Jump to content
IGNORED

Faux News Spews; I Need Booze


Destiny

Recommended Posts

 Black kid works hard, succeeds and that's wrong because he takes some white kid's place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 590
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 Black kid works hard, succeeds and that's wrong because he takes some white kid's place

Holly Morris is just another FoxSpews blond. This amazing young man didn't "take something away" from other college applicants because he applied to so many schools. He EARNED is scholarship. It wasn't just given to him. The number of school where he applied is a non issue. The scholarships at the 19 other schools are still available.

The is another example of white whine.  Waaaaaaa I didn't have the grades or smarts to get into college, but that black guy got a 'free ride'.  Well fuck you dumb ass.  Maybe this young man of color is just smarter.  So please take your  "white plight" fuckery and go away.

Oh and Holly Morris?  I'll have to dig up examples of how racist she is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Holly Morris is just another FoxSpews blond.

I so agree. She is probably warming up to try and take Tomi's place. I don't watch channel 5 because Faux, but I've seen most of their reporters and anchors in passing. She is too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I so agree. She is probably warming up to try and take Tomi's place. I don't watch channel 5 because Faux, but I've seen most of their reporters and anchors in passing. She is too much.

What  happened to Tomi?  Did she get canned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

What  happened to Tomi?  Did she get canned?

Oh no, but these Faux blondes seem to be ready to step into each others' heels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big Kimmel fan, but this is good:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the advertisers are dumping Laura, why can't they just go on and dump Fucks and Friends, InSaHannity, Fucker Carlson?  They are all reading from the same racist playbook. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Deep inside Foxlandia, Trump always wins"

Spoiler

Donald Trump is a winner, so the only poll that could conceivably be accurate is the one that puts him at 50 percent or higher. And so the president in recent days has been tweeting frantically about Rasmussen’s surveys, which he likes to characterize as “honest polling.”

This morning, in a radio interview, Trump went even further in extolling Rasmussen polling, claiming that, if anything, it is underestimating his popularity. It would be easy to laugh this off as the usual bluster, but if Trump really believes this, it could have real consequences for the country, particularly in the context of his brewing trade war with China.

In today’s interview with “Bernie and Sid in the Morning” on WABC radio, Trump listened modestly as his hosts showered obsequious praise on him for heroically making America great in the face of unremitting hate from the media.

“A poll just came out now, Rasmussen, it’s now 51,” Trump said. “They say that it’s 51 but add another 7 or 8 points to it. … They don’t want to talk about it, but when they get into the booth they’re going to vote for Trump.”

Trump then immediately segued — unprompted — into a discussion of the border and his plan to send the National Guard there. “We’re stopping ’em,” Trump said of unnamed invaders. “We’re calling out the military. It’s a very, very powerful subject for this country.”

Then Trump was asked about trade and China. “I’m not saying there won’t be a little pain,” Trump said, adding: “We may take a hit, and you know what? Ultimately we’re going to be much stronger for it, but it’s something we have to do.”

This juxtaposition is disconcerting. If this trade war goes south, and the public rejects it, will Trump even know or believe that is happening?

Trump’s link between his soaring Rasmussen numbers and his plan to send the National Guard is a reminder that, for Trump, displays of border toughness are deeply bound up with his certainty in his soaring popularity. He reportedly decided to send in the Guard after feeling rare, creeping self-doubt about his failure to secure money for the wall, even as Fox News was pumping his head full of images of caravans packed with what he decided were swarthy rapists (actually, many are people fleeing desperate conditions) moving north through Mexico toward the southern U.S. border.

But Trump is now handling that problem with great strength — and applauded himself for doing so on the radio this morning, right after reminding us of his Real Approval Rating of 58 or 59 percent.

But what is going to happen if Trump continues to believe such polling in the event of a protracted trade war? As today’s comments indicate, Trump is already framing this standoff as something we must “win.” There are legitimate grounds to call on China to change some of its trading practices, but there are no signs that Trump is taking steps that are specifically geared toward that end. Instead, Trump has no real plan beyond somehow generally forcing China to submit to his will.

Whatever is to happen on that front, this posture is already threatening serious consequences for many stakeholders, which is why they’re screaming at him to stop the madness and why his own advisers are saying it’s all just posturing. But do those advisers even speak for Trump? Nobody knows what he’s capable of, and if a trade war is met with a public backlash rooted in real economic pain, it’s unlikely that Trump, who is drifting deeper and deeper into Foxlandia on trade and immigration alike, will even believe it’s happening.

Foxlandia, to be clear, isn’t synonymous with Fox News, though they overlap. Foxlandia is the nexus of all of Trump’s favorite information sources and personalities and Rasmussen pollsters — the chorus of voices that tell him what he wants to hear. Foxlandia, of course, is occasionally capable of getting Trump to believe he’s not winning uniformly everywhere. All that coverage of the caravan and criticism of him for failing to get his wall got him to send in the troops. But if there’s a trade war, inside Foxlandia you can bet that the coverage of it will only confirm that Trump is fighting the enemies that Foxlandia wants him to fight — and, of course, vanquishing them.

...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Oh no, but these Faux blondes seem to be ready to step into each others' heels.

More like step on to each other heels. I can see them as the group of mean girls from middle school.  Walking together like a viper pack. Willing to stab each other in the back to gain queen bee status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Faux fires Laura, I wonder if they'll upgrade Tomi, and give her Laura's timeslot? I personally don't think Tomi is ready, but the Faux fans seem to like her rants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So yes, there's Kimmel vs. Hannity flametwit action and the commenters at Talking Points Memo are tearing it up over Hannity's sycophancy re: Trump:

Quote

Commenter #1: Hannity's increasingly shrill Trump sycophancy is just really creepy weird. I can't decide if he's somehow himself at risk in the Mueller investigation or just has a sick crush.

Commenter #2: Can't a creepy right-wing hate-monger have a giant man-crush on an even dreamier (and creepier) right-wing hate-monger without you people getting all judgmental?  The shriveled cold heart wants what the shriveled cold heart wants.

There's a bit of speculation that Hannity might be on Mueller's short list over Hannity's interactions with Assange.  I know nothing about this, but there are tons of articles if you google "Hannity in Trouble Over Assange?" 

This first one from Daily Beast back at the end of January of this year is fascinating: 

Julian Assange Offered Hannity Impersonator ‘News’ About Top Democrat

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Howl said:

There's a bit of speculation that Hannity might be on Mueller's short list over Hannity's interactions with Assange.  I know nothing about this, but there are tons of articles if you google "Hannity in Trouble Over Assange?" 

Oh please please please. I'd love to see Lumpy under the big heat lamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:giggle:

You guys know what I think about polls, but this is really funny. 

On second thoughts, that panicky cover -up is actually quite revealing and sad.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faux  is coping with Michael Cohen raids.by finding someone to blame and surprise ,  it's CNN

Tucker Carlson criticized CNN for treating the Michael Cohen raids as breaking news (because there might be other news that isn't related to  a porn star  https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-criticizes-cnn-for-cutting-away-to-cover-fbis-cohen-raid-its-the-stormy-daniels-story/

And guess what more important news he was reporting?

Never mind, you won't so I'll just tell you: Pandas are perverts.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/did-tucker-carlson-run-a-segment-about-sex-crazed-pandas-yes-yes-he-did/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still gobsmacked over the panda thing. I saw people talking about Fox doing a story about pandas on Twitter, but I thought it was a joke that someone had made about how Fox sometimes ignores breaking news if it puts Tramp or the Republicans in a bad light. 

Truth really is stranger than fiction.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I was far too tired to scrutinize Ingraham last night, but I did DVR it.

She starts off with "bullies on the left aiming to silence conservatives."  She plugs a book by Dinesh D'Souza, the ex-boyfriend of fellow unmarried-shrill blonde-Fox News lovin' Ann Coulter, and syas this book claims that colleges make students liberal (but Ingraham went to college, so why isn't she liberal??).  

"This is the intolerant left in action.  Whether it's striking voices from social media or driving certain viewpoints from the airwaves, beating people up, organizing boycotts for perceived unforgivable offences or preventing speakers from being heard on a college campus, it's all coming from the same place, a desperate desire to stop debate by branding your opponent unacceptable and driving him or her from the public square.

She goes on to mention how Diamond and Silk complained that their Facebook audience weren't receiving notifications, and Facebook gave them this statement: "The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been   determined unsafe to the community."  Of course, Diamond and Silk claim not to know exactly what's unsafe, and Facebook says there's no appealing the decision.

"My friends, something alarming is taking place.  The free speech clause of our Constitution doesn't just apply to speech that the elites deem acceptable.  It exists to support speech that is, by its nature, offensiveOffensive to people in power, offensive at times to lawmakers, offensive to Facebook, and even offensive to the cool crowd who think abortion is just a sacred right, and that Trump himself is a dangerous dictator.  We indeed are reaching a crisis point, where cultural walls are now being arrested to conscript and still free speech in America, but we cannot let this continue.  At the end of tonight's show, I'm going to be announcing my response to this dangerous epidemic, and what this show will do, in the coming weeks, to expose the perpetrators, their tactics, their major players, and their funders.  Their efforts are Stalinist, pure and simple.  Their objective is a total transformation of American society, not through rational discourse and open debate, but through personal demonization and silencing.  True liberals and conservatives should defend freedom of speech anywhere and everywhere, because the tables can turn very quickly.  Today, it's conservatives being targeted, but tomorrow, it could be left of center voices as well.  I say, let the debate continue.  What the speech czars don't appreciate, is that there are as many, or more, of us than there are of them, as we will never relent, and we will never give in.  Never.  And that's the angle."  I don't get it -- she calls free speech for the left a dangerous epidemic, yet she wants it to continue?  And yes, the bolding is mine, but many many words were emphasized in her diatribe.

Yay, Diamond and Silk stop by!  Don't remember who they are?  Are you daft?  They perform that song you turned into your ringtone! (here they are getting mad at Eminem) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LrefxYLgQA   They're all blah blah because we're black, blah blah democrat plantation, blah blah you're not supposed to have much so that you can depend on the government and we give you what we want you to have so we can control you blah blah. Ingraham then showed this statement from Facebook:  "We have communicated directly with Diamond and Silk about this issue.  The message they received last week was inaccurate and not reflective of the way we communicate with our community and the people who run Pages on our platform.  We have provided them with more information about our policies and the tools that are applicable to their Page and look forward to the opportunity to speak with them." (Ingraham called the statement "gibberish", and Diamond and Silk claim this statement never happened, calling it a white lie).  She then says the following have not been deemed unacceptable:  Antifa, the Young Turks, Planned Parenthood, Occupy Democrats, and Political Resistance Against Donald Trump.

Finally, at 19 minutes into the hour, a commercial break:

  • My Pillow
  • Bret Baier's 6 P. M. show
  • local car dealership -- just $2939/month for a new Rolls Royce Dawn!
  • HBO

Much rambling about Mueller and the FBI raid.

Another commercial break:

  • Lear Capital (buy silver!)
  • 23andMe

Rambling about Women's March standing up for the rights of sex workers.  The journalist from Reason.com squashed all over Ingraham's outrage, and actually called Ingraham "honey".  Ingraham was flustered by the end of the segment, and I don't thin that journalist will be asked back.

Next up is a Republican pollster who thinks that if the election were held today, Republicans would lose the House.  Ingraham thinks all the impeachment talk could lead to Republicans losing the Senate as well.

Another commercial break:

  • Visiting Angels
  • Zero Water water filter
  • Bavarian Edge knife sharpener (you can turn a credit card into a knife!)

Trump was totally right about the caravans of Mexicans.  The mainstream media claims otherwise, but luckily Ingraham has two (white) guys from the border patrol union to set Fox News viewers straight.

Another commercial break:

  • Beaches.com
  • Shannon Bream's 11 P. M. show
  • Republican gubernatorial candidate
  • Crash Proof Retirement seminar
  • Shotmakers, on NBC Golf channel

Next up is a Marquette professor who claims to have been fired for opposing same-sex marriage.  He is the first professor, in the school's 130 year history, has ever been fired or suspended for a blog post (because blog posts have existed for the entirety of the school's history??).  His case is going to be heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court next week, so I googled it and found this

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2018/01/23/wisconsin-supreme-court-agrees-hear-case-embattled-marquette-university-professor-john-mcadams/1058894001/

 

Quote

Marquette has argued all along that former tenured professor and conservative blogger John McAdams was suspended indefinitely without pay for conduct that violated terms of his contract. McAdams argued what he writes on his blog has academic freedom protections. 

A Milwaukee County Circuit judge ruled last year that Marquette had the legal right to suspend the political science professor who opened a student up to threats by criticizing her by name on his politically conservative blog. McAdams said he did it because he felt the graduate student was trying to impose her liberal views on students she taught.

In his 33-page ruling, Milwaukee Circuit Judge David Hansher found that because McAdams named the graduate student instructor in a November 2014 blog post criticizing her handling of a confrontation with a student, it could bring negative attention to her, and he was prohibited from doing that.

The judge dismissed all six of McAdams' claims against Marquette and rebuked him in a recitation of what academic freedom is — and is not. Academic freedom, Hansher wrote, "does not mean a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule."

 

So of course Ingraham not only shows the grad student's name, but also her picture, because we must know what the enemy looks like.  Because identifying her is in no way bullying her.  FWIW, a high school teacher in my area was fired a few years ago for blogging about her students.  IIRC, she had her first (but not last) name on the blog, never listed her school or the district, and never named any students.  But a student found the blog through a mutual acquaintance, and it was discovered that she called her students "frightfully dim", among other things.  So, yeah, blog posts matter.

Last commerical break:

  • SlimFast
  • My Pillow (again)
  • Visiting Angels (again)

Some final thoughts about the Evil Left, and her new segment, which she calls Defending the First.  She claims "we relish a vigorous debate, and "they" run from that."

I feel sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Every time a Trump lawyer gets arrested, a panda gets some nookie.

What's bad for the suits is good for the panda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Nunes is on the case.

It would be laughable, if it weren't so scary. Please, Rufus, let him get voted out in the midterms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.