A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One?

Amazing.

feckingmorons 2009-06-21 11:48:33 AM A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One? Amazing.
===========================================

I hope you're kidding. If not, screw off dorkbag.

feckingmorons: A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One?

Amazing.

^^^^^^^^^^
DNRTFA.

feckingmorons considers himself to be one of the more open minded and fair participants of political discourse.

Think about that, does it really matter if we strive for a civil and peaceful society anymore ? It's already a lost cause.

Like most of the wingnut radio loudmouths, Oreilly is desperate to hold on to those pathetic sheep that listen to him. You can rest assured they will only get louder and more absurd as the Obama presidency goes on.

I was trying to make this argument to a peer just last week. Ebert put into words far better than I did.

If we allow others to analyze facts and situations for us, we lose that capability ourselves.

Think, America.

/don't watch and they'll go away
//test everything, hold on to the good

Considering the influence he exerted to have Tiller removed, I'm inclined to agree with Ebert here.

Considering the influence he o'rielly exerted to have Tiller removed, I'm inclined to agree with Ebert here.

FTFM

feckingmorons: A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One?

Amazing.

Driving home Ebert's point right off the top.

He's trying to take the high road as if liberals have never been known to insult or shout down conservatives? Looks like he is almost as full of FAIL as Bill is.

jestme: feckingmorons: A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One?

Amazing.

Driving home Ebert's point right off the top.

Exactly. You'd have done well to rtfa, feckingmorons, It does a fine job of explaining why people like you act the way you do.

good article, and I didn't know that study existed.

hmm....

well, it's not like the right wing in this country is exactly sane. They're certainly not interested in any sort of debate. they've shown us exactly nothing by way of alternatives to Obama's plans. Sure, we know they disagree. And yes, they think Obama is going the wrong direction...but we, as a people, want something from them OTHER than a constant chanting of 'Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong'.

SpeshilEdjukashin: He's trying to take the high road as if liberals have never been known to insult or shout down conservatives? Looks like he is almost as full of FAIL as Bill is.

He cmentioned Olbermann as well. He's just calling ORLY out as the main offender and using him as the example of what it wrong.

I couldn't agree with him more, regardless of the politics being served.

Weaver95: good article, and I didn't know that study existed.

hmm....

well, it's not like the right wing in this country is exactly sane. They're certainly not interested in any sort of debate. they've shown us exactly nothing by way of alternatives to Obama's plans. Sure, we know they disagree. And yes, they think Obama is going the wrong direction...but we, as a people, want something from them OTHER than a constant chanting of 'Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong'.

Well said. Totally concur.

By the way, is feckingmorons Bill O'Reilly's Fark handle?

Weaver95: well, it's not like the right wing in this country is exactly sane.

Is the left sane? Which is worse, complaining about a new president who is trampling the constitution, or blindly following him screaming about hope and change?

And as for the news media, Bill O'Reilly may shout a lot (I stopped watching him a long time ago because of it) but at least he's trying to represent an otherwise unrepresented group of people. The rest of the media is way too far to the left. The networks are even doing week long prime-time specials on Obama... yet late in Bush's presidency, they were telling him no when he requested a few minutes for a prime time press conference every once in a blue moon. The bias is sickening.

I agree with Ebert that shouting at people and insulting them is not the way to go... but this was a one-sided hatchet job. I could produce an equally compelling blog about how Olbermann is "dangerous," complete with YouTube clips in about half an hour if I gave enough of a shiat. But I don't.

I can't believe that this article wasn't about Olbermann, it practically didn't even mention him !!!

Life is just so unfair, just so unfair.

"Our audience is best envisioned as something about the size of a baby hippo and the color of day-old boiled potato living in a double-wide outside of Topeka. It sweats constantly and the sweat stings its eyes. It has no mouth...no sex organs. The only way it has to express its mute, infantile rage is by switching channels on the remote. Or by voting in presidential elections."

-- William Gibson,from "Virtual Light" as well as I can remember the quote. A character is describing her reality show's demographic.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Is the left sane? Which is worse, complaining about a new president who is trampling the constitution, or blindly following him screaming about hope and change?

I don't see the lefties going around hoping someone kills people they don't like. O'Reilly and crew though...yeah, they seem pretty happy that Tiller got popped. So yes, while 'the lefties' can be pretty weird with all their neo-commie 'tax the rich' rhetoric, they aren't going around saying we should get all French Revolution on wall street. So far, the violence has come from the right. THAT is why they get more attention.

SpeshilEdjukashin: I agree with Ebert that shouting at people and insulting them is not the way to go... but this was a one-sided hatchet job. I could produce an equally compelling blog about how Olbermann is "dangerous," complete with YouTube clips in about half an hour if I gave enough of a shiat. But I don't.

I don't recall Olbermann implying taking out anyone like doctors who perform abortions.

It would be healthier for the body politic if they just watched mainstream television.

Bra-farking-vo.

SpeshilEdjukashin: And as for the news media, Bill O'Reilly may shout a lot (I stopped watching him a long time ago because of it) but at least he's trying to represent an otherwise unrepresented group of people. The rest of the media is way too far to the left. The networks are even doing week long prime-time specials on Obama... yet late in Bush's presidency, they were telling him no when he requested a few minutes for a prime time press conference every once in a blue moon. The bias is sickening.

See folks? This is how you troll. Very good job.

Weaver95: I don't see the lefties going around hoping someone kills people they don't like. O'Reilly and crew though...yeah, they seem pretty happy that Tiller got popped. So yes, while 'the lefties' can be pretty weird with all their neo-commie 'tax the rich' rhetoric, they aren't going around saying we should get all French Revolution on wall street. So far, the violence has come from the right. THAT is why they get more attention.

I find it hard to believe that Bill-O advocates killing people, although I haven't watched him in quite some time. If you care to post a link to such a thing I'd be happy to check it out.

But saying that all of the "violence" has come from "the right" is just plain nuts. One murderer took out a doctor he hated... what about the animals rights nuts that have blown places up over the years? What about the violent protests we've seen outside of trade summits? Don't give me any crap about weird peace loving lefties vs violent conservatives. 99% of conservatives are good God loving people who would never hurt anyone.

SpeshilEdjukashin: at least he's trying to represent an otherwise unrepresented group of people

Do you mean the insane? Hate-mongers? Racists? The ignorant? Why do they even deserve representation?

Or do you mean Christians? Conservatives? White males? Yea, those poor souls have been so unrepresented in this country.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Weaver95: I don't see the lefties going around hoping someone kills people they don't like. O'Reilly and crew though...yeah, they seem pretty happy that Tiller got popped. So yes, while 'the lefties' can be pretty weird with all their neo-commie 'tax the rich' rhetoric, they aren't going around saying we should get all French Revolution on wall street. So far, the violence has come from the right. THAT is why they get more attention.

I find it hard to believe that Bill-O advocates killing people, although I haven't watched him in quite some time. If you care to post a link to such a thing I'd be happy to check it out.

But saying that all of the "violence" has come from "the right" is just plain nuts. One murderer took out a doctor he hated... what about the animals rights nuts that have blown places up over the years? What about the violent protests we've seen outside of trade summits? Don't give me any crap about weird peace loving lefties vs violent conservatives. 99% of conservatives are good God loving people who would never hurt anyone.

You don't read a lot of news, do you?

AirForceVet: By the way, is feckingmorons Bill O'Reilly's Fark handle?

I thought he was Patricia Cornwell.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Weaver95: well, it's not like the right wing in this country is exactly sane.

Is the left sane? Which is worse, complaining about a new president who is trampling the constitution, or blindly following him screaming about hope and change?

And as for the news media, Bill O'Reilly may shout a lot (I stopped watching him a long time ago because of it) but at least he's trying to represent an otherwise unrepresented group of people. The rest of the media is way too far to the left. The networks are even doing week long prime-time specials on Obama... yet late in Bush's presidency, they were telling him no when he requested a few minutes for a prime time press conference every once in a blue moon. The bias is sickening.

I agree with Ebert that shouting at people and insulting them is not the way to go... but this was a one-sided hatchet job. I could produce an equally compelling blog about how Olbermann is "dangerous," complete with YouTube clips in about half an hour if I gave enough of a shiat. But I don't.

That's a big fat FAIL. Too bad your SpeshilEdjukashin didn't include reading. TFA:

A majority of cable news viewers now get their news slanted one way or the other by angry men. O'Reilly is not the worst offender. That would be Glenn Beck. Keith Olbermann is gaining ground.

Good point, DamnYankees.

As for Olbermann, here's a bit from the Huffington Post^ where Olbermann is calmly calling out President Obama for his decisions involving the Bush Administration and its use of torture.

The problem is that we simply can't have open communication is this country anymore. When the right is completely and utterly closed to compromise, you have only two choices: do nothing, or follow through with your own goals regardless. The Democrats have wisely chosen to follow their own agenda. The Repubs can't handle this, and have resorted to violence to prove their point, all the while crying that we have forced them to this point.

Weaver95: I don't see the lefties going around hoping someone kills people they don't like. O'Reilly and crew though...yeah, they seem pretty happy that Tiller got popped. So yes, while 'the lefties' can be pretty weird with all their neo-commie 'tax the rich' rhetoric, they aren't going around saying we should get all French Revolution on wall street. So far, the violence has come from the right. THAT is why they get more attention.

The far left can be just as scary as the far right, but the far right is MUCH more of a REAL threat to America.

Those on the fringe left might WANT communism, but they have no real power or influence and are generally dismissed as the lunatics they are (and if anyone really thinks Obama is THAT far to the left, they need to go outside and see the big picture beyond their tiny little world). The far right, on the other hand, has money and people in positions of power. The right-wing dream of a theocracy? That actually MIGHT happen.

SpeshilEdjukashin: I find it hard to believe that Bill-O advocates killing people, although I haven't watched him in quite some time. If you care to post a link to such a thing I'd be happy to check it out.

Remember that guy who opened fire in a church in Knoxville? Yeah, he got the idea to do that from O'Reilly.

God loving people who would never hurt anyone.

The ones doing the killing are doing so in the name of God, like the Tiller shooting.

Kome: Or do you mean Christians? Conservatives? White males? Yea, those poor souls have been so unrepresented in this country.

How many of the good people from those categories want to be represented by O'Reilly ?

Any here who want to speak up and say they like having O'Reilly as their spokesman ?

Anyone ?

GAT_00: The problem is that we simply can't have open communication is this country anymore. When the right is completely and utterly closed to compromise, you have only two choices: do nothing, or follow through with your own goals regardless. The Democrats have wisely chosen to follow their own agenda. The Repubs can't handle this, and have resorted to violence to prove their point, all the while crying that we have forced them to this point.

Should be interesting to see what the fanatics do when the Republicans lose ground in 2010. Their media pundits are going around and telling the troops that they've got 'the libruls' on the run and that 2010 will be a grand resurgance of Christian Conservatism. Which might be true, for a couple of relatively isolated regions of the nation...but I think the rest of the country is pretty tired of the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party and are going to show that displeasure at the ballot box next year.

So what will the radical right do once they lose power? I don't know, but if history is any guide at all then I doubt they will learn from their mistakes....

Weaver95: Should be interesting to see what the fanatics do when the Republicans lose ground in 2010. Their media pundits are going around and telling the troops that they've got 'the libruls' on the run and that 2010 will be a grand resurgance of Christian Conservatism. Which might be true, for a couple of relatively isolated regions of the nation...but I think the rest of the country is pretty tired of the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party and are going to show that displeasure at the ballot box next year.

If the Democrats hold Congress in 2010 I think we'll be seeing more forthrightness from Obama regarding gay marriage and the like. Progressives are upset that he's not taking enough of a stand, but right now he still has political capital to lose if he goes too far.

Weaver95: You don't read a lot of news, do you?

More than the average person, I assure you. Do you have a valid point to make, or were you just trying to insult me?

Kome: Do you mean the insane? Hate-mongers? Racists? The ignorant? Why do they even deserve representation?

See, now you just proved Ebert's point, and mine... How can the left try to shout down, insult, and/or discredit the right with personal attacks, based solely on their hatred of people who are different - and then biatch about the far-right dishing it back to them?

FlyingPig: If the Democrats hold Congress in 2010 I think we'll be seeing more forthrightness from Obama regarding gay marriage and the like. Progressives are upset that he's not taking enough of a stand, but right now he still has political capital to lose if he goes too far.

I've been saying this for nearly 2 years now - NONE of this is about Obama or the Democrats. This is all about the Republicans. they have drifted so far from their principals that they've triggered a schism within the party. It's fiscal conservatives against radical religious right wingers in a fight to the death over what it means to be a 'Conservative Republican'. While this quiet civil war rages behind closed doors, the Democrats have a free hand to do whatever they want, so long as they do so fairly quietly and avoid uniting the Republicans against them.

For what it's worth, I think the fundies are going to win the fight. They've got control over key positions, and they would rather see the party destroyed than reach a compromise with what they see as evil incarnate. The fiscal conservatives are routinely ejected from local gatherings, their concerns are marginalized (or outright ignored), they find it difficult to get candidates elected without paying homage to Christian fanatics, and they find it easier every year to just leave the RNC rather than fight to help a party that hates them for their efforts.

SpeshilEdjukashin: More than the average person, I assure you. Do you have a valid point to make, or were you just trying to insult me?

The point I think he was trying to make is that if you do read the news a lot, you'd have to either be an idiot or be willingly blind to the violent rhetoric of your own party to think the violence is equally distributed among the right and left, instead of being almost wholly a bastion of the right.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Weaver95: You don't read a lot of news, do you?

More than the average person, I assure you. Do you have a valid point to make, or were you just trying to insult me?

No, you handled the insult portion of that exchange quite well all by yourself. I merely suggest that you might want to expand your news searchs to something OTHER than fox news and freerepublic.com.

GAT_00: Remember that guy who opened fire in a church in Knoxville? Yeah, he got the idea to do that from O'Reilly.

I'm still waiting for a citation on that. I have an open mind about it (like I said, I don't watch him anymore, but I doubt O'Reilly told him to do it) but I'm going to need to see it for my own eyes.

GAT_00: The ones doing the killing are doing so in the name of God, like the Tiller shooting.

The 9/11 terrorists thought they were righteous and killing in the name of their god as well. Does that mean that all Muslims are bad people who want to murder thousands of people in the name of religion? I don't think so, I saw a single grown man cry on 9/11... a Muslim I worked with. They wern't tears of joy, I assure you.

You can't discount a whole political party, much less a whole religion, just because one nut hauls off and shoots someone. Sorry.

SpeshilEdjukashin: See, now you just proved Ebert's point, and mine... How can the left try to shout down, insult, and/or discredit the right with personal attacks, based solely on their hatred of people who are different - and then biatch about the far-right dishing it back to them?

This post makes a wonderful assumption about me that isn't true. Namely, that I lean to the political left.

SpeshilEdjukashin: GAT_00: Remember that guy who opened fire in a church in Knoxville? Yeah, he got the idea to do that from O'Reilly.

I'm still waiting for a citation on that. I have an open mind about it (like I said, I don't watch him anymore, but I doubt O'Reilly told him to do it) but I'm going to need to see it for my own eyes.

Are you familiar with the search functions of a site called 'youtube.com'? you might want to start there and work your way up to this place called 'google'.

Weaver95: but we, as a people, want something from them OTHER than a constant chanting of 'Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong'.

Applause.

SpeshilEdjukashin: You can't discount a whole political party, much less a whole religion, just because one nut hauls off and shoots someone. Sorry.

And yet, when it happens time and time again...then that party has divided by zero.

SpeshilEdjukashin utterly fails and misses the point.

spamdog: SpeshilEdjukashin utterly fails and misses the point.

Oh I think he gets it. He just won't admit it.

SpeshilEdjukashin: I'm still waiting for a citation on that. I have an open mind about it (like I said, I don't watch him anymore, but I doubt O'Reilly told him to do it) but I'm going to need to see it for my own eyes.

What the fark? That's been covered fairly heavily by, well, everyone but Fox News. To say that's still unproven says you can only be getting all of your news from one source.

You can't discount a whole political party, much less a whole religion, just because one nut hauls off and shoots someone. Sorry.

So, because someone else has killed in the name of God, you get to kill in the name of God all you want? All right, so one nut doesn't do it. How many do you want? When does the violence become acceptable, or are you just going to keep moving the goalposts?

GAT_00: SpeshilEdjukashin: More than the average person, I assure you. Do you have a valid point to make, or were you just trying to insult me?

The point I think he was trying to make is that if you do read the news a lot, you'd have to either be an idiot or be willingly blind to the violent rhetoric of your own party to think the violence is equally distributed among the right and left, instead of being almost wholly a bastion of the right.

Again with the insults, and again with the inability to cite your sources...

Weaver95: I merely suggest that you might want to expand your news searchs to something OTHER than fox news and freerepublic.com.

I get news from sources around the world. And the only time I ever even hear about freerepublic.com much less end up there, is when the libs here at Fark whine about them. I pay less attention to them then I do to DailyKOS, and I hate DailyKOS.

But again, try the guilt by association thing. A few right-wing nuts have a website, therefore all conservatives must be nuts, right? (I won't bother dragging out the list of left-wing nut websites to try to discredit you - I'm above that.)

Weaver95: I merely suggest that you might want to expand your news searchs to something OTHER than fox news and freerepublic.com.

By definition, any source other than those is wholly biased against conservatives. So why are you advising him to go to the enemy for information ?

feckingmorons: A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One?

Amazing.

Looks like Ebert was right on.

SpeshilEdjukashin: I get news from sources around the world. And the only time I ever even hear about freerepublic.com much less end up there, is when the libs here at Fark whine about them. I pay less attention to them then I do to DailyKOS, and I hate DailyKOS.

Based on your comments in this thread alone, I think you need to actually READ those news articles rather than just glancing over them. you don't seem terribly well informed about what the right wing in this country is actually like.

But again, try the guilt by association thing. A few right-wing nuts have a website, therefore all conservatives must be nuts, right? (I won't bother dragging out the list of left-wing nut websites to try to discredit you - I'm above that.)

you act like a freeper, sound like a freeper, and are just as intolerant as a freeper. so why be upset if you get tagged as one?

By the way, I believe that tradition demands you reject freerepublic 2 more times before sunrise.

darkhorse23: when it happens time and time again..

^Citation needed.

Weaver95: you act like a freeper, sound like a freeper, and are just as intolerant as a freeper. so why be upset if you get tagged as one? By the way, I believe that tradition demands you reject freerepublic 2 more times before sunrise.

You're doing on the Internet, exactly what Ebert was complaining O'Reilly does on television. You do realize that, right? Ok.

And how exactly am I intolerant? You know what, I'm not - quit trolling.