Gowdy takes MSM to the woodshed

[RLENT]

Allen West makes the newest 'political commentator' Stacy Dash look qualified, lol.

ROTFLMAO ... Fox News has hired Stacy Dash ?

I'm sure this must have been due to her journalistic skills and vast work history in the news media ... and not simply due to to the fact that she's essentially a soft-porn queen ...

Stacy Dash,
A woman certainly known for her flash ...

I'm sure she passed the test,
Of Roger Ailes' glass desk ...

Roger Ailes Did Not Spend All That Money On A Glass Desk To Not Be Able To See Your *****

And they both make the right wing look a few Shriners short of a clown car.

Quite a few ...

 

[muttly]

If the article on Allen West is a 'jagged pill', it would be for those who support this nutjob - it didn't hurt me a bit. [I've never had a bad time, laughing.]
And yes, the line about "God sent" was hilarious: he doesn't believe in coincidences, so therefore, it must have been God?
Allen West makes the newest 'political commentator' Stacy Dash look qualified, lol.
And they both make the right wing look a few Shriners short of a clown car.

I knew the West article would draw the usual reaction from some, but how about the Pierce Nahigyan article quoting Seymour Hersh and the one by Hersh himself? Did you take those with honey too? Are they part of the circus too? Shriners would like to know? Hehe

 

[RLENT]

I knew the West article would draw the usual reaction from some, but how about the Pierce Nahigyan article quoting Seymour Hersh and the one by Hersh himself? Did you take those with honey too? Are they part of the circus too? Shriners would like to know? Hehe

You seem to be slightly confused on what the issue actually is:

Some seem to think that what they're looking at is uncritical, unqualified and fanatical total support for Obama ... this, of course, is entirely understandable (even if it's inaccurate and incorrect) ... considering the polar opposite viewpoint (frothing, rabid Obama Derangement Syndrome) from which the "observation" is being made ...

However, what the issue actually is, is the level of amusement at the absolute buffoonery of the Wing-Nut Brigade on the Political Right ...

And one certainly doesn't have to go very far to see instances of that particular phenomena ... considering that we're treated to it on an almost daily basis ...

Given that, your comments above are largely received with a certain degree of ... disinterested boredom ...

 

[muttly]

You seem to be slightly confused on what the issue actually is:

Some seem to think that what they're looking at is uncritical, unqualified and fanatical total support for Obama ... this, of course, is entirely understandable (even if it's inaccurate and incorrect) ... considering the polar opposite viewpoint (frothing, rabid Obama Derangement Syndrome) from which the "observation" is being made ...

However, what the issue actually is, is the level of amusement at the absolute buffoonery of the Wing-Nut Brigade on the Political Right ...

And one certainly doesn't have to go very far to see instances of that particular phenomena ... considering that we're treated to it on an almost daily basis ...

Given that, your comments above are largely received with a certain degree of ... disinterested boredom ...

Disagree with your premise. It appears some instead want to divert attention away from important issues, by instead pointing to shiny objects over there like possible empty press conferences,(that aren't ) derangement attitudes towards Allen West, and who Roger Ailes hires.

 

[RLENT]

Disagree with your premise.

Of course you do ...

It appears some instead want to divert attention away from important issues ...

Nah ... I think that a discussion of the wisdom of an imperialistic foreign policy of meddling and interventionism would be a very good thing ...

The problem for the wing-nuts is largely one of sequence, framing, and methodology - as an example take Rooster's "investigation": First, the result/outcome is defined ... and then the investigation for evidence takes place, to support the result.

To your credit, you (eventually) offered up some serious journalism - which could be used in the context of a legitimate discussion ... but unfortunately for you, you only did it after first going to Wing-Nut Central ...

And that is, itself, quite telling ...

by instead pointing to shiny objects over there like possible empty press conferences, (that aren't)

Well, I really have to congratulate you: you succeeded in actually finding a clip of the full press conference ... a clip which showed that - yet once again - our resident expert at finding inaccurate, false, and misleading articles in the wing-nut-o-sphere is still on his "A Game" ...

Which is shown by the immediately un-silent journalists and their continued asking of questions for a period of 13 1/2 minutes ... whenever they could get Col. Beauregard's date for the cotillion to shut her bloviating pie-hole long enough so that they could actually ask a question of course ...

That you did this while entirely missing the point of Turtle post most certainly accrues to your credit, such as it is ...

derangement attitudes towards Allen West,

If you want to truly understand derangement attitudes I'd suggest you do an advanced search on the Soapbox, using the screen names of some of your right-wing brethren using "Obama" as the search term and have a look at the specific results (IOW: read what it is that is being said)

The search engine maxes out at 500 results ... and I can name 3 of your confreres - aka "the usual suspects" who max it out.

Sadly, you didn't quite make cut ... coming in with only 428 results.

Now ... if you then take my screen name and search using the words "Allen" and "West" you will find that the search engine will return a total of 21 results ... which includes at least one result where something where something like this occured: both "General John Allen" and the "West Bank" are mentioned in an article I have quoted.

So ... sadly, no ...

and who Roger Ailes hires.

One can't help but note what Roger Ailes is appealing to ...

Interestingly, it's a strat that seems to be working ... in that it certainly is attracting those who apparently do their thinking with that portion of their anatomy ...

 

[Turtle]

Your first sentence says 'I didn't note the possibility of an empty room'. I think you meant DID instead. If that is what you intended then I understand.

You misunderstand what I wrote. The part of the sentence you quoted left out a key word... "because."
I stated that I didn't do something due to (because of ) this or that reason (implying that I did it for some other reason which should be obvious). A similar sentence with the same meaning world be...

Well, I certainly didn't step on the piece of broken glass with my bare feet because I enjoy having deep cuts on the bottom of my feet. (I stepped in the glass for, obviously, some other reason)

Reworded:
I certainly didn't bring up the empty room for the silly reason that I thought it was actually empty... I brought it up for a different reason. <snort>

 

[muttly]

You misunderstand what I wrote. The part of the sentence you quoted left out a key word... "because."
I stated that I didn't do something due to (because of ) this or that reason (implying that I did it for some other reason which should be obvious). A similar sentence with the same meaning world be...

Well, I certainly didn't step on the piece of broken glass with my bare feet because I enjoy having deep cuts on the bottom of my feet. (I stepped in the glass for, obviously, some other reason)

Reworded:
I certainly didn't bring up the empty room for the silly reason that I thought it was actually empty... I brought it up for a different reason. <snort>

Ok this is what I thought you meant, reworded . Your original sentence wasn't worded correctly.

 

[Turtle]

Ok this is what I thought you meant, reworded . Your original sentence wasn't worded correctly.

The original was worded quite correctly. You simply misunderstood it (yeah, like that never happens on the Internet). It was worded in such a manner that allowed for misunderstanding, but that doesn't mean it was incorrectly worded. The first sentence states the reasons why I didn't bring it up, and the second sentence states the reasons why I did.

Now that we've got that misunderstanding settled, you haven't answered the question raised in the third sentence.

 

[RLENT]

Now that we've got that misunderstanding settled, you haven't answered the question raised in the third sentence.

Take a number and get in line ...

 

[muttly]

It is also entirely possible, quite likely, in fact, that I didn't note the possibility of an empty room because it was a conclusion drawn or because I believe that is the case . It a brought up to illustrate not only how facts can be twisted and misrepresented, but also to illustrate just how willing people are to believe anything at face value if it agrees with their beliefs.

Now that you've seen the entire press conference, would you characterize his comments as stunning an entire room filled with journalists into silence, or that they are even shamed by his comments?

First sentenced rewrote:
'It is also entirely possible, quite likely, in fact, that I mentioned the possibility of an empty room, not because of a conclusion drawn or because I believed that was the case."
Your second sentence begins with: "It a brought up.....
The typo added to confusion.
I understand your point

 

[muttly]

The original was worded quite correctly. You simply misunderstood it (yeah, like that never happens on the Internet). It was worded in such a manner that allowed for misunderstanding, but that doesn't mean it was incorrectly worded. The first sentence states the reasons why I didn't bring it up, and the second sentence states the reasons why I did.

Now that we've got that misunderstanding settled, you haven't answered the question raised in the third sentence.

But I did answer your question. Post #75 ' I got your last point(referencing third sentence)however, it can't be determined for certain'. Not seeing the journalists(that were there) and interviewing them, it can't be determined for certain. It's entirely possible that that might have been and it's entirely possible that they might not . Not certain either way.

 

[muttly]

Take a number and get in line ...

If you would have read the post like #75. which I answered, you wouldnt have to take numbers and wait in line for answers.

 

[Turtle]

Well, if you watched the entire video of the event, you'd know for certain one way or the other if they were stunned into silence and/or shamed.

 

[RLENT]

If you would have read the post like #75. which I answered, you wouldnt have to take numbers and wait in line for answers.

Ahhh ... anything that's in post #75 (or in this thread) has absolutely zero to do with the answer I'm waiting for ...

You still haven't answered Turtle's question BTW - the response you provided (most recently) was a deflection ... and actually a non-sequitur (so ... bonus points ...)

I'll help you out - here's the question again:

"Now that you've seen the entire press conference, would you characterize his comments as stunning an entire room filled with journalists into silence, or that they are even shamed by his comments?"

 

[Turtle]

Beat ya. Lol

 

[RLENT]

Beat ya. Lol

LOL ...

In speed ... but I got ya on the word count ...

 

[Turtle]

LOL ...

In speed ... but I got ya on the word count ...

Yeah, doing this on the phone.

 

[muttly]

Well, if you watched the entire video of the event, you'd know for certain one way or the other if they were stunned into silence and/or shamed.

The title of the video referred to Gowdy's talk and the questions he asked.

 

[muttly]

Well, if you watched the entire video of the event, you'd know for certain one way or the other if they were stunned into silence and/or shamed.

The entire event is not the question. The question is (as the title of the video says) did Gowdy shame a full room in to silence? Can you tell me for CERTAIN that this wasn't the case? Yes or no?

 

[RLENT]

The title of the video referred to Gowdy's talk and the questions he asked.

Good grief ...