A Special Kind of Stupid

[FOTD]

He didn't know he hit the guy. Yea sure. Just like he didn't know Valerie Plame's job was a secret.


Robert No-whack: Conservative commentator Novak hits D.C. pedestrian
DAILY NEWS STAFF
Wednesday, July 23rd 2008, 12:29 PM
Conservative pundit Robert Novak is anything but a conservative driver, and Wednesday morning he struck a Washington, D.C., pedestrian in his black Corvette convertible.
The syndicated columnist received a citation from police for failing to yield the right of way, after he drove away from the scene of the accident despite attempts by passers-by to stop him, Politico.com reported.
"I didn't know I hit him," said Novak, who was a block away from the scene when a bicyclist - who said he had to stand in front of Novak's car to get him to stop - finally got his attention.
Novak was listening to NPR when the accident occurred, TMZ.com reported, and apparently did not hear the impact.
The struck pedestrian, a man in his 60s, was knocked to the pavement and taken to George Washington Hospital with minor injuries.
Novak once attended a racing school in Florida and has been quoted threatening wayward pedestrians. Responding to his reputation as an aggressive driver, he had this to say to TMZ: "I'm 77-years-old. I'm not aggressive anymore."

[FOTD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzAuXYfWuEI

This is too juicy.

Sheep hearders those Busheviks. And using Faux newz to destroy their own credibility.

Shameful and self defeating like everything out of The Whitewash House.

[FOTD]

FOTD can't wait for the day satellite radio becomes the more logical choice and the morons feeding Nascar Nation lies.

Michael Savage booted from Los Angeles station.»

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/michael-savage-booted-from-los-angeles-station/

Cry Not for the demise of this fear monger!

[FOTD]

Cannon Fodder! A relative story to this thread.....
Right wingers literally encourage violence against anyone they pronounce a lefty. No where else in society, outside right wing radio and the right wing talk circuit, would enciting violence be considered acceptable civil discourse.

Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.



Talk Radio and the Conspiracy to Kill

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted August 1, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/93622/talk_radio_and_the_conspiracy_to_kill/

"Would Jim Adkisson have killed without prompting from extreme right-wing talkers?

Having written extensively about talk radio's right wing shock jocks and the hate speech they regularly use to tar opponents -- equating liberals with terrorists, homosexuals with child rapists and the Mafia, and political and media figures with the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan (even calling on air for assassinations, as Michael Reagan, son of the late president, did last month) -- it was only a matter of time until the smear merchants took aim at me.

Still, it was a little surprising to hear that "O'Connor's mentor in spirit, Josef Goebbels, must be laughing in his grave." And it was more than just disconcerting that the charge of Nazism was made as part of an attack on the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the award-winning tolerance group named for the late 'Nazi Hunter,' after the Center's New York office offered to host a launch party for my book "Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio."

The allegation that Goebbels is my mentor came in an email forwarding a post by former Boston Herald writer Don Feder, which originally appeared on GrasstopsUSA.com ("Give Your Values A Voice".) Feder, the email said, "believes that the Wiesenthal Center supports deceptive fools like O'Connor to appease its wealthy leftist supporters. If that is true (and of course no offical [sic] at the Center would own up to it), it is shameful."

What's really shameful, of course, is trotting out the ad hominem "You're a Nazi" meme when confronted with ideas that differ from your own. Feder's "exclusive commentary" was headlined "Obama and the Conspiracy to Kill Talk Radio," another false meme being consistently bruited about by the right. Its opening made Feder's thesis clear: "Looking ahead, liberals are determined to derail potential opposition to their plans to accelerate the deconstruction of America. Consequently, they have targeted talk radio. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is just one facet of their scheme to eviscerate the only part of the media controlled by conservatives."

According to Feder & Company, "The jihad against talk radio" (I thought I was a Nazi, not an Islamofascist!) is this:


"The left will do anything to gag its opponents. From the college campus to the halls of Congress (think campus speech codes, think hate crimes legislation, think speech-suppression zones surrounding abortion clinics), liberals are the chief proponents of censorship in America.

On July 23, the Simon Wiesenthal Center's New York Tolerance Center will host the launch of Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio by Rory O'Connor, a book which indicts talk radio as "highly politicized, overly partisan and often factually challenged" -- unlike, say, The New York Times, AKA, Mainstream Media Hacks for Obama.

But that's not all. According to its cover, this penetrating analysis (endorsed by Walter Cronkite, the dean of liberal media manipulators) exposes the "dirty secret" of radio talk shows -- how "they use the guise of 'not being politically correct' to ratchet up their anti-gay, anti-woman and overtly racist language." In other words, they're against same-sex "marriage," reject feminist mythology and oppose racial quotas. Oh, the venom! Oh, the malice!

The left uses allegations of hate speech to set the stage for censorship. In its invitation, the Wiesenthal Center hyperventilates: 'Hate speech can lead to hate crimes. And hate speech has no role on the public airwaves.' Apparently, the First Amendment doesn't apply to anything the left deems "hate speech."

FYI, a friend of mine -- a Jewish conservative -- noted the exquisite irony here: Conservative talk-show hosts tend to be the most outspoken defenders of Israel anywhere in the U.S. media, while their counterparts in the mainstream media are overwhelmingly anti-Israel. Like the Anti-Defamation League, the Wiesenthal Center carries water for the left in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.

Shock Jocks is just the latest manifestation of the left's obsession with talk radio."
Feder's unoriginal jeremiad -- which he further promulgated on WABC's Sunday morning "Religion on the Line" program with Rabbi Joe Patasnick -- went to repeat what other right-wing media organs such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily have already attempted to inject into the mainstream -- the ridiculous idea that there is a conspiracy afoot to "Hush Rush" and knock conservatives off the airwaves by requiring "fairness" and "balance" in our public discourse.

Normally I ignore such ignorant attacks on my person, along with absurd charges like the one that Barack Obama is somehow engaged in a stealth "conspiracy to kill" talk radio. I raise them now only because of a real conspiracy to kill -- one that took two lives in a Tennessee church recently. After a troubled man named Jim Adkisson murdered two and wounded seven, it was reported that he had books by shock jocks Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in his home. (What wasn't widely reported is that radio station WNOW-FM in Knoxville airs shock jocks Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin every weekday. Given the killer's professed hateful attitudes towards liberals and homosexuals, it's at least as likely that he was influenced by the hateful speech Savage and the others spew forth on the public airwaves as by their books ... )

So when these and other shock jocks regularly employ and promote hate speech over the public airwaves aimed at women, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, foreigners, Islam and its adherents, and anyone else they perceive as an opponent, dehumanizing them with terms like 'feminazis,' 'hos,' 'slanty-eyed gooks' and the like ... and when they consistently blur the borders between news, opinion and entertainment, then quickly retreat when challenged, claiming it's just 'good fun,' asking why you're being so 'politically correct,' and demanding that you just 'change the channel' ... and their audience is angry and armed -- what do you expect to happen?

Are the shock jocks creating a climate where such acts are somehow deemed acceptable? Do they have blood on their hands if others -- albeit a few, marginalized, desperate and deranged listeners -- act on their poisonous rhetoric? Would Jim Adkisson have killed without prompting from extreme right wing talkers? We'll never know -- but isn't it time to step back and think about the effect this sort of debased dialogue is having on our democracy and society? It's not 'just entertainment' any more -- if indeed it ever was. Instead, it's now literally a deadly serious business, and we all need to examine our accountability -- as well as to look for new strategies to contain the spread of hate speech in our media -- before someone else gets killed.

In the last few months alone, Michael Reagan has called for murder on-air; Rush Limbaugh has hoped for riots in Denver at the Democratic National Convention and spoken about a non-existent tape of Michelle Obama castigating 'Whitey'; Bill O'Reilly has mentioned Michelle Obama and a lynching party in the same breath; Don Imus has (again) engaged in racially charged remarks; and Michael Savage has called autistic children 'idiots' and 'morons' and charged that both autism and asthma are 'rackets.'

As previously noted, the real racket is the shock jock racket. You know, the one where everyone gets paid -- Savage, Limbaugh (to the tune of 400 million dollars), Hannity (100 million), etc. -- but also local stations like WOR in New York City, which expressed 'regret' but took 'no responsibility' for Savage's remarks; national distributors like Talk Radio Networks -- the second largest provider of syndicated talk shows -- and its headman Mark Masters, who puts Savage on 350 stations reaching 8 million listeners every week; and of course their corporate advertisers and sponsors. So let's pressure the corporations who are using the public airwaves but not serving the public interest -- and let's challenge the shock jocks whose dehumanizing talk may be leading to terror and hate acts such as that which played out so tragically in a church in Knoxville.

In remarks given at my recent book launch party at the Tolerance Center, I specifically warned about shock jocks' hate speech and the potential for some listener actually to take their advice literally, and to act on it in a real world "conspiracy to kill." Some attendees later told me "You called it." I hope not."

[FOTD]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html

Book says White House ordered forgery
"A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein."

Too late to impeach. dumbf*ckers.....

The phony letter was trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Really?

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD



The phony letter was trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Really?

On a semi-related note, I've noticed on his radio show that O'Reilly has gradually become an unlikely voice of moderation. Not on all issues, of course. But take note:

-- His support of the gay-marriage ban referendum in California has been tepid, at best.

-- He's said for many months that the Iraq war "isn't worth the blood and treasure."

-- He's a believer in global warming and has been a vocal proponent of alternative fuels and power.

-- He's refused to not endorse Barack Obama. He hasn't endorsed him, either. But he says "he's not that bad."

-- This week, he urged oil companies to voluntarily "give back" to the public some of the record profits they've earned.

All these developments make me go hmmmmm.

Is he just following the swing of public sentiment, however tentatively?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by FOTD



The phony letter was trumpeted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Really?

On a semi-related note, I've noticed on his radio show that O'Reilly has gradually become an unlikely voice of moderation. Not on all issues, of course. But take note:

-- His support of the gay-marriage ban referendum in California has been tepid, at best.

-- He's said for many months that the Iraq war "isn't worth the blood and treasure."

-- He's a believer in global warming and has been a vocal proponent of alternative fuels and power.

-- He's refused to not endorse Barack Obama. He hasn't endorsed him, either. But he says "he's not that bad."

-- This week, he urged oil companies to voluntarily "give back" to the public some of the record profits they've earned.

All these developments make me go hmmmmm.

Is he just following the swing of public sentiment, however tentatively?

No, O'Reilly ("The Leprechaun" as Savage calls him) has never been the rabid, blind,  conservative he's portrayed to be by libs.

His stance on the war is much longer than months, it goes back at least two years I can think of.

Global warming isn't new to him.  Here's a piece from six years ago:

"Points Global Warming & the Bush Administration Tuesday, June 04, 2002

By Bill O'Reilly

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly.  Thank you for watching us tonight.

Global warming is now real, at least to the Bush administration.  That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

I have never understood the resistance to the concept of global warming.  It's certainly happening here in New York.  When I was a kid, we used to be able to skate on frozen ponds for two months.  Now if you get a week of natural ice, that's a cold winter.

Anyway, the truth is that no one but God really knows why the climate is changing, but many reputable scientists say there's no question that things are heating up fast, and they have the data to prove it.

For the first time, the Bush administration is acknowledging that fossil fuels are the reason, and that makes sense, although we can't be 100 percent positive.

Now, some conservatives like Rush Limbaugh recoil at all this global warming theory, but again, what's the big deal?  The earth is getting warmer, and whether it is because of man or nature is pretty much beside the point.

On his radio program today, Mr. Limbaugh criticized the president, saying, "George W., Al Gore, anyone?"  Come on, there's no downside to developing cost-efficient cleaner fuel.  The USA should be trying to become energy self-sufficient and should be looking hard at hydrogen power.

With the tremendous technology that's developing, we should be able to get away from fossil fuel if we can.

Now, I'm no fanatical Green Giant, I wouldn't have signed the Kyoto Treaty because it would have hurt America economically while giving other polluting nations a pass.  Yes, we use the most energy in the world, but we also drive the world's economy and protect the world from madmen like bin Laden.

Even though President Bush has not yet developed a visionary fuel strategy, I give him credit for being honest.  He could have fogged up the global warming report and not acknowledged the problem at all.  Once again, Mr. Bush seems like an honest man.  He could have easily spun the report his way.

Now, America needs to stop arguing over the cause of global warming and begin a disciplined 10-year plan to use fewer polluting agents, more conservation, and tons more innovation.

Tax credit for alternative fuels should be ramped up.

Once again, who opposes this beside people making money from fossil fuels?  Does anyone like acid rain?  Does anyone want L.A. smog in their neighborhood?  Let's stop the polarizing political nonsense and start working together to improve the environment and expand our wallet size."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54413,00.html

His worst critics are those who never watch his show.

I don't have much use for partisan talk shows of either bent anymore, though I will follow each during election seasons just to see what the talking heads are trying to pump into our conscience.

[FOTD]

Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.

Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.

BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.

[FOTD]

Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.

Short McDonalds....boycott coming.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.

Short McDonalds....boycott coming.

That's baloney.

The McDonald's I go to at 23rd and Southwest has CNN on every time I'm in there.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.

Short McDonalds....boycott coming.

That's baloney.

The McDonald's I go to at 23rd and Southwest has CNN on every time I'm in there.

Thanks for the correction. If FOTD sits at a bar or restaurant and Faux News is on, he asks for a channel change. If they can't, he leaves without return. Other devils should follow his lead....

[TURobY]

Same with the McD's at 13 & Harvard. It always seems to have CNN on.

[FOTD]

That's not much improvement.

Cartoons would seem to cater to their customer.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


Hannity, OReilly, Limbaugh, etc. are all dinosaurs stuck in the past.

Their audience are malcontents who have no political power but their "mouthpiece" are these exploitive, loud mouth, sociopaths. They have marketing geniuses behind them to attract so many dysfunctional un/undereducated cretins year after year. Just goes to show you, you can fool some of the people all the time.

BTW, stop watching Fox, it's designed for the low IQ, nonreaders of America.

Then who is MSNBC designed for?  People with mongoloidal tendencies? [}:)]

[GG]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Rumors began circulating around several news Web sites and blogs yesterday that McDonald's has a policy to exclusively play FOX News on its in-restaurant televisions. Apparently, someone who called in to a program on C-SPAN said he had gone to a McDonald's in Missouri and asked them to change the channel from FOX to something else. Workers there refused, saying they weren't allowed to change the channel due to corporate policy.

Short McDonalds....boycott coming.

Most likely the "corporate policy" of the franchisee running that particular McDonald's.