PDA

View Full Version : Crazy-Like-A-Fox News Viewer



John Ashcroft
05-13-2004, 08:49 PM
Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.

Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch Fox News are ignorant retards.

The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq -- by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.

Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by Fox News Channel.

Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)

By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" -- basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.

David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:

-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;

-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.

Link: to the Beautiful Ann Coulter (http://www.anncoulter.com/)

ELVIS
05-13-2004, 10:25 PM
When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.


Hmmm...

:elvis:

knuckleboner
05-14-2004, 04:10 PM
oh, ann...



David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:

-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;

-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts.

uh, are these the same "facts" that the administration used in its justification for war?

answer: no, they're not. oh, they're not benign. they sure as hell don't make saddam into mother theresa.

and you know, if THOSE were the arguments made to go to war, maybe Americans and congress still agree with them.

but they weren't the facts the administration's original facts.

(no, i'm not saying bush lied. i don't think he did. i just think he didn't have all the facts. kinda like ann coulter...;))

John Ashcroft
05-14-2004, 05:53 PM
So why didn't Saddam just fess up as to how he disposed of the WMDs everyone knew he had?

Dr. Love
05-16-2004, 10:14 PM
Who knows. Probably didn't want to admit it and "lose face" to the Arabs.

FORD
05-16-2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Love
Who knows. Probably didn't want to admit it and "lose face" to the Arabs.

Exactly. Saddam was a secular dictator surrounded by Muslim fundametalists, some of whom considered him to be a "socialist infidel". As long as he could perpetuate the illusion that he was still well armed, nobody in the area would try to challenge him.

knuckleboner
05-17-2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
So why didn't Saddam just fess up as to how he disposed of the WMDs everyone knew he had?

cause he's a crazy mofo? who knows?

doesn't mean my critique of ms. coulter's "facts" spin is any less.

(but actually, the answer to your question is probably answered by ann. like i've said from the beginning, if he didn't have the actual weapons, i was sure saddam at least kept the ability to quickly make them. like the "facts" ann mentioned.)

ELVIS
05-17-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by FORD
As long as he could perpetuate the illusion that he was still well armed, nobody in the area would try to challenge him.


Except the US who took him out...

Wayne L.
05-18-2004, 06:28 AM
This journalist who calls himself a serious journalist has " way too much time on his hands " complaining about the FNC anyway because the FNC is not conservative or liberal but populist in its reporting of the nwes unlike CBS & CNN which is why they are winning constantly!

John Ashcroft
05-18-2004, 08:10 AM
So, is Sarin a Chemical Weapon? Are Chemical Weapons WMDs?

And how did all those Iranians and Kurds die way back when?

knuckleboner
05-18-2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
So, is Sarin a Chemical Weapon? Are Chemical Weapons WMDs?

And how did all those Iranians and Kurds die way back when?


i'd say no. since it's much easier to kill more people with conventional explosives than with sarin gas, which, as with most chemical weapons, has to be deployed with perfect conditions to get a decent amount of casualties. it's much more of a "terror" weapon than a weapon of mass destruction. (uh...ok, yeah, so technically, sarin gas and chemical weapons ARE considered WMD. sorry.)


still...assuming this is a WMD that saddam intentionally kept (which it very well could be; i've never said saddam got rid of everything) it still doesn't change the fact that ann inserted a good bit of spin into her column. oh, i'm sure if she re-wrote it today, she'd include a line or 2 about sarin gas artillery rounds and mustard gas shells. and whether or not the shells are actually saddams, it'd have been a much more solid column for her. unless spin is what she's going for...;)

John Ashcroft
05-18-2004, 01:12 PM
KB, the lawyer is coming out in you buddy...

But hey, I'll give you that Ann spins a bit to counter the great big giant leftward spin eminating from all of the major media outlets. Can't blame her really...

Dr. Love
05-18-2004, 07:21 PM
I might not have a problem listening to her if it didn't sound like an Avalanche of Hatred.

I typically turn the channel anymore when they start yelling at eachother, doesn't hold the same appeal anymore.

John Ashcroft
05-19-2004, 08:17 AM
You see, that's something I don't quite get. I find the humor in her columns the way I believe she intended it. I suppose people looking for controversy will certainly assign their own meaning to any line of any Conservative's column, but I see 90% of what Ann writes as "toungue in cheek". True, her humor is base in factual characteristics of some of the more vocal liberals out there (and certainly not all liberals are as fucking whacky as Uncle Ted for instance), but as they say, "The best humor is based upon fact".

Now, about shouting over eachother in interviews, I've gotta agree with you there. It gets old real quick. That's why I listen to Limbaugh for entertainment, and don't find myself watching the various "Crossfire" type programs anymore. I catch the normal news.

knuckleboner
05-19-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
KB, the lawyer is coming out in you buddy...

But hey, I'll give you that Ann spins a bit to counter the great big giant leftward spin eminating from all of the major media outlets. Can't blame her really...


heh heh. i'm just poking a little fun at ann. she'd do the same if president was a democrat and a liberal columnist wrote that same column.

to be honest, she's still a demagogue, given to hyperbole. but i've decided she IS an entertaining writer. (and yes, does occasionally make an actual good point as well.)

but hey, if it actually were the lawyer in me coming out, don't think i wouldn't be charging you $250 per response!! :D