Weekend Links and Open Thread

  • MediaBuzz videos: as avoiding
  • Reliable Sources videos: Trump tape; talking dirty; digging into The Apprentice.
  • The Cable Game: News judgment in Zuckertown: empty calories.
  • Concha: Trump video drama dominating cable.   Debate coverage.
  • Zurawik: Beware of artifice in carefully staged tv-style ‘town halls’.
  • Rothstein: Impartial CNN correspondents are horrified at sex talk.
  • Videos: of The Kelly File; Shep shows us of Fox News.
  • Factor video: Bill explore the secrets to Fox News’ success.
  • Concha: Bill Hemmer talks about Fox News at 20.   Sunday talkers: preview.
  • YourBuzz videos: NY Miss the

231 thoughts on “Weekend Links and Open Thread”

  1. The geniuses at CNN are horrified at Trump. Meanwhile, these same people have no problem with Madame Clinton destroying the lives of her husband’s victims. Hypocrites of the first order.

        • every time i see the news i want to vomit, every time i see a BLS report i want to sell everything, every time i look at understated future government obligation i want a euthanasia cocktail, but i will not mess my pants by voting for a puke i would never let near children. which includes them all.

          are you aware of Spanish politics? things got so bad, months ago a new government could not be formed. a feature of parliamentary procedure in most Euro countries. now i forget how many months it has been 6, 8, i forget. all i see is that the electorate of spain is sane. they like having no government. no one in charge and things roll along. the problems still there, just no one making them worse. hint hint hint.


  2. Not so secret secret, Mr. Bill himself. Drawn two million plus eyeballs to the screen on a regular basis since FNC got up to speed.

  3. Tell me why I would reject putting Trump in the White House on moral grounds only to put back in a guy who shoved a cigar into the humidor of an intern under his authority young enough to be his daughter?

    • That was minor compared to his other actions. Nobody has accused Trump of rape, only of being crude.

      And, I have to ask myself why George H.W. Bush’s nephew kept that tape for so long? Whatever reason, I see Uncle’s fingerprints on it.

      • I seriously doubt that Billy Bush had a part in releasing that tape, let alone remembering what was said that long ago. He’s the co-host of a network morning show (which has a large female audience) and he is probably worrying at the moment about his own job.

      • even trump would have saved it. absolutely no one would have trashed it. i think it is telling that Russia got control of the world’s uranium via the Clintons and this is what everyone is posting about. bottom line. i do not care what either of them have done. the evidence is clear that no matter what everything would be worse. keep your passport Nix. reading about western Indians in auto-bios and thinking of your spiritual sacred ground comment. not disparagingly. however, without citing specifics i compare and contrast all the Indian clans that divided, moved changed, moved sans white man interference. nothing ever stay the same. dozens of Blackfoot, Pa Ute, and Apache tribes.

        • which reminds me of a great bio about the Delaware Indian wars. every side had creeps and heroes. maybe we need to rethink this good guy bad guy stuff.

    • do you really care what either have said or done. the electorate rejected Romney for odummy. come on man. what is not obscene other than childhood innocence. we done did the pooch. time to collect.

      • I am simply saying that the Clinton supporters shocked by Trump’s language are hypocrites. Or, as Madame Clinton would say, g**damn, f*****g hypocrites.

          • no one likes the holier than thou act. but when cc used it on me you upped her left the honest guy, ME, empty.
            hard to think of any people other than those of us in Greece and Balkans with more Turk experience, but i never knew your dad so i got nuttin to say.

          • I’ll always defend Cece, she is always nice to me.

            Dad didn’t care for the Turks because they were thieves, mistreated their farm animals and didn’t know (or care) the difference between a lie and the truth.

          • oh hell, that seems like nothing compared to the stories Yia Yia told us about. occupied 4 centuries. i think it is why today Greeks are so hairy. imagine, Muslims trying to keep Greeks from drinking.

          • It’s not a conceit to point out that you’ve lectured and shot down anyone here who, I have learned, differ little from your stand on immigration, just cause you want to be a contrarian.

          • your arrogance to pretend you can read my mind and you misstating your past anti immigration posts make that cr@p. you have never made a single post encouraging the laws of immigration to be made easier for qualified people. only that the law should be enforced as is. your still going to be called dishonest and arrogantly presumptive when you are.

          • I am not dishonest…

            What’s dishonest is for you to give odes to open borders when someone else opines on the subject about thousands of illegals crossing the borders every year and about concerns for security, and then to argue that they were de facto ruling against any future change to current law.

            I’d like to see laws enforced is not the same as saying I never want laws to change.

            No, in your inimitable way you managed to hop on that high horse with a lecture on something they never ascribed to in the first place (fixed immigration law in the face of our current situation of no law) and your own pretext for a lecture assumptions.

          • the only high horse i mount is to point out how dishonest your assesment of my and your positions are. dishonest to the point of lying. “odes to open borders” i advocate letting criminals in the USA? giving social services to illegals? it is your implication, and it is a lie. saying you want the law enforced with no proposals of change is hardly similar to anything i have ever proposed. in fact that is stupidly unworkable, yet it is what you have posted. do not tell me we have a similar view or mine has changed. those are lies. all things you have said that do not contort with reality. #dishonest.

          • Saying that I want law enforced is not synonymous with saying I never want law changed.

            Again, that was an inane assumption you made in order to issue a lecture.

            If I misunderstood what you meant by open borders then I misunderstood what you meant. You aren’t exactly a beacon of clarity.

            None of that changes the fact that we are far closer in our views than your comments indicated, until your post that sparked our argument.

            Which is why I say your aforementioned assumption is simply a pretext for screeds.

          • there you go again. you just like to twist my words
            me: “saying you want the law enforced with no proposals of change is hardly similar to anything i have ever proposed.”
            you: “Saying that I want law enforced is not synonymous with saying I never want law changed.”
            i don’t try to read your mind, just your posts. my post is correct. see it in quotes. it is copied
            “You aren’t exactly a beacon of clarity.”
            my posts on disdain for current immigration law is hardly fuzzy. just admit it. you tried to infer things i never said and you have not once posted a change in immigration law other than keeping people from countries that might include terrorists. something i agree with.
            if your views are similar to mine then that would be an amazing change on your part, not mine.
            i got ya dead to rights on this and i would not care except for your insults. you say things about my personality that you have no knowledge of. don’t make me feed your quotes back to you cc, because you cannot do that to me. i have been consistent and clear on this topic for a very long time.

          • We agree upon everything I have ever said when broaching immigration law.. We agree on targeting certain countries for special scrutiny. We agree with following existing immigration law.
            That’s hardly a change in my stance, with or without your ridiculous extrapolation of my unwillingness to change any law in the future and that I should have understood that assumption in your posts.
            No. You’re harboring that nonsensical sort of reasoning took pointing out on your part.

          • “We agree with following existing immigration law.”
            i do not agree with that. stated so repeatedly. that makes us very far apart. indeed i have pointed out how current law is the cause of much of our problems and it should be ignored, violated, snuck around etc. i have also made many examples of that which you are free to disagree with. speaking to my psychology and misstating things i propose and being dishonest about the gap between our views is hardly small. that is not nonsensical reason. now, at this point. do note. i have not said you have anger issues. lecture. other dog whistle words to my deficient psychology. misstated your views in any manner. now if you could agree to stop doing that to me we would be all good.

          • … and who the hell are you to tell anyone that they need something from you? so back your high horse baloney.

          • She’s not being dishonest. She simply disagrees with you. There is a big difference. I ignore your shots at indians. Why can’t you simply be courteous to others that disagree with you?

          • what shot at indians? if i have come across like that i would apologize because it in no way represents my feelings.

            she is being dishonest Nix. she has misstated my posts intentionally and said my views are the same as others here. both flat out not the case.

          • So who else here has argued that immigration law should not be tightened or loosened to accommodate changes in labor market or national or international crises?

          • I will take you at your word about indians. They certainly weren’t racial insults, just a misunderstanding on your part of why I will never leave.

            However, she is not being dishonest. Reread the posts by both of you. She simply disagrees with being lectured.

          • i have read her posts carefully, and i disagree. i will argue that with her.

            i did not intend to say you should leave or change, i just noted that the reading i have done which is fascinating indicates that native Americans moved about, changed, broke apart, came together and were often on opposing sides. all i meant. particularly fascinating is the difference between clans and families of the same tribes. i would not insult anyone’s heritage as a group…..well maybe Turks

          • Well, we all know about the Turks.

            Our villages often had members of different tribes, mostly Shawnee and Delaware. My son-in-law is a Pottawatomi. His sister is stunningly beautiful. She looks a lot like a younger Natalie Wood.

          • like i said, i recall dimly a book about the delaware indian wars. native history was not extensive when i was in school. so a timeline of tribal changes and beliefs and treks is not something i know. my original comment was just that things change, keep that passport….i say that all the time about everything and it was not encourage to flee your attachments.

          • finding nothing. there is a priest going through old books i have. i know i read it in costa rica pre-kindle. it was specifically in New England not further west than eastern PA. so it was early. i need to think. HA!. maybe he will find it.

          • lol, i know the story of Lenapes. look above. in my faulty memory i should have stated “the New England Indian Wars” and they are mostly? all? Delaware Indians tribally? see above, 1 cheap kindle, 1 free archive links.
            i just like did free association man,

          • No Lenapes in New England. Here are the tribes in colonial times:
            Abenaki — Maine to Lake Champlain, south to the Merimac Riover, north to Quebec
            Algonkin — Ottawa River Basin, between Ontario and Quebec
            Massachuset — Valleys of the Charles and Neponset rivers in eastern Massachusetts.
            Mattabesic — Western Connecticut
            Metoac — Long Island
            Micmac — Canadian Maratimes
            Mohegan — Eastern Connecticut
            Narragansett — Narragansett Bay and western Rhode Island
            Nauset — Cape Cod
            Niantic — Southern coast of New England
            Nipmuc — Central Massachusetts, northern Connecticut and Rhode Island
            Pennacook — Merrimac River Valley of Southern New Hampshire
            Pequot — Southeastern Connecticut to the Niantic River
            Pocumtuk — Connecticut River Valley in Massachusetts
            Wampanoag — Southeastern Massachusetts, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket

          • see post directly above
            the above tribes known collectively as the Delaware tribes? maybe not in canada or??? maybe so? i am deficient and going on memory, the book was about Delaware tribes and their New England wars with whites. posted links above.
            from your post
            “The Lenape (/ləˈnɑːpɛ/) are a Native American tribe and First Nations band government.[4] They are also called Delaware Indians[8] and their historical territory included present day New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania along the Delaware River watershed, western Long Island, and the Lower Hudson Valley.[notes 1]”

          • No, they are Algonquins. Only the Lenape are known as Delaware.

            I need to head to bed. Mass early tomorrow. Have a good night.

          • Actually, this is more than a simple disagreement about his stand on immigration or my mistaking the gist of his posts.
            I think he lectured me on the pretext of distinction no bigger than a needle in a haystack and wants to say I’m lying because I scoff at it.

          • I wasn’t suggesting it was. It was a reply to your remark asking what authority I have to hold you to account for what you type here.

            Same as everyone else has, dude.

          • so be clear. you can make psychological assessments and an misstate other people’s posts, and say you may have ideas you have never posted but since you might have them i should not say you have never posted them? i should say that and that is being honest????

          • If I ever complain about people who don’t pay their taxes, I’ll be sure to let you know that this doesn’t mean that I think current tax law is in the Bill of Rights.

          • Fun fact: The original draft of the Bill of Rights included, among other things, a ban on income and property taxes.

          • citation. w/out looking i believe the constitution allowed for no federal tax other than “excise”. i could easily be wrong. straight from a very old memory

          • looks like an out of print book that was a textbook for classes and been replaced. i hate that. like the one i posted about greco roman education theory. i gave mine all noted to my sisters kid and it kinda never got to him. family, you know.
            it is interesting that the “founders”, some more than others, were well aware that their words, letters and documents would in the future be historical and studied. it is humorous to read jeffs and john adam’s voluminous letters at the end of their lives. they read like they knew people were looking at them and they shaded stuff to make them look good.
            i like books that study a person in histories character.
            my guess is that in the discussion of the bill of rights it might have been discussed. there were was much back and forth. it was the 2nd constitution and the bill of rights was discussed but not included to get a stronger fed system to replace the articles of confederation.

          • hey, by remembering the locale, not the tribal name, i found this. the delaware valley of course extends into New England and west past Ohio correct? i searched, i think this may be it, it is kindle cheap close to free. very little description but i believe this is the one. lots of good and evil by all parties and a lot of side switching as i recall.

            Indian Wars in New England would be the Delaware tribes, correct?

          • same year i was thinking. wilson. lots f funny business. i think i once mentioned a bio called the character of Jefferson. it really adjusted my thinking.

          • nothing man. i am actually fine. oregon lost, but i expected it. cc went out of her way to misstate my views.

            do explain the Indian thing because i am in no way trying to sound like that.

        • They are hypocrites, that’s true… but meaningless.

          Republicans can’t “out Clinton” Clinton. They’ve given up almost all the reasons why she’s bad and their candidate is better and different.

          “Her house is on fire, come to my house… which is also on fire!” isn’t a winning argument.

          • The clear arguments against Madame Clinton is her reckless disregard for national security, influence peddling thru the “Foundation” and not caring about the deaths in Benghazi. She ought to be in Federal prison , not the Oval Office. And I have had a severe dislike for Donald Trump for over 30 years. But, I am stuck voting for him.

          • shouldn’t you be equally or even more concerned about a thin skinned self absorbed inexperienced commander in chief? i would think someone with your military experience would worry about that more than a a person like me that has only read about war. from where i sit, i cannot predict which will be worse. with HRC we stand a chance of 100% gridlock. with trump, we really have no idea of the extent of his pathology. i guess he could turn out ok, but wouldn’t that be a shock? more likely he reads like a commander right out of Heller’s catch 22.

          • No, her reckless disregard for handling classified materials and being on the take while Secretary of State utterly disqualifies her. I put her in the same category as Ethel Rosenberg. Trump, on the other hand, is simply a hothead. We’ve had a lot of them.

            And, remember, General Dreedle’s WAC was hot. (moan….) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXSWFoMGzPM

          • fair enough, at least you are consistent. i am just glad i am not a teen today. understand i agree with you re: hillary. i just think the trump down side is an unknown and could easily be larger while i think HRC will cause gridlock.

          • On the other hand, acne medications are much better these days, and you can use the girl’s bathroom (North Carolna excluded).

          • We know about how awful Hillary is on any number of different topics. Time and time again Hillary has failed America.

            Trump on the other hand is a successful businessman with dealings with hundreds if not thousands of people.

            Please let’s give Trump a try. At the very least immigrates will follow our laws rather than just come in unvetted.

          • the Kardashians are successful and i would be embarrassed to vote for them, so i wouldn’t. trump reminds me of the title of Rumsfield’s book. no one has any idea of what damage he could do. immigration is not an issue to me unless you want to rewrite the whole banana which he would not do. really does not matter because unless the most dramatic event in presidential history occurs trump’s chances are close to nil. gridlock and learning she changed her mind again and supports TPP are my best hopes.

          • What Madame supports depends on what group she is speaking to and what she is being paid. there is a word for that, but Disqus would block it. It rhymes with “oar.”

  4. Joe Concha is pointing his finger at NBC/Comcast for the release of the latest Trump scandal tapes. I don’t doubt it because the head of Comcast is a major Democrat supporter, Brian Roberts, Obama golf buddy.

    • I was sure you must be mistaken Mitch after all the talk of how when Comcast took over NBC Universal it would move to the left.

      But no such luck with Google. Looks like you are onto something.

      Since 2006, Roberts has donated more than $76,000 to Democratic candidates, and $13,500 to Republican candidates. Then in December 2009, Roberts wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, endorsing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  5. CBS SUNDAY MORNING — long segment on Trump recording and calls for him to drop out. Not a word about leaked Hillary Wall Street speech transcripts. Go for the jugular, CBS. Blood in the water. Oh, the humanity!

    • a tele AD, full on social media, and surrogate parade directed at HRC’s comments would make the story. HRC drives her news, the media carries it. so blame the media or blame a clueless cheap trump who does not understand the followup needed?

  6. Whoa!

    I think Tucker Carlson and Howard Kurtz met thier match in Julie Roginsky where she rebutted two arguments:
    A. Kurtz disagreed that Trump has been a media creation. (JR pointed to extensive coverage becuase of ratings and frequent wall to wall coverage of Trump speeches not afforded other GOP candidates.)
    B. Carlson argued that it was “diminishing assalt” to accuse Trump of assault for merely talking about it. (Julie replied that it was more that just talking about it. She said Trump spoke of actually doing it.)

    Trump supporters will probably see it differently — while others will disagree.

    Eye of the beholder once again.

    Footnote: As a frequent critic of Mr. Kurtz, I applaud him for presenting both sides of the Trump controversy with a balanced lineup of guests.

      • Don’t know about the “vast majority” — but I do think there are many voters who will be holding their nose (figuratively speaking) in the voting booth.

        I do wonder if counter intuitively Trump’s decline could actually help down-ballot Republicans as many of those in the middle want a counterbalance in the Senate to Hillary. I guess we’ll know in 30 days.

        • polling shows a vast majority which in politics is 60%, in biz a similar share would be 66%.
          if you at issue voting they hate obama too.

          • Wow…that’s quite a jump if it’s now over 60% who do not support either candidate.

            Just seven weeks ago it was a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll that showed only 22%.

            Goes to show how much negative publicity both candidates have attracted lately.

          • you looking at polling very different than i. whether trust or issues adding the negatives together rarely is below 60% on anything. obama has a slight + on “approval” and every issue poll he is well under water. no explanation except the enemy of my enemy is temporarily my friend.

          • Obamba currently at his second term favorability high rating of 55%. That means 45% hate his guts. Nearly half the country, and he’s buoyed by the scum running now.

          • should not have said support, hate is more accurate. there was a poll of who wanted new candidates and it was well over 60% but i do not recall where that was. few weeks ago. just miserable candidates.

    • ” (JR pointed to extensive coverage becuase of ratings and frequent wall to wall coverage of Trump speeches not afforded other GOP candidates.)”

      Except that isnt even close to being true….A CNN host even called out marko R I think…..they turned down all offers to come on….Trump however accepted ALL offers…..I think that guy would go on a local station if the asked back then.

      Trump gets airtime because he says YES….they and until recently HRC say NO…..that’s not the presse fault……example…..the disgraced stooges complained one day that Greta did a hour infomercial for a Tump bio and didnt do one for HRC….even though they offered HRC the same thing and they said no….which of course wasn’t pointed out.

      • I now amend my earlier statement to read:

        “Trump supporters and some Fox News fans will probably see it differently.”

        Cheers mate.

          • I agree. Trump was often more willing to do TV interviews compared to candidates like Rubio and Cruz.

            But that’s only part of it.

            Julie Roginsky also mentioned Trumps speeches and rallies where he got far greater coverage that his fellow candidates.

            It’s true that some of that was because he was ahead in the polls and was more entertaining to cover. I’ll grant you that.

            The reason there were estimates of up to $2B of free media coverage defy a simple explanation as noted in the lengthy Shorenstein Center report back in June.

            When critics have accused journalists of fueling the Trump bandwagon, members of the media have offered two denials. One is that they were in watchdog mode, that Trump’s coverage was largely negative, that the “bad news” outpaced the “good news.”

            The second rebuttal is that the media’s role in Trump’s ascent was the work of the cable networks—that cable was “all Trump, all the time” whereas the traditional press held back. Neither of these claims is supported by the evidence.


          • uhhhhh HRC has not had an original thought in like 30 years. with trump we know he will wreck, but we have to watch to catch it.

  7. Forgive me Tucker Carlson fans.

    Am I wrong that with that haircut and that ever present striped necktie he always looks like he’s on his way to a photo studio to have his class picture taken for a private boarding school a la Dead Poets Society?

    Perhaps it’s just me. But I’ve had this longstanding impression ever since I first saw him on MSNBC over 10 years ago.

    • I try very hard to judge people on what they SAY, not what they LOOK like. If you made those same comments about a woman you’d be raked over the coals as being sexist. Me, I just think this is a very shallow comment that reflects more on you than it does on Tucker.

      • I get the distinct feeling you’d feel differently if I was discussing Obama’s dad jeans. Your political bias is well established Pam.

        I have both criticized and prasied FNC hosts, Hillary Clinton, Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly and Mitt Romney on this website.

        I don’t recall seeing that kind of versatile bipartisan commenting by you. Perhaps I missed it. (I do know we’re both Packers fans. ?)

        • Well, you may have missed some of my comments over the years. It’s not worth my time to get in an extended “how many times have I bashed Republcans, conservatives, Democrats, liberals, progressives” versus you.
          But, yes, I am a conservative, if you want me to spell it out. But that does not mean all conservatives are “juuuuust great”! I don’t have to criticize/celebrate an equal number. BUT, I will criticize/celebrate their positions rather than their clothing as you did.

          • Did you read this comment ‘carolr527’ ?

            Be careful about criticizing Megyn’s ‘clothing’ like you’ve done twice in the past.

  8. I was just thinking what we were really lacking in this election cycle was a national conversation about ?
    On second thought, I’m skipping the debate again.

    • Larry, how do you do those graphics? I could take my insanity to a whole ‘nuther level with them.

          • I have had an iPad since I preordered one the day Apple announced they were for sale. As I got my doog for free, it’s the best thing I ever bought. I upgrade every two years and give the previous one away. Highly recommend.

          • Only drive 5000 miles a year. Cabin is paid for. Get natural gas at wellhead prices — less than $300 per year. Grow my own vegetables and buy meat on sale and freeze it. Don’t go out to eat. Not much of a drinker. Have used Quicken since 1990 and track all but 5% of my spending. As I’m frugal with some things, I’m extravagant with others that I love. And if piggybank gets low, just got to pick a pocket or two.

    • Either “idiot”?

      You’re really not voting for Trump?

      Sounds odd coming from someone who to my knowledge has never criticized any of the Trump supporters on Fox News.

      While at the same time posting critical comments about people like Lawrence O’Donnell and Julie Roginsky who are clearly saying negative things about a candidate you suspiciously call an “idiot.” Seems all three of you would be more inclined to agree. Or at a minimum you would not go out of your way to single out people who agree with you about not voting for Trump.

      Please square that circle for us.

      • Are you drunk? I criticized Trump’s biggest supporter on Fox News Hannity ALL the time. Right here……..to even you just a few weeks ago. I said I dont think he should be on ANY news network……what more could you want? I could care less who people are supporting……they do something i dont like I say so…..dont see why you can’t understand that.

        I criticized Julie Roginsky because she was WRONG about something…..know how i’m 100% sure I was right??

        This:”I agree. Trump was often more willing to do TV interviews compared to candidates like Rubio and Cruz.”

        Ive criticized Lawrence O’Donnell because I think what he tweeted was wrong…….and if someone one Fox News does that and I see it I will complain about that also…..the big difference between me and you. Just because i agree with him Trumps a idiot…..doesn’t mean EVERYTHING he does or says is right……..unlike the disgraced racist stooges….I’m not a drone…..you should try it sometime.

        Ive explained why I’m NOT voting for the president in the general…..it will be blank on my ballot………….I won’t go over that all again…..other to say……..If I vote for either of those I would be a hypocrite when I complain about things they do after they win……..and not matter which of the known liars wins…..I have a feeling i will have complaints.

        You think what Lawrence O’Donnell tweeted was a good thing for a news network host to tweet?

        • “I criticized Trump’s biggest supporter on Fox News Hannity ALL the time.”

          All the time?

          I’m here at J$P almost daily and somehow I missed that. If you can find a link to your comment(s), that would be good. If not, then I will just have to take you at your word.

          Meanwhile I will be looking for the next criticism of anyone at Fox News and Fox Business.

          You seem far more inclined to take the side of those who support Trump when they are criticized — albeit sometimes rather obliquely.

          But perhaps I am misinterpreting what appears to me to be a contradiction by someone who calls Trump an “idiot.”

          • “I’m here at J$P almost daily and somehow I missed that. If you can find a link to your comment(s), that would be good. If not, then I will just have to take you at your word.”

            Just last month…..in a reply TO YOU….Don’t think I could be any clearer.


            “Well lets see……Ive said many times here…….again just last week….that Hannity doesn’t belong on ANY news network..and Fox News should be ashamed to have him on…….I said the same thing about Beck here and at ICN…..I dont think Kurtz is hard enough on Fox News……just as he wasn’t on CNN when he was there……..I think Fox News makes mistakes in its hiring of contributors and have said so…..IE: Newt……..Scott Brown………I thought Huckabee’s show was a joke…….but no more a joke than other shows on CNN on the weekends or Lockup on MSNBC.and those are just off the top of my head.”

            so you missed that……..maybe it’s time to seek that medial help people here have suggested for you to seek.

            Kinda blows Moes….I mean your theory about me out of the water now doesn’t it…………the disgraced racist stooges say Hannity and Kurtz are huge Trump supporters…..yet I criticized two of them in one post…..plus newt and Brown……I said before you guys see a different J$ in you head then we do on the internet. SEEK HELP>

          • Ah ha, thanks for the link. Well done.

            I remember the exchange now where you incredulously claimed that Harris Faulkner was not a Trumper.

            That’s pretty amazing. But let’s not relitigate a pov which is shared by so many here at a pro Fox News blog.

          • Since they only people here crazy enough to think Harris is a Trumper with ZERO evidence…..is you….and your fake accounts….probably best to not go over your lack of proof once again.

          • Zero evidence?

            Check this out and let me know what about it is inaccurate? (Disparaging a website only works when there are errors or misrepresentations such as out-of-context quotes.)

            “Fox Host Defends Trump’s Attack On NM Gov. By Suggesting She’s Prejudiced Against Him”

            Or this one….

            “Fox News’ Harris Faulkner Betrays Black Community” http://crooksandliars.com/2016/08/fox-news-harris-faulkner-betrays-black

            Or this…

            ““These words should disturb every American,” said co-host Harris Faulkner. “He [Trump] is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries.
            Whose job is it to decide who gets to be where? It’s the voters who
            decide. It is not any particular party. That’s offensive on its face.”


            “Fox News Hosts Freak Out When Their Colleague Denounces Donald Trump Over Violence At His Events”

          • Where’s the PROOF???

            All I see is OPINIONS.

            Crooksnliars??? are you kidding me???? Why not disgraced racist Newshounds?

            Show me where she said she supports Trump….or HRC…..until then you have your and others OPINION that she supports Trump…..kinda like I have a OPINION that The stooges are clearly racist.

            Defending someone isnt supporting someone……..every 5th grader knows that……I used to defend you before you went insane……I NEVER supported you.

          • “All I see is OPINIONS.”

            You’re impossible man.

            Try again. These included pro Trump statements made by Harris.

            Besides why is this pro Trump bias such an annoyance for you (and Cecelia)? Wouldn’t you expect someone on right-leaning Fox News to support the GOP candidate?

          • You want evidence?

            Here’s a quote from the National Review criticizing Harris’ defense of Trump.

            “These words should disturb every American,” said co-host Harris Faulkner. “He [Trump] is not deserving of conservative support in the caucuses and primaries. Whose job is it to decide who gets to be where? It’s the voters who decide. It is not any particular party. That’s offensive on its face.”

            The NRO article expressed their (you’ve got to be kidding me) objection with this reply:

            Disturb every American? Offensive on its face? This was in reaction to some conservatives voicing their opinion that Trump doesn’t deserve to represent their beliefs?


          • I’m far more likely to be against a lot of the people who criticise Trump too,

            Chiefly because most of their criticism goes beyond saying that he’s not mentally or emotionally qualified, into calling him all sorts of vicious things that logically impugn his supporters too.

            I’m not voting for Trump either, so you’re going to have to rethink that little pigeon holing system of yours.

          • “I’m far more likely to be against a lot of the people who criticize Trump too.”

            A sin you will surely have to answer for when you reach the Pearly Gates.

          • A quip fashioned for the folks you’ve pigeon holed as rightwing evangelicals simply because they’re conservatives who believe in the divinity of Jesus.

          • Oh hell no.

            That was sarcasm.

            Go to Bible Study. Maybe you’ll find something to inject a little sunshine into what is a disagreeable, argumentative, attack dog personality.

            BTW, is that huge Confederate flag still in your front lawn? (Just teasing.)

          • What? No emoticon-shield smiley faces to try to obscure the fact that you pigeonhole people rather than hearing them?

        • “You think what Lawrence O’Donnell tweeted was a good thing for a news network host to tweet?”

          Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m too lazy to research this.

          Didn’t Anderson Cooper use the exact same language — i.e., “sexual assault” — at last night’s debate as Lawrence O’Donnell did in his tweet?

          • “Sex criminal” and “sexual assault.”

            Tomato tomato.

            If you use “sexual assault” as they did in the debate, is it really that much of a stretch to call him a “sex criminal” also? [head scratch]

          • The law considers it a red line. Accusation that someone is a criminal is ‘per se libel’. IOW intrinsically, automatically considered libelous with the only defense a claim of truth: e.g. that there has been a finding of guilty in a criminal court of law. I’m surprised people don’t see any difference between saying someone committed an act and saying not only did they commit it but they’ve also been found guilty.

          • “Accusation that someone is a criminal is ‘per se libel’.”

            Yeah, I remember that as a first year law student (40 yrs ago) before I had to drop out half way thru the second semester because of financial issues. I don’t remember much. But that is one that stuck with me.

            I see your point. It’s the word “criminal” that is troubling for you.

            O’Donnell calls Trump a “criminal” and Trump has previously called Hillary a “criminal.”

            Maybe this is the new attack word now that calling someone a “racist” is almost out of vogue. 🙂

          • i assume “malice” has a particular legal definition that is very hard to prove as i recall no public figure collecting anything ever. is that unfair to say?

          • Don’t know I haven’t seen that…..but if he did he’s was wrong to do it and if I see it I will say so….just as if BO or anybody else did it i would say it wrong.

            BC hasn’t been convicted of a crime either if a news network host says otherwise…..I will point that out…..if I see it I point it out.

          • I suspect that if Trump had mugged to a laughing gossip show dude that gorgeous models and soap actresses allowed him to nail them on sight because he had a hit tv show… our utterly absurd, disingenuous, and conniving media (of which O’Donnell is a prime example) would demand that the police search Trump’s penthouse for a hammer and bards, and comb their files for any homocides via nailgun to the groin.

  9. This weekend’s most popular links:
    5 Beware of artifice
    4 20 years
    3 Trump video drama
    2 empty calories
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Rothstein: Impartial CNN correspondents are horrified at sex talk.

  10. NYT
    Shortly before the debate Trump held a brief news conference in St. Louis with three women — Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey — who allege that Mr. Clinton sexually assaulted or harassed them.
    They were joined by a fourth woman, Kathy Shelton, who was 12 when she was raped by a 41-year-old in Arkansas; Hillary Clinton represented the man, who ultimately plead guilty to a reduced charge.

      • the test for inductive proof is complete enumeration of all possibilities. that being impossible, it is then judged as “implicative” proof. that you have provided enough verifiable data points, like pieces of a jig saw puzzle, so that no other conclusion is possible. you confuse fact for data points you choose to support a thesis you have already formed. quite common. however using it over and over in a setting like this renders you less and less believable. don’t buy it? ask for a poll.

          • You see that as a conclusion? WTF?

            I said “draw your own conclusions” and copied a point made in the article. Those are not conclusions. I think you just wanna argue.

            Have a shot of Tequila for me while you’re at it, amigo.

    • Some of these folks on Twitter give you a run for your money in the humor department Larry.

      A new tweet suggested Hillary offer Donald a Tic Tac during the pre debate on stage greeting.

  11. i have thought of a way i might be able to watch. sunday here is the one day off for men and they drink. out of clear bottles they all drink home made Guaro in groups as far away from their wives as they can get. it is pure cane alcohol. so every time either HRC or trump says the word “I”, I do a shot. i might be able to deal with it after all.

Comments are closed.