, Jr.; and a myriad of other authors, politicians and newsmakers. After losing her husband, Jay Monahan, to colon cancer in 1998, Couric embraced the fight against the country's number two cancer killer. In March 2000, Couric launched the National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance in association with the Entertainment Industry Foundation and Lilly Tartikoff, to fund new medical research in colorectal cancer and to conduct educational programs encouraging the prevention and early detection of the disease through proper screening. Following Couric's on-air colonoscopy in 2000, a scientifically documented 20 percent increase was noted in the number of colonoscopies performed across the country. Researchers at the University of Michigan dubbed this 'The Couric Effect.' Couric received the George Foster Peabody Award for her March 2000 series on colon cancer, which also led to NBC News receiving the 2001 RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence. She also has won six Emmy Awards, the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi Award, a National Headliner Award, an Associated Press Award, a Matrix Award, two American Women in Radio and Television Gracie Awards, the Harvard University School of Public Health's Julius B. Richmond Award and UNICEF's Danny Kaye Humanitarian Award. Couric also played a leadership role in establishing The Jay Monahan Center for Gastrointestinal Health at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell. The Monahan Center, which opened in March 2004, provides a comprehensive, fully integrated multi-disciplinary program, stressing education and prevention in addition to diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal cancers. The Monahan Center's mission focuses on the seamless coordination of all needed care for patients and their families facing the difficult diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer. As part of her work to generate funds for both the Center and the nine scientists whose research the NCCRA supports, Couric has hosted three extremely successful benefits. The most recent, 'Hollywood Meets Motown,' took place on March 15, 2006, and showcased approximately 40 film, recording industry, television and Broadway stars. These three events generated a significant portion of the almost $27 million Couric and EIF's NCCRA have raised to date to fight colorectal and other GI cancers. Couric was a general assignment reporter for WRC-TV Washington, D.C. (1987-89) and for WTVJ Miami (1984-86). She worked for CNN (1980-84) as an assignment editor, associate producer, producer and, ultimately, political correspondent. Couric began her broadcast journalism career as a desk assistant at ABC News in Washington, D.C. (1979). She was born in Arlington, Va. Couric graduated with honors from the University of Virginia in 1979 with a bachelor's degree in English and a focus on American studies. She lives in New York with her two daughters."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/06/eveningnews/bios/main1781520.shtml

9/27/2007 11:52:51 PM

oh, THAT Katie Couric

i was thinking of Kathy Lee Gifford.









like i ever watch the lamestream network news, anyhow

9/27/2007 11:56:23 PM

Just like all of us liberals were deeply engrossed with the happenings of Air America.

9/28/2007 12:30:19 AM

^ If I remember correctly, Air America was started around 1950, which would have been about the time of Harry Truman-D, I think.

9/28/2007 12:49:10 AM

sorry, i don't remember 1950

9/28/2007 1:11:04 AM

^ I don't either, but you're almost as old as me.

9/28/2007 1:39:55 AM

i dunno, dude...

you say you're 40, but then you talk about "remembering 1950" .

why won't you just admit it.

the 50's, those were good days for America, weren't they? you want to go back there, don't you. you were sportin a hightop fade, pegleg trousers, pack of Lucky Strikes rolled up in your shirt sleeve...

that's right, daddy-o. you were the cats meow.

9/28/2007 1:47:13 AM

^ If you'll read my post carefully, you'll see that I was trying to remember details about Air America--and I am actually 41 now.

9/28/2007 2:01:40 AM

NPR Snubs Interview With the President,
So It Airs on Fox News

Quote :

"Does National Public Radio have a nose for news? Or a nose that's offended by the scent of President Bush? NPR news boss Ellen Weiss snubbed an exclusive interview opportunity with President Bush. Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz reported Wednesday that the White House offered NPR's Juan Williams an interview on race relations, but NPR didn't want it on its airwaves. So on Monday it aired instead on the Fox News Channel. Williams told Kurtz he was 'stunned' by NPR's decision: 'It makes no sense to me. President Bush has never given an interview in which he focused on race....I was stunned by the decision to turn their backs on him and to turn their backs on me.' Fox was even sharper. 'NPR's lack of news judgment is astonishing, and their treatment of a respected journalist like Juan Williams is appalling,' said Fox spokeswoman Irena Briganti."

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070927.asp#4

Is anybody really surprised by this left-wing crap?

10/2/2007 12:29:43 AM

Why, so he can go up there once again, on behalf of NPR, and lob more softballs? gg Ellen Weiss

http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/28/segments/86335
Worth a listen for you flaming Wingnuts.

10/2/2007 12:58:10 AM

NPR turned down the interview request, because the Bush Admin refused to transfer the interview to anyone but their hand-picked choice of Fox News correspondent Juan Williams.

NPR turned down the interview request based on their general policy that NPR should determine who will interview the subjects, not the other way around. NPR informed the White House, back in January, that this would be the policy for any future interviews.

NPR also turned down Hillary Clinton, for the same reason. The Clinton campaign wanted a particular NPR correspondent who was partial to certain healthcare issues to interview Hillary about healthcare. NPR said "no," and instead insisted that whats-her-name from "All Things Considered" do the interview, and include tough questions on foreign policy and Iraq. Clinton agreed, and did the interview as NPR stipulated.

Basically, Bush was going to get a Fox News interview, and wanted to have it aired on NPR. NPR said "no thanks", and so the same exact interview with Juan Williams was aired on Fox. which is where it belonged in the first place. Furthermore, the White House knew full well that this would be the response before they requested it.

i have to admit, this is a score for the Bush Administration. they got their message out, just as they planned, and got a bonus of putting NPR on the defensive... classic propaganda technique. Props to the White House communications manager, or whoever was responsible for this.






[Edited on October 2, 2007 at 2:09 AM. Reason : ]

10/2/2007 1:56:20 AM

^^ and ^ Great. Media Matters talking points. GG!

10/2/2007 1:58:59 PM

The guy who rides Limbaugh's jock is crying about talking points. Nice.

10/2/2007 2:00:32 PM

^ Simply not true. And you sure do post a lot about jock-riding. Is that an image that you think of often?

10/2/2007 2:04:37 PM

^^^ Media Matters? WTF are you going on about now?

that's not from any talking points. its my own summary of the explanation given by NPR's Vice President Ellen Weiss, of her rationale, from her own words. how about you listen to the audio, or read the transcript.

you're the one always coming on here with your cut and paste talking points, because youre just a mindless and unoriginal shill.





[Edited on October 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2007 4:40:55 PM

Quote :

"^^ and ^ Great. Media Matters talking points. GG!"

What the fuck are you talking about? I have never even been to their site. I heard this story from two sources. One, that I posted from OTM and two, from your mindless drivel trying to slam NPR as if they are unable to make decision that don't involve kissing W's ass.

10/2/2007 5:49:01 PM

^ So what? I don't go to Prison Planet, but that doesn't stop the howlers from howling that I do. Deal with it.

10/3/2007 12:09:49 AM

No I am not going to simply "deal with it". You accused me of using a Media Matters talking point while I very clearly pointed to my source of information. I wouldn't have a problem stating if I did get my view point from MM but since I clearly didn't then I am not going to let someone like you try and paint pretty false pictures making it seem like I did. I applaud NPR for refusing to be pawns to W. and the sooner they let Mr. Williams go and work for Faux News, like he wants, the better.

10/3/2007 12:19:26 AM

^ Um. . .you don't have any choice but to deal with it.

10/3/2007 12:57:04 AM

If by "deal with it" you mean call you out as the lying, phony old cook that you are then yes, I did deal with it. But then again I do not expect much else from an old geezer such as yourself. Not that anyone takes you seriously in the first place but it's abundantly obvious in this regard that you couldn't make your point and you have nothing left to stand on other than trying the W. tactic of lie lie lie until it becomes true. Pathetic, even for you.

10/3/2007 1:23:03 AM

^ "cook"

And now you know how O'Reilly and Rush feel, douche bag.

10/3/2007 1:27:54 AM

Boo-fucking-hoo. I care little for their "plight". Now there are two examples of douchebags.

10/3/2007 1:30:29 AM

back to teh tizzop.

when is hook going to post some more evidence of the vast left-wing media conspiracy?

i'm bored.

entertain me.

10/14/2007 4:37:46 AM

^ Okay--this one never gets old. And it will give context to some of Ted Turner's more recent comments, which I will post later.

MediaTalk; AOL Sees a Different Side of Time Warner
By JIM RUTENBERG

Quote :

"Executives at America Online are learning what it means to be in business with Ted Turner, the company's vice chairman. Despite having a knack for making insensitive, off-the-cuff remarks about religion and ethnicity, Mr. Turner had largely stayed out of trouble since AOL and Time Warner announced they would merge. Other than letting it be publicly known that he was unhappy with an AOL Time Warner flow chart that took away his control of his cable empire -- CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, Turner South -- Mr. Turner had not made a controversial peep. That ended on Ash Wednesday, when, at a meeting with CNN staff members, he looked out at a crowd speckled with people who had ash on their foreheads in observance of the day. Those present said Mr. Turner told the gathering that he at first thought the ash marks were grime from covering the Seattle earthquake. But, he said, then ''I realize you're just Jesus freaks.' Then, in reference to the Fox News Channel, which is regarded by some to have a conservative bent, he added, 'Shouldn't you guys be working for Fox?' Mr. Turner's remarks, for which he later apologized, were first reported by the Fox News Channel and then on Page 1 of The New York Post, both owned by the News Corporation, the company of his fiercest rival, Rupert Murdoch. Catholic groups reacted angrily. The controversy was given new life when Stuart Varney, the co-anchor of CNN's 'Moneyline News Hour,' quit, citing the remarks (though it was widely believed that there were other issues involved as well). Of course, executives at Time Warner are used to this sort of trouble from Mr. Turner. He has compiled a long list of verbal, public offenses. Among them: He once called Christianity 'a religion for losers'; he referred to the 1997 suicides of 39 people in the Heaven's Gate cult as 'a way to get rid of a few nuts'; he made a derogatory remark about Poles and the pope; and he called opponents of abortion 'bozos' [emphasis added]. But this is a new experience for executives at AOL. It seems, though, that they have accepted the incident with the same sort of fatalism that Time Warner did. Though the company had no official comment, one ranking executive said: 'Look, with Ted you get a lot of great, big thoughts. You get a great spirit, and you get a really smart guy. But you also get somebody who from time to time says whatever he happens to be thinking at the moment. Whether he thinks it tomorrow isn't necessarily the case, but that's the whole package.' For his part, Mr. Turner had no comment. For now."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEFDA133DF93AA25750C0A9679C8B63

If Roger Ailes had said anything even remotely like this, the left-wing moonbats would have been calling for his head on a silver platter--and you know it.

10/15/2007 12:35:08 AM

so... at which point during your cut-and-paste did you go back and selectively extract this bit:

Quote :

"Published: March 19, 2001"

GTFO. thats just pathetic. i want my 2 minutes back.








but i got to agree, it's pretty creepy seeing people with ashes smeared on their foreheads walking around town like nothing's up. seriously, people should have the goddamned courtesy to do that shit in the privacy of their own home or church.

10/15/2007 1:21:22 AM

^ Um. . .can you read, you fucking bigot?

Quote :

"^ Okay--this one never gets old. And it will give context to some of Ted Turner's more recent comments, which I will post later."

If Roger Ailes said anything similar about Muslims or gays or "brown people," you and your foaming fuck buddies would be all over his shit. Why don't you just fess up, you fucking hypocrite.

10/15/2007 1:38:14 AM

okay I'll "fess up" if you answer the question:

why did you cut-and-paste *the entire page*, yet make the effort to selectively extract one, and only one, single line?

you know, the line that said: "Published: March 19, 2001"

the one single line you felt important (or unimportant) enough to specifically extract.

or, in other words, the one bit of pertinent information that you left out.

as in, omitted.

why?

what was going through your mind when you suppressed the publishing date?

did it have anything to do with the fact that the incident is 6 1/2 years old?

hmm?

tell me.

i want to know.

why, hooksaw, why?

why did you do that?

why?






[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 2:07 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2007 2:00:45 AM

Quote :

"^ Okay--this one never gets old. And it will give context to some of Ted Turner's more recent comments, which I will post later."

You fucking idiotic bigot.

Ted Turner on the effects of global warming--from September 20, 2007, joe_shithead:

Quote :

"Because life on earth is at stake. The sad thing about destroying the environment is that we're going to take the rest of life with us. The bluebirds will be gone, and the elephants will be gone, and the tigers will be gone, and the pandas will be gone. I don't like the idea of losing pandas or crocodiles or alligators. I just…you know, I think they're cool. I like snakes. I like hummingbirds. There's nothing on earth I don't like. Frogs. Salamanders. The bunnies, the giraffes, the hippopotamuses. They deserve to have a planet. And it's pretty simple what we have to do. We have to put an emphasis on the quality of our lives and de-emphasize the quantity. The average person can figure that out. Maybe Senator Inhofe can't."

http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2007/09/gq-icon-ted-tur.html

Sage commentary, yes?

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2007 2:09:16 AM

You can't really compare Roger Ailes and Ted Turner anyway.

I mean, you can't compare Turner to anybody. He's an ambitious egomaniac, a wildly offensive, generous, opulent capitalist--simultaneously and equally admirable and contemptable to many.

It's not even a "love to hate him" kind of thing. He transcends that cliche. He's Ted fucking Turner.

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 2:24 AM. Reason : And the man likes hummingbirds.]

10/15/2007 2:22:07 AM

yeah, so he said "bunnies". i grant you that's kind of limp-wristed.

but still, you refuse to answer my question. you want me to answer yours, so lets have some quid pro quo.

Why did you suppress the information of the article being 6 1/2 years out of date?

why?

what were you thinking when you suppressed the March 2001 publication date?

saying "Okay--this one never gets old" doesnt explain it.

because in T-Dub parlance, indicates a time scale of 0-10 days. not 6.5 years

why are you being secretive and shady, my friend?

are you hiding something? is there something dishonest, or even nefarious going on here?

tell me why.

WHY, HOOKSAW, WHY

10/15/2007 2:29:04 AM

^^ Um. . .I can compare whomever I like. And if you were reading closely, you would have seen that the comparison was about how two high-profile media moguls on opposite ends of the political spectrum would be treated by the MSM given similar comments--except that Turner actually made the offensive comments in question.

And your love letter about Turner is pathetic. He is a man--nothing more--and a hate-filled man at that.

^ I did nothing of the sort, joe_shithead. And I'm going to keep posting my quotation until you engage your comprehension gear--such as it is.

Quote :

"Okay--this one never gets old. And it will give context to some of Ted Turner's more recent comments, which I will post later."

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 2:35 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2007 2:31:19 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw: And if you were reading closely, you would have seen that the comparison was about how two high-profile media moguls on opposite ends of the political spectrum would be treated by the MSM given similar comments--except that Turner actually made the offensive comments in question."

Yeah, I got that.

I'm suggesting you try to find someone other than Ted Turner to prove your point. Ted Turner runs his ugly mouth all the time, and most people tolerate it because he's Ted Turner.

Quote :

"hooksaw: And your love letter about Turner is pathetic. He is a man--nothing more--and a hate-filled man at that."

It's no love letter. I'd rather marry Scott Peterson.

10/15/2007 2:40:15 AM

yeah, Bridget might be drunk, but she's right that it doesn't make sense to compare Ailes and Turner. you really rather should compare Murdoch and Turner.

but first you've got to answer my question. its a valid question, and i want a serious answer.

Why did you suppress the information of your cut-and-paste article being 6 1/2 years out of date?

what were you thinking when you tried to suppress the March 2001 publication date?

saying:

Quote :

"Okay--this one never gets old"

doesnt explain it.

because in T-Dub parlance, [OLD] indicates a time scale of 0-10 days. not 6.5 years

why are you being secretive and shady, my friend?

are you hiding something? is it mere intellectual dishonesty, or is there something nefarious going on here?

tell me why, please.

why are you trying to hide facts?

you of all people, hooksaw, i expected better from you

WHY, HOOKSAW, WHY?





[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 2:45 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2007 2:44:04 AM

^

Quote :

"I'm suggesting you try to find someone other than Ted Turner to prove your point. Ted Turner runs his ugly mouth all the time, and most people tolerate it because he's Ted Turner."

QED. Thanks.

You proved my fucking point. Let Ailes--or some other conservative media mogul--try Turner's type of commentary and see how it flies. Do you even think drink before you post?

^

Quote :

"Okay--this one never gets old. And it will give context to some of Ted Turner's more recent comments, which I will post later."

This is a serious answer, you fucking douche bag bigot. If you weren't so fucking stupid, you'd see that (1) I usually leave out dates of articles--unless the date is relevant; (2) my use of "never" in the quotation suggests a continuum of the type of comments in question; (3) the latter part of my quotation reiterates that there is a series of these hate-filled comments by Turner; and (4) my post with Turner's comments from September 20, 2007, confirms that his idiocy continues.

Now, SHUT THE FUCK UP, joe_shithead; I OWN YOU--ON A CONTINUUM.

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 2:58 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2007 2:46:25 AM

leave the drunk gal alone. you know she cant debate properly this late at night.

now answer my question.

why did you selectively extract the March 2001 publication date from your otherwise fastidious cut-and-paste job?

is it mere intellectual dishonesty? have you just gone creatively bankrupt?

or is there a more sinister plot, a nefarious agenda if you will, going on here?

Answer the question.

Why, hooksaw, why?

Why did you do that?






[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 2:58 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2007 2:52:08 AM

pwnt

10/15/2007 3:05:37 AM

^ Yeah, I did own him pretty good--but it's nothing unusual.

10/15/2007 3:07:14 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw: You proved my fucking point."

No, I didn't.

You have to prove that:

1. Ted Turner is being protected by the supposedly liberal media.
2. Ted Turner is being protected because he is liberal and not because he's Ted Turner...

Ted Turner is a vitriolic, abusive egomaniac who is always spewing caustic hate speech.

Here I am, a "foamie" liberal, critcizing Ted Turner. I'm "all over his shit."




Roger Ailes is not nearly as a powerful as Turner. Roger Ailes is not nearly as generous as Ted Turner--you can be a raging douchebag if you give generously (shoot, plenty of criminal enterprises are maintained and protected through generosity--see: Percy Flowers). And, finally, conservatives enjoy Law & Order marathons more than liberals enjoy Fox News. You simply cannot compare the two.

10/15/2007 3:23:32 AM

^

Quote :

"Ted Turner runs his ugly mouth all the time, and most people tolerate it because he's Ted Turner."

BridgetSPK

Are you kidding? Yes, you did prove my point--"most people" tolerate Ted Turner's comments? Really? Which people exactly?

PS: You finally figured out what a foamie is, huh? GG.

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 3:34 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2007 3:33:53 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw : (1) I usually leave out dates of articles--unless the date is relevant;"

that you would surreptitiously post a 6-1/2 year old article in a Thread/Forum/Website devoted to current events is pretty fucking relevant.

if you're going to paraphrase, fine. you can leave the exact publication date out. But If you're going to wholesale cut and paste an article.... then DO NOT selectively extract the one single bit of info that gives context to the entire article by framing the political incident to the ERA in which it occurred.

Now look here, you're the grad student and TA in CHASS English Department, as you are so fond of telling people. I'm just an engineer. I shouldnt have to be the one telling you this stuff

Quote :

"(2) my use of "never" in the quotation suggests a continuum of the type of comments in question; "

oh, does it now? let's see about that...

Quote :

"(3) the latter part of my quotation reiterates that there is a series of these hate-filled comments by Turner; and (4) my post with Turner's comments from September 20, 2007, confirms that his idiocy continues."

mmm.... nope. sorry. i fail to see a "hate-filled" connection between poking fun at superstitious Christians almost 7 years ago, with a recent lamenting of the future loss of "bunnies and hummingbirds" due to mankind's degradation of the environment.

nope.

thats not gonna cut it.

you still have to explain why you cut the date out of your cut and paste.

Quote :

"why did you selectively extract the March 2001 publication date from your otherwise fastidious cut-and-paste job? is it mere intellectual dishonesty? have you just gone creatively bankrupt? or is there a more sinister plot, a nefarious agenda if you will, going on here? Answer the question. Why, hooksaw, why? Why did you do that?"

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 3:49 AM. Reason : ]

10/15/2007 3:43:15 AM

I still don't know what a "foamie" is actually.

It's cute that you remembered my asking you what it was though.

10/15/2007 3:46:38 AM

*snicker*

10/15/2007 3:55:24 AM

^^^
1. Fortunately, you don't decide what cuts it for me or anyone else here.

2. Your failure to see this thing or that is irrelevant--and damned obtuse, I might add.

3. How can I be "surreptitiously" posting something when I included the link to the article at issue? The date of the article was there for all--including your stupid ass--to see.

4. How can I post an older article, you ask? It's called context, joe_shithead. You really should investigate it on your off time from being a hate-filled bigot. Oh. . .that's right. . .that never ends, does it?

5. You don't have to tell everyone you're an engineer--it's painfully obvious. I mean, you may be able to do the math, but you sure as hell can't connect the dots.

^^

Quote :

"Here I am, a 'foamie' liberal, critcizing Ted Turner."

BridgetSPK

So, now you're a liar in addition to being dense? Your list of "cons" grows longer each day, yes? GG.

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 4:29 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2007 4:25:02 AM

"Foamie" is in quotes for a reason. I'm quoting you, mocking you. And you call nearly everyone that disagrees with you a "foamie" so, given my otherwise complete lack of understanding of the word, I can only assume that, since I disagree with you, I am a "foamie."

Is this what you mean by the word?

Cause I still don't know.

And, while I have devoted more than a few words to the subject, I gotta admit...




I don't actually give a shit.

10/15/2007 5:44:47 AM