Kimmler Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 What is it with Arizona and it's lunatic gun laws that allows any member of the public to wonder around tooled up like soldiers and shoot at anybody they happen to disagree with? Surely this is insane and my heart goes out to those caught in the crossfire too. Yet Fox news have been guilty of encouraging this situation and making it all but impossible for sensible politicians who want to address these issues. Also Fox have been encouaging Sarah Palin and her merry band of whackos; the Tea party brigade. Palin and the Tea Party are at war...or at least want Americans to believe that American politics is a war, where each side must be armed. The result? The Arizona Massacre.Yet neither Palin, her ilk or Fox News get it. They still defend to the hilt Palin and accuse liberals of using the shootings to make political capital. What rankles is that it is Fox that has routinely used teen pregnancies, racial gang violence and even terrorist attacks to bash the liberals in America. The shrill hate-rhetoric encouraged by Fox News and the example in Arizona of it's potential consequences must give pause for thought for those who support Murdoch in loosening media regulations in the UK. Sky News in the UK is bad enough but we don't need or want a UK equivelant of Fox News.As for Palin? Well she still has her sights on the White House in 2012 but which ones? Eye or gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Kimmler,I watch Fox News.From your post, I know for a fact you don't.You really should try to ascertain facts before spouting party lines. I am coming to the conclusion that you are really, really lazy.What's more, Fox News grows by leaps and bounds because people tune in to see with their own eyes the monsters in your party-line (actually the boiler-plate), and guess what they see?Heh.Nothing like your party line.So guess who gets discredited? And guess who's audience grows and who's audience dwindles?But keep it up. I'm loving it. You guys are doing more damage to your cause by sheer laziness and spite than any news network ever could.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmler Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 ...and on that bombshell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Kimmler,I can't help but notice that you are over here where I'm at, with our modest public.Nobody's over where you're at. I seriously doubt the people who read OL will ever go there.Reality's a bitch, ain't it?Do carry on...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Interesting piece about "Palinoia":http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091962633206964.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinionRobert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So I wanted to address FOX News by picking a random, and therefore evil, Fox clip from youtube and taking it apart. For a network which uses sources that defend the Crusades as a high point in our history, its not hard to do.This was the last youtube clip uploaded with "Fox News" as its tag -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEfKeyom_WoI don't know what that says about the world, but there you have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Robert,I caught an offhand comment by Brit Hume that I think explains this stuff more than anything else.He said that the Left is furious right now because they had power within their grasp and it is being widely rejected by the American public. As one example, that Health Care repeal thing in the House stung.He mentioned that the Left has not had a successful left-wing president for a long time--maybe since Roosevelt. Lyndon Johnson started some stuff, but flopped. Jimmy Carter flopped. Bill Clinton veered right. Now Obama looks like he will follow suit.The American public is a center-to-right, low-tax, small-government people in general. All the dirty persuasion tricks in the world has not been able to change that.These are people who want to rule others and they can't stand it when "others" tell them--clearly and loudly--that: "Us others don't want you and we will not let you have it."Rejection hurts. Especially when you look down your nose by default on the person rejecting you and limiting your influence.Sarah Palin, who kinda remembers Lucille Ball but without the comedy, is everything these learned souls look down their noses at. To be told by a person like her that she will not let them have power makes them nuts. They go berserk. Who the hell does she think she is, anyway? It's like if a black person said this to a white person in former times in the deep south.They want to scream at her to get back to the kitchen, raising kids and promoting church picnics, but their PC chops won't let them say it. I have very little doubt that these learned giants of the intellect think she's more of a farm animal than a thinking woman.Does that sound like bigotry to you? It certainly does to me.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 If you think the left has flopped, please look at the bottom line of increasing statism now all but fascism and ongoing soon-to-be-worse economic destruction of the middle class. There are at least two kinds of fascism: state socialism a la Mussolini and that what subsumes all statism including Nazism and communism.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I caught an offhand comment by Brit Hume that I think explains this stuff more than anything else.He said that the Left is furious right now because they had power within their grasp and it is being widely rejected by the American public. As one example, that Health Care repeal thing in the House stung.He mentioned that the Left has not had a successful left-wing president for a long time--maybe since Roosevelt. Lyndon Johnson started some stuff, but flopped. Jimmy Carter flopped. Bill Clinton veered right. Now Obama looks like he will follow suit.Michael,I don't doubt for a minute that the American Left is raging.Social Security passed in 1935. There was never an attempt to repeal it. Even if the Republicans had wanted to repeal it, they wouldn't have a majority in the House until 1947 (which they promptly lost in the next election).Medicare passed in 1965. There was never an attempt to repeal it. The Republicans, even if they had been minded to repeal it, wouldn't have a majority in the House until 1995 (this time they managed to hold onto it for 12 years—during which the Republicans expanded Medicare instead of chipping away at it).Obamacare passed in 2010. The Republicans got a majority in the House in 2011. One of the first votes they scheduled was on a 2-page repeal of Obamacare. That had to smart.Right after Obama was elected, the rhetoric issuing from the Left was a mixture of jitteriness and triumphalism. Even then, I had the distinct feeling that many of these politicians and pundits weren't all confident of their hold on power, and scared to death of losing it.I don't think, by the way, that Obama is going to pull a Clinton. He got Obamacare passed, and will do nearly anything to try to preserve it. If Hillarycare had passed, Bill would have had a much tougher time triangulating.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I caught an offhand comment by Brit Hume that I think explains this stuff more than anything else.He said that the Left is furious right now because they had power within their grasp and it is being widely rejected by the American public. As one example, that Health Care repeal thing in the House stung.I didn't yet find the particular Brit Hume comment you note about the furious Left, but did find this snip of a Fox appearance in which he cautions a 'radioactive' Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 William,I heard that comment sometime yesterday, if I am not mistaken. I can't remember who he was talking to. It was on one of the earlier shows during the day. (I sometimes turn the TV on for a couple of minutes when I take a break.)Here is the transcription of Hume's comment in your video so that people can have full context (instead of the Media Matters-like impression of the soundbIte: BRIT HUME THINKS SARAH PALIN IS RADIOACTIVE!!!!!!!!! )This is the dilema with Sarah Palin. She has been subject to some of the most vicious and venemous media coverage--adverse media coverage--of any public figure I have ever seen. And it amounts almost to what someone has described as a kind of derangement syndrome about her--this level of character assassination.However, to say all that, and to condemn it even, does not mean that it has not been effective. And does not mean that Sarah Palin has not been seriously damaged by it in the eyes of a broad cross-section of the public.The problem, the Sarah Palin problem really is a problem that she has--largely, I think, through no fault of her own--become kind of radioactive, and it does mean when she is in a situation like this where she's the focus of national attention, she must be extremely careful about how she reacts to it.My sense about it, of course, is, you know, when you're going to produce a video, that that's of [a] somewhat unusual way to go about things. And that also suggests that you had... took time. This wasn't an extemporaneous comment she made. So I think, you know, on balance, these things... this... this doesn't help her because of the situation she is in, fairly or not.In other words, Brit Hume thinks that since character assassination is working with some people to influence them against Sarah Palin, she should be cautious when she makes public comments.I have a feeling all this is going to backfire on the character assassins big-time over the next two years. I think she should plow straight ahead just like she is doing.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippi Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Sarah Palin, who kinda remembers Lucille Ball but without the comedy, is everything these learned souls look down their noses at. To be told by a person like her that she will not let them have power makes them nuts. They go berserk. Michael, LOVE THIS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) In other words, Brit Hume thinks that since character assassination is working with some people to influence them against Sarah Palin, she should be cautious when she makes public comments.Yup. Same point made by Dick Morris on his site and on O'Reilly, offering an explanation for Palin's current ratings in the polls. Same point .Palin’s basic point was, as usual, sound. These killings were the act of an evil madman not anything related to our political dialogue. But this sensible point got buried and many voters looked at the “blood libel” statement as self-indulgent and thin-skinned. To them, Palin seemed to be the one using the murders to besmirch her enemies, even though she was only answering their charges. Critics charged that she looked more concerned about her defending own personal reputation from the attacks than with the national tragedy that had just taken place.The point is that Palin should not and cannot answer. She needs to rise above the attacks. If she is going to run for president, she needs to be presidential. She can’t descend to the level of her critics. She needs to do what makes her look good – fighting for less government and conservative causes, not what makes her look bad – fighting with her enemies.If Palin took the high road – as Obama did – and decry the violence into our society and stick to condemning the killings, she would not have been hurt by the liberal charges. But, by answering, she exposed herself and got hurt.Next time, we hope she learns her lesson. Edited January 21, 2011 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 William:Thanks. I was glad to hear that the Gingrich statement was much more sensible than the way it was being reported. I am a big admirer of Gingrich. His Civil War trilogy about the battle at Gettysburg and the what if scenarios were brilliant and really well written.Here is where he defended Palin on the death panels with the same Clinton mouthpiece impersonating a journalist: By the way, the quote in the last post was from whom? I did not click on the Morris link. I find Morris to be a low budget commentator who used to be a strategic political genius. He has become too self serving for my pallet.I liked him better when he was being led around on a leash by his dominatrix.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jriggenbach Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 He has become too self serving for my pallet.Yeah, I know what you mean. Today I received a large shipment of books from a book dealer in Western Canada. There were so many books in the order, they wound up shipping it (the order) in an 18-wheeler, shrinkwrapped onto a palate.JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippi Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 He has become too self serving for my pallet.Yeah, I know what you mean. Today I received a large shipment of books from a book dealer in Western Canada. There were so many books in the order, they wound up shipping it (the order) in an 18-wheeler, shrinkwrapped onto a palate.JRAren't you smug mr. spellchecker. Tooshay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 He has become too self serving for my pallet.Yeah, I know what you mean. Today I received a large shipment of books from a book dealer in Western Canada. There were so many books in the order, they wound up shipping it (the order) in an 18-wheeler, shrinkwrapped onto a palate.JRAren't you smug mr. spellchecker. Tooshay.Thong, give it up.Even the last word, if it's yours, will never be the best one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) What is it with Arizona Ukraine and it's lunatic gun hammer laws that allows any member of the public to wonder around tooled up like soldiers and shoot at beat to death anybody they happen to disagree with? The Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs (Ukrainian: Дніпропетровські маніяки,Russian: Днепропетровские маньяки) is the media epithet for the killers responsible for a string of brutal murders in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine in June and July 2007. The case gained additional notoriety because the killers made video recordings of some of the murders, with one of the videos leaking to the Internet. Two 19-year-old locals, Viktor Sayenko (Ukrainian: Віктор Саєнко,Russian: Виктор Саенко) and Igor Suprunyuck (Ігор Супрунюк, Игорь Супрунюк), were arrested and charged with 21 murders.[1]MurdersThe first two murders took place late on June 25, 2007. The first victim was a 33-year-old local woman named Ekaterina Ilchenko,[7] who was walking home after having tea at her friend's apartment. According to Sayenko's confession, he and Suprunyuck were "out for a walk." Suprunyuck had a hammer. As Ilchenko walked past, Suprunyuck "span around" and struck her in the side of the head. Ilchenko's body was found by her mother at 5 AM.[8]Within an hour of the first murder, the two men attacked their next victim, Roman Tatarevich. He was sleeping on a bench a short walk away from the first murder scene. Tatarevich's head was smashed with blunt objects numerous times, rendering him unrecognizable. The bench he was discovered on was located across the street from the local Public Prosecutor's office.[8]On July 1, two more victims, Evgeniya Grischenko and Nikolai Serchuk, were found murdered in the nearby town of Novomoskovsk.[9]On the night of July 6, three more people were murdered in Dnepropetrovsk. The first was Egor Nechvoloda, a recently discharged army recruit, who was bludgeoned while walking home from a night club. His mother found the body in the morning by their apartment building on Bohdan Khmelnytsky Street.[9] Elena Shram, a 28-year-old night guard, was then murdered around the corner on Kosiora Street.[10] According to Sayenko's taped confession, as Shram walked towards them, Suprunyuck struck her with the hammer he had been hiding under his shirt and struck her several more times after she fell down. She had been carrying a bag filled with clothes. The men picked up the bag, used the clothes to clean the hammer, and threw the bag out.[11] Later the same night, the men murdered a woman named Valentina Hanzha (no apparent relation to co-defendant Alexander Hanzha), a mother of three married to a disabled husband.[9]The next day, July 7, two 14-year-old boys from Podgorodnoye, a nearby village, were attacked in broad daylight as they went fishing. One of the two friends, Andrei Sidyuck, was killed, but the other, Vadim Lyakhov, managed to escape.[10]On July 12, a 48-year-old man named Sergei Yatzenko, disabled by a recent bout with cancer, went missing while riding his Dnepr motorcycle. His body was found four days later, with signs of a savage attack clearly visible even after four days in the summer heat.[12]Thirteen more murders followed, often with multiple bodies found in the same day. In addition to the earlier sprees, two victims were found every day from July 14 through 16. Victims were seemingly selected at random. Many were vulnerable to attack, including women, children, elderly, vagrants, or people under the influence of alcohol.Most of the victims were killed using blunt objects, including hammers and steel construction bars. Blows were often directed at the victims' faces, leaving them unrecognizable. Many victims were also mutilated and tortured, and some had their eyes gouged out while they were still alive. One of the victims was a pregnant woman, whose fetus was cut out of her womb. No sexual assaults on any victims were reported. Edited January 21, 2011 by Ted Keer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Nicely done Ted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 William:Thanks. I was glad to hear that the Gingrich statement was much more sensible than the way it was being reported. I am a big admirer of Gingrich. His Civil War trilogy about the battle at Gettysburg and the what if scenarios were brilliant and really well written.Here is where he defended Palin on the death panels with the same Clinton mouthpiece impersonating a journalist: By the way, the quote in the last post was from whom? I did not click on the Morris link. I find Morris to be a low budget commentator who used to be a strategic political genius. He has become too self serving for my pallet.I liked him better when he was being led around on a leash by his dominatrix.AdamCan't stand this SOB. I'd call him a "Rockefeller Republican," but I don't like to resort to name-calling.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippi Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Can't stand this SOB. I'd call him a "Rockefeller Republican," but I don't like to resort to name-calling.--BrantHe is appalling. I wish he would go away. No one wants these career criminals any more from either side. Edited January 21, 2011 by pippi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippi Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) *snark eliminated-too much troublepeace Edited January 21, 2011 by pippi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippi Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Snarky reply deleted- carry on - my apologies.:tempering my temper: it is a little unnerving to be posting in the Garbage Pile (even tho my initial post got me here) Edited January 21, 2011 by pippi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) [edited] Edited January 21, 2011 by whYNOT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The point is that Palin should not and cannot answer. She needs to rise above the attacks. If she is going to run for president, she needs to be presidential. She can’t descend to the level of her critics. She needs to do what makes her look good – fighting for less government and conservative causes, not what makes her look bad – fighting with her enemies.If Palin took the high road – as Obama did – and decry the violence into our society and stick to condemning the killings, she would not have been hurt by the liberal charges. But, by answering, she exposed herself and got hurt.Next time, we hope she learns her lesson.Yeah, but then she becomes one more mealy-mouthed politician pragmatically playing the numbers.I can't say I know much about her, but as a general rule I'm for politicians being prepared to make P.R. blunders in instant defence of justice and honesty. That usually indicates integrity, imo.Palin can be silly sometimes, but she gets the nod for integrity and candidness, over a presidential demeanour and a personal agenda.The USA has already got one of those.Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now