I am still trying to figure out what CNN is.Cap'n Cat wrote:89Hen wrote: Sure they do, but not much more than MSNBC and some other outlets.
Fox is a political comedy network.
GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:I am still trying to figure out what CNN is.Cap'n Cat wrote:
Fox is a political comedy network.
1) Communist News Network
2) Cartoon News Network
3) Chicken Noodle News
4) Checken Noodle Network
5) Certainly Not News
6) Crappy News Network
So many names, so little time to watch them and figure our which one fits best.
Damn, missed that one.Cap'n Cat wrote:GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:
I am still trying to figure out what CNN is.
1) Communist News Network
2) Cartoon News Network
3) Chicken Noodle News
4) Checken Noodle Network
5) Certainly Not News
6) Crappy News Network
So many names, so little time to watch them and figure our which one fits best.
CNN is too conservative for me.
Rush and his buddies, T, Z and Baldy have referred to it as the "Clinton News Network".
You thinking more like 88/12?Grizalltheway wrote:He blasts CNN all the time; no way it's a 90/10 split.89Hen wrote: Fox is no more hypocritcal than MSNBC. Stewart is a Lib, so his satire goes 90% in one direction and his followers like to point to the 10% and pretend he's "fair and balanced". Rather ironic in a way.
89Hen wrote:You thinking more like 88/12?Grizalltheway wrote: He blasts CNN all the time; no way it's a 90/10 split.
Yet you watch it regularly.GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:I am still trying to figure out what CNN is.Cap'n Cat wrote:
Fox is a political comedy network.
1) Communist News Network
2) Cartoon News Network
3) Chicken Noodle News
4) Checken Noodle Network
5) Certainly Not News
6) Crappy News Network
So many names, so little time to watch them and figure our which one fits best.
I didn't say he was fair and balanced89Hen wrote:Fox is no more hypocritcal than MSNBC. Stewart is a Lib, so his satire goes 90% in one direction and his followers like to point to the 10% and pretend he's "fair and balanced". Rather ironic in a way.youngterrier wrote:Satire is the best way of communicating commentary. Say what you want about Stewart, but he makes some valid points about pointing out the hypocrisy and idiocy of news pundits, despite ideology, but mainly those of Fox. That's all his shtick is really...pointing out Fox's hypocrisy. And it has good merit and it's pretty funny too.
I didn't say you were one of his followers.youngterrier wrote:I didn't say he was fair and balanced89Hen wrote: Fox is no more hypocritcal than MSNBC. Stewart is a Lib, so his satire goes 90% in one direction and his followers like to point to the 10% and pretend he's "fair and balanced". Rather ironic in a way.
They can add this one.blueballs wrote:FNC does need an influx of new pussy... some of 'em are starting to age a little and new blood is warranted and needed, although that Dana Perino is kind of a MILF and the hoarse blond with fake tits who goes on O'Reilly one a week looks like she might be kinda' freaky fun.
kalm wrote:I'm part of Jon Stewarts "radical middle" like most of the rest of the country. You two are free to join at anytime.Gil Dobie wrote:
I assumed if you weren't a bed-wetting liberal you were a Conk.
Nah, trust me, I've got one foot set squarely in conkdom.Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:
I'm part of Jon Stewarts "radical middle" like most of the rest of the country. You two are free to join at anytime.
Yeah...right in the middle between Saul Alinsky and Margaret Sanger.
Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:
I'm part of Jon Stewarts "radical middle" like most of the rest of the country. You two are free to join at anytime.
Yeah...right in the middle between Saul Alinsky and Margaret Sanger.
Oh, I don't know, maybe her strident belief in eugenics...her racist beliefs. There are PLENTY of reasons to dislike that C**T.Cap'n Cat wrote:Baldy wrote:
Yeah...right in the middle between Saul Alinsky and Margaret Sanger.
What's your issue with Margaret Sanger, Baldy?
What would a run of the mill conk find wrong with eugenics?Baldy wrote:Oh, I don't know, maybe her strident belief in eugenics...her racist beliefs. There are PLENTY of reasons to dislike that C**T.Cap'n Cat wrote:
What's your issue with Margaret Sanger, Baldy?
Yeah...OK.kalm wrote:Nah, trust me, I've got one foot set squarely in conkdom.Baldy wrote:
Yeah...right in the middle between Saul Alinsky and Margaret Sanger.
BTW, you forgot Trotsky.
It's too "progressive".kalm wrote:What would a run of the mill conk find wrong with eugenics?Baldy wrote: Oh, I don't know, maybe her strident belief in eugenics...her racist beliefs. There are PLENTY of reasons to dislike that C**T.
No, but I've been reading about yours. Disgusting...Cap'n Cat wrote:Fvck, eugenics is the new Conk credo, man!!! You been listening to your boys?
WTF?
Feel free to to disagree with anything I've posted from Greenwald or Taibbi. They both frequently take the Obama administration and Democrats to task on a variety of issues. It's called consistency...honesty. But yes, they both tend to be true progressives.Baldy wrote:Yeah...OK.kalm wrote:
Nah, trust me, I've got one foot set squarely in conkdom.
BTW, you forgot Trotsky.
With all the Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, thinkprogress, salon.com worship, I guess we're still waiting to see this so-called mythical "foot in conkdom" thing you're talking about.
Yeah, right.kalm wrote:The majority of America agrees with Kalm on the big issues.89Hen wrote:
Agreed, and I would also add in CNN. I've watched some of Stewart in the past, but not anymore for 2 reasons:89Hen wrote:Fox is no more hypocritcal than MSNBC. Stewart is a Lib, so his satire goes 90% in one direction and his followers like to point to the 10% and pretend he's "fair and balanced". Rather ironic in a way.youngterrier wrote:Satire is the best way of communicating commentary. Say what you want about Stewart, but he makes some valid points about pointing out the hypocrisy and idiocy of news pundits, despite ideology, but mainly those of Fox. That's all his shtick is really...pointing out Fox's hypocrisy. And it has good merit and it's pretty funny too.
FIFYkalm wrote:Feel free to to disagree with anything I've posted from Greenwald or Taibbi. They both frequently take the Obama administration and Democrats to task on a variety of issues. It's called consistency...honesty. But yes, they both tend to be true liberals.Baldy wrote: Yeah...OK.
With all the Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, thinkprogress, salon.com worship, I guess we're still waiting to see this so-called mythical "foot in conkdom" thing you're talking about.
I like liberals. I also appreciate honest and consistent conservatives like Pat Buchannon, Joe Scarborough, Ron Paul.
But please continue...
Yes, I like some liberals too! In fact, I tend to appreciate and consider most people's opinions. How about you?BDKJMU wrote:FIFYkalm wrote:
Feel free to to disagree with anything I've posted from Greenwald or Taibbi. They both frequently take the Obama administration and Democrats to task on a variety of issues. It's called consistency...honesty. But yes, they both tend to be true liberals.
I like liberals. I also appreciate honest and consistent conservatives like Pat Buchannon, Joe Scarborough, Ron Paul.
But please continue...
