Colbert Report ridiculed Hannity's baseless suggestion of "foul play" in Vince Foster's death
On the July 25 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert mocked Fox News host Sean Hannity's July 22 report on Hannity's America -- documented by Media Matters for America -- which asserted: "[Former deputy White House counsel] Vince Foster got in his car and drove to Fort Marcy Park in Virginia. And he supposedly walked through the woods, and depending on which version of the story you believe, he took his own life. ... In the minds of some, these questions may have provided a motive for foul play." After playing a clip featuring those quotes, Colbert said: "Shocking. And if it weren't for the minds of some, like Sean Hannity, we wouldn't even have the implication that the Clintons killed one of their oldest friends." He also stated, "Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago."
As Media Matters has documented, Foster's death has been conclusively determined by several investigations to have been a suicide. Colbert noted that Hannity billed the segment as "one of the darkest and most mysterious" of "The Clinton Chapters," a regular series on Hannity's America whose assertions Media Matters has repeatedly debunked. Colbert said, "I believe chapter nine deals with Bill Clinton shooting JFK, and chapter 10 deals with Hillary eating his remains." He added: "It is powerful, powerful stuff that may or may not have happened."
Colbert also highlighted Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's recent statements on The O'Reilly Factor comparing the blog Daily Kos to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, which the blog Americablog and Media Matters have documented. After playing O'Reilly's July 16 comments, in which he asserted that Daily Kos is "like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party," Colbert said: "Exactly. The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis were both notorious for allowing people to express unpopular views in an open and free forum."
From the July 25 edition of Comedy Central's The Colbert Report:
COLBERT: You see, Papa Bear is going after JetBlue's sponsorship here because Daily Kos is such a vicious hate site. Just listen to some of the comments he found on it.
O'REILLY [video clip]: "The pope is primate." "Evangelicals are nutcases." "Better luck next time" after an assassination plot against Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan. It's like the Ku Klux Klan. It's like the Nazi party.
COLBERT: Exactly. The Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis were both notorious for allowing people to express unpopular views in an open and free forum.
[...]
COLBERT: O'Reilly isn't the only one out there tackling the big issues that aren't Iraq. Luckily, there's also Hannity & Colmes. I love this show. It's like watching Dorian Gray and his picture at the same time. Now, Sean Hannity knows there is no greater threat to America today than Bill Clinton 15 years ago. Here he is on Hannity's America.
HANNITY [video clip]: Of all the "Clinton Chapters" we've covered so far, well, this week we delve into one of the darkest and most mysterious. Chapter eight, the mysterious death of Vince Foster, part 1. When the Clintons went to Washington after the 1992 election, Foster went with them. Vince Foster got in his car and drove to Fort Marcy Park in Virginia. And he supposedly walked through the woods, and depending on which version of the story that you believe, he took his own life. In the minds of some, these questions may have provided a motive for foul play.
COLBERT: Shocking. And if it weren't for the minds of some, like Sean Hannity, we wouldn't even have the implication that the Clintons killed one of their oldest friends. And that's just chapter eight of the Clinton saga. I believe chapter nine deals with Bill Clinton shooting JFK and chapter 10 deals with Hillary eating his remains. It is powerful, powerful stuff that may or may not have happened.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I think this guy is brilliant...or has brilliant writers. His interviews are comic genius. If they aren't scripted, he may be one of the best improvisationists (is that a word?) since Robin Williams.
In part, you described Hannity: "His interviews are comic"
I'm always depressed when I watch Hannity - he looks and sounds a lot like one of my comic heroes, Lou Costello.
But then, I'm buoyed by the fact that Lou only pretended to be an idiot.
Hey, you're right! That's why he looks familiar...
If they aren't scripted
They aren't. In an interview with Charlie Rose, Colbert said that when the show began he dreaded doing it (interviewing guests) because it was something he'd never done before - but now it's his favorite part of the show.
hmmm... Let's see, Nerzog clearly thinks he's really clever. Let's see you do this one little bitty thing: Prove that the gun allegedly used by Vince Foster to commit suicide was in fact the gun which inflicted the fatal shot and did indeed belong to Vince Foster as the Government's official reports on this subject assert.
Since this is such a slam-dunk, this should be no problem for you whatsoever, now should it?
Hey NlC3Po or whatever, ask Ken Starr. That you would even entertain this is absurd. This is a dead issue chief, find another rumor to exploit.
WTF? That would, indeed, be a clever trick, Mr. Mxyzptlk203, considering that I have no access to the physical evidence. Can you prove that you're not an agent for T.H.R.U.S.H.?
Nerzog, what does T.H.R.U.S.H. stand for?
What T.H.R.U.S.H. actually stands for was never revealed in The Man from U.N.C.L.E.; however in the series of novels based on the program author David McDaniel had it that the acronym means Technological Hierarchy for the Removal of Undesirables and the Subjugation of Humanity. T.H.R.U.S.H. had one purpose--to conquer the world. Agent Napoleon Solo once quipped: "T.H.R.U.S.H. believes in the two-party system: the masters and the slaves." Could NL207 actually be an agent of such an organization? I report, you decide.
Thanks for the info. I never knew that. I knew that U.N.C.L.E. stood for United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, because I had the official toy gun when I was a kid, and it came with a badge and I.D. card.
According to one website, The Man From U.N.C.L.E. series is due to be released on DVD this fall. Yay!
Me too. It was a radio when you pushed the buttons it transformed into a machine gun. Great stuff.
NL207 (I'm guessing NL207 stands for NeedsaLife this year?) if someone had Foster killed by shooting him in the mouth, there is almost always chipped and broken teeth, and lascerations of the lips. Cyral Wect (the forensics chief whom the television show "Quincy" was patterned) stated that if this was a murder, Foster calmly allowed the murderer to place a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger. He went on to say it just wasn't possible.
Now, GET OVER YOURSELF. Just because you'd love it to be true doesn't mean it is. I'd love to have Bush arrested for stealing the 2000 election, and there's far more evidence of that than there is of the Vince Foster "murder," but it's not going to happen.
Since not one of you limp d***s was able rationally answer the question, there can be only one conclusion: Not one of you actually has any facts to back up your opinions on this subject.
This gun, reportedly the property of two related men for a period of 80 years is actually parts of 2 or more guns orginially sold in two widely separated states, Washington and Indiana, in 1913. The FBI reports this is not unusual for guns in its reference collection. This statement is true, but it is also true the FBI's reference collection consists mostly of guns siezed from criminals. This condition is very unusual for guns lawfully owned by one or two individuals for 80 years AS THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THIS GUN WAS.
Well that's nice. Thank you for bringing us up to date on the Hardy Boys Case of the Mysterious Gun.
Three things please:
How does that connect the Clintons?
How does it disprove suicide?
How does that account for what I wrote above?
OK, I couldn't resist. From the forensics report on NeoconLoser207's link;
"The additional serial number on the crane of the firearm most likely occurred at some time when the eighty year-old weapon was repaired. "
How much of a dittohead zombie do you have to be to accept that as basis for your murder case?.Har!
Well, face it, it's just more fun to believe that Hillary and Bill had him murdered. NL probably believes the story about Bill strangling the 13 year old boy with his bare hands at a backwoods airstrip in Arkansas.
Well, Numbnuts, I guess that proves it. Too bad the REPUBLICAN investigators who declared it a suicide didn't have access to that wingnut website.
Nerzog, sometimes I can't believe there's thinking, breathing, humans posting this stuff!?! The funniest part is they actually believe that we're the ones who are stupid!?!
It is fascinating, is it not? Unable to resist, I did a little Googling on the subject, and there are tons of websites insisting that Foster was murdered, with all kinds of speculation about a silver gun vs. a black gun, etc. I think there may actually be more stuff out there about this than there is about 9/11. Could it be that Right Wing kooks outnumber Left Wing kooks? Who knows?
I did find one website from the other side, by a man who wrote an exhaustive book about the case, Dan Moldea.
[link to www.moldea.com]
He says Fiske concluded that the gun in question probably came from Foster's late father's estate. This makes sense to me. My own father had several guns which he had in turn gotten from his father. They were very old and unregistered. This is nothing unusual in the United States. There are millions of unregistered guns floating around in private collections.
Here's a deal for NL, I'll prove that Foster committed suicide after he proves that Flight 93 crashed where they said it did.
Since you are both incredibly stupid AND completely brainwashed I guess it is not suprising that you cant recognize a fact when you see one. OR ince you are incredibly ignorant that your reading comprehension is so bad you dont recognize one when you read it but facts WERE offered MORON. Please attempt to maintain some level of minimum coherence when ranting stupidly on this site. My braincells scream for mercy every time I begin to read one of your uninformed and blatantly ignorant comments.
Let's see, and NL's "brain" is actually a combination of leftover parts from "Dick" Nixon and "Dick" Cheney. What a wanker!
"Since not one of you limp d***s was able rationally answer the question, there can be only one conclusion: Not one of you actually has any facts to back up your opinions on this subject."--NL207
Guess what, brainiac? It is your burden to back up your own argument. So far I see a few inconsequential facts and a lot of speculation on your and Hannity's parts.
Feel free to come back when you have something more convincing.
I thought it stood for NoLogic
Waitaminnit...does this rate a "Why is this here?" since, technically, it is only pointing out someone ridiculing misinformation?
Well technically yes, but the lines are so blurred here anymore it's hard to tell.
Basically this should fall under the same category as the Olbermann worst person awards, and should be labeled "The High-Fives-Good-Job!! awards from MMFA". It documents nothing substantive, only gives publicity and congratulations to buds on the same side.
Nothing wrong with a high five now and again, but thanks Tommy! You always let us know when MMFA deviates from the mission statement.
I little nonsense now and then is healthy for the wisest men. ( I think that's how it goes.
1. Either a member of the media or a conservative pushes some kind of nonsense.
2. MMfA covers it.
3. Keith Olbermann also happens to cover it.
4. MMfA covers him covering it. MMfA doesn't highlight all of his "Worst Person in the World" awards. They only cover the ones that highlight journalists or pundits or conservatives making outrageous comments.
I don't understand why so many people don't understand why MMfA covers the WPITW stories that Olbermann does about people in the MSM and conservatives. It's seems pretty darn clear to me, and most of the people seemingly confused have been visiting this site for a lot longer than I've been here. Did it take my newbie eyes to see what the jaundiced eye can't see?
Good Grief.
Does this mean that Colbert will be joining Keith every other day here with his own thread mimicking something MMFA has already covered?
It's a comedy show guys. Then again Olbermann has slowly been heading into that category as well ;-)
But Colbert is better at it...he's trying to be funny. Olbermann is just...well, you know.
Still I must ask: Why is this here? What does this have to do with MMFA's mission?
I believe chapter nine deals with Bill Clinton shooting JFK and chapter 10 deals with Hillary eating his remains.
I knew it! Thanks for clearing that up Stephen.
A little humor occasionally is a good thing. But I don't think I'd want to see the folks at MMFA attempt it themselves. ;)
CD,
I enjoy both Colbert & Stewart. And I don't wanna be a party pooper, but I do hope that MMFA will only highlight threads of this type occasionally.
Like the Olbermann WPITW awards featured here, they serve no real purpose if the subject matter has already been a thread here recently.
But I'll agree Colbert is damn funny here ;-)
I was just being a little sarcastic at MMFA's expense. But, yes, you have a good point. I skip past most of the Olberman posts as it is. If the noise became greater, I'd probably stop reading altogether.
And I don't wanna be a party pooper, but I do hope that MMFA will only highlight threads of this type occasionally.
All you have to do is not read them. There, problem solved.
Nah. I will read them & continue to call them redundant. That's my mission here, and I take it very seriously.
Serious face:
:-I
J,
I say we cut and paste that classic response "All you have to do is not read them. There, problem solved" whenever we get accused of dissing a thread topic here? Whadda ya say?
Deal ;-)
Sorry guys, ghrino is now the official watchdog of the watchdog. He has a site dedicated to exposing both of those lies MMFA told.
Tommy thinks it's okay that he's never going to reply to Clams Casino but it's okay if he takes remote potshots at him after another poster has replied.
In this case he's comparing apples to oranges.
There's a world of difference between the typical comments that say "why is this here" and the comments that say "you're wrong for criticizing MMfA for putting this here."
For example
Jazzy Janey likes wearing lots of make-up and fingernail polish.
You see no value in anyone doing that. That's your choice. You ask "why does she do that" over and over again, even though you've had it explained to you that many women think that it makes them look better and more attractive to do that. Your implication is that there's something wrong with doing what Janey does.
Instead of continuing to complain about something, and instead of continuing to act like there's something wrong with what Janey does, you should STFU and let people do what they want to do. Janey wants to wear makeup, and thinks it makes her look cute, and she thinks her path in life demands that she does exactly that.
Contrast that with someone who has to tell you over and over again that you are the one who is out of line for trying to tell Janey how to live her life and for implying that her choices are bull.
They have every right to tell you to go pee up a tree, because your comment is inappropriate. Janey's choices are fine.
Hey Nomo, me thinks you've been sniffin' a little too much of Jazzy Janey's nail polish after that little lost analogy..........but who knows?
I love these kinds of comments on sites like this.
Someone gets owned by another person's rebuttal and their reply exposes them as the scared bully they are.
The fact that you couldn't or wouldn't understand that simple analogy, and the fact that you couldn't or wouldn't acknowledge that it blew your argument out of the water is the response I would expect from someone with the attitude you have.
TOMMY:
Nah, don't "cut and paste" the "just don't read it" response. Keep railing that "WHY IS THIS HERE?" tactic.
See, a main way to determine INSANITY is when someone keeps doing the same thing over and over and each time expecting a different result. If you actually LEARNED from experience, you would compromise your psychological profile!
Exactly.
There's good reason for MMfA to cover stories like this.
Repetition by the right, repeating lies and distortions I might add, has worked well for them. MMfA should repeat the truth. They should cover it when their unofficial allies present different yet sympathetic positions like Stephen Colbert did. They should cover it when Keith Olbermann points out, in a differing way, the same sleazy behavior by those on the right or those in the media.
Keith and Colbert should do a show together, and they can just go down the MMFA stories of the day and discuss them. Then MMFA can discuss how they spoke about the stories the next day and the cycle will go on.
Let me know when season one is released on DVD so I can have a huge party and show it to all the socialist, american hating deviants who dare to call me a friend.
don't forget the commie pinkos!
Do you think that MMfA is the only group in America that examines and reports on the conservative misinformation in America?
Of course they're not.
It's not a conspiracy that multiple people and groups come to the same conclusions given the same facts.
Yes, it is, but we could all use a laugh.
When it comes to political humor, Colbert is arguably the best in the business right now. I don't always find his stuff funny and even occasionally excessive at times. However, he is usually quite astute with his sarcasm.
Robin Williams' stream-of-conciousness ability is still unmatched. That and his energy can still exhaust me. He's like a one man herd of cats.
Stephen Colbert is extremely funny and irreverant, I am a fan.
There is so much political humor and satire coming up now, especially with the elections looming, how is MMFA going to cover it all? I wonder if these comedians know that Democrats are off limits, best to let them know so as to keep them on their toes, and hands off!
Oh, I don't know...I've seen Jon Stewart take a few jabs at Democrats...and I laughed!
Nerzog,
You and many here have great senses of humor, so I am not surprised you would laugh, I wasn't talking about you.
But you have to admit that some here have absolutely none - form both sides. I ain't namin' names, but they will probably respond to this email in their appropriate humorless style.
Tommy, I'm devastated by your brutal, hateful personal attack!
Good one!! You are better than Colbert, niiiiiiiiiiiice.
" I ain't namin' names, but they will probably respond to this email in their appropriate humorless style."
Now I understand why you're baffled by everyone's ability to quote you. You think you're sending "e-mail."
(Email error noted)
And I rest my case...........!! Thank you!
Yo Tommy:
If you don't like it, get outa here and start your own website, LOL.
Yeah, they're saving a place for you over at Front page magazine...go join the necon circle jerk and YOU can get the appreciation you deserve.
Tommy, if Clams' post was humorless, then I've got a gas leak in the A.C. system or something, cuz I was rolling.
Ya, I gotta give you that, I was like - email, duh, what was I thinking?
But he couldn't resist responding because anytime I make a blanket diss at anyone without being specific, his gargantuan ego assumes it's him - or it hits a nerve, either way, it's more fun watching him provactively following me around while not getting a response, than it ever was being on the end of his direct insults. I like it this way better.. :)
Cue CC response...........NOW!
oops, provacatively
Errrr....provocatively maybe?
damn, twice......my bad today.
Tommy.
You are going to try to claim that you understood that Clams Casino was joking?
Do you really think that the people here are that stupid?
Of course not, how can anyone be that stupid when they have time to write a novella about Jazzy Janey's nail polish and makeup woes.
I love these kinds of comments on sites like this.
Someone gets owned by another person's rebuttal and their reply exposes them as the scared (and impotent) bully they really are.
The fact that you couldn't or wouldn't understand that simple analogy, and the fact that you couldn't or wouldn't acknowledge that it blew your argument out of the water is the response I would expect from someone with the attitude you have.
You used the same inaccurate portrayal of a previous comment of mine that was wholly unrelated to this comment of mine because I was right and you were wrong and you had no way to defend your inanity.
Hey, he has to post something. Posting on here is a full time job for him.
Yes.
I've seen him claim that he has a real job. I doubt it. Like I've said before, I don't understand why the old timers seem to think that Tommy deserves much respect considering the behavior I've seen him exhibit in the few weeks I've been back in the states reading this site.
Actually, I didn't think for a moment that you were referencing me with your "humorless" comment. Unless I missed it, about the only thing you haven't ever accused me of is being humorless. Which is why I responded with a joke. Uh, get it? Maybe I should put a string of Ls and Os at the end of my jokes, so the conservatives know when to laugh.
Yes. They're used to people like Limbaugh telling them how to respond, what to think and so on.
I like how Tommy claims that you only post to irritate him. You're only debunking his nonsensical posts because you have this unsatisiable desire to follow him around, right?
He tries to pull the wool over other people's eyes by claiming that it's you who has the vendetta against him. What I've seen you do is effectively point out his inconsistencies.
I bet he stopped responding to you because he couldn't defeat your arguments and you consistently defeat his, and he gave up trying. That's his pattern. I'm still not sure why he gets respect from some of the oldtimers here. Maybe he deserved it a long time ago.
Are you serious? When we have the likes of Hannity, BOR, and mainstream media already being Johnny-on-the-spot whenever a Dem does anything worth criticizing? No need to pile on, there's already no room at the inn! <rolling eyes>
I think this should be here because it does contain the misinformation from the rightwing talking heads; not all the clips need to be dour or serious. Some of us can't stand to watch BillO and his ilk so this is only way we get to see the lies and half truths they are spewing. It is a great example of "truthiness".
“Why is this here?”
It’s a question I admit to asking here before at least once in the past, so I’m just as guilty as anyone else. I think if there were an all-encompassing answer to all iterations of this query, it would be, “because MMFA felt like posting it.”
My theory is that the intent of asking this question is almost never out of genuine curiosity because the poster already knows why it’s here and has an insatiable need to draw attention to his/herself.
In some instances, “why is this here?” is a way of quickly and easily inflicting ridicule on MMFA for going outside the scope of their stated mission, either by posting whatever MMFA staffers feel is relevant to that mission, or just posting whatever the hell they feel like posting. This is in spite of MMFA’s long history of topical postings that do not fall within their stated scope.
Other times, “why is this here?” is a poster’s way of reminding themselves of their brilliant observational skill by using it as a prelude to insulting the intelligence of MMFA and other posters by citing something that is painfully obvious, yet completely misses the point of the post altogether.
In other words, the "why is this here" is never an honest comment about a thread topic that straddles the fence of appropriateness and it's worthiness is at question.......but rather, a shameless attempt to illicit response and be provocative?
Or, MMFA posts should never, NEVER be questioned.........as should no liberal politician, is that about it?
Oops, sorry, can't get down with that.....but a nice preemptice strike against opposing opinions anyway. Try again.
Nope. I clearly said "almost never".
Oh OK, correction noted. ;)
So where's you fair reply to this post by this poster now that your false strawman argument has been torn down?
"...straddles the fence of appropriateness..."?
When are you going to understand that it's not your fence? And when are you going to understand that writing, "Why is this here?" isn't the least bit "provocative"?
Why is this here? Excellent question actually. This is here because, "more than ten billion years ago, the universe borrowed energy from the vacuum to create vast amounts of matter and antimatter in nearly equal numbers. Most of it annihilated and filled the universe with photons. Less than one part per billion survived to form protons and neutrons, and then the hydrogen and helium that makes up most everything there is. Some of this hydrogen and helium collapsed to make the first generation of massive stars, which produced the first batch of heavy elements in their central nuclear fires. These stars exploded and enriched the interstellar clouds that would form the next generation of stars. Finally, about five billion years ago, one particular cloud in one partcular galaxy collapsed to form our Sun and its planetary system. Life arose on the third planet, based on the hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and other elements found in the protostellar cloud. The development of life transformed Earth's atmosphere and allowed small furry mammals to take center stage. Primative men and women evolved and moved out of Africa to conquer the world with their new knowledge of tools, language, and agriculture. After raising food on the land, your ancestors, your parents, and then you consumed this food and breathed the air. Your own body is a collection of the atoms that were created billions of years earlier in the interior of stars, the fraction of a fraction of a percent of normal matter that escaped annihilation in the first microsecond of the universe." The rest just kind of follows. Quote is from "B.O.B.": the Big Orange Book aka An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, by B. W. Carroll and D. A. Ostlie (1996).
...and the rest, yadda yadda yadda...
You have to love Colbert he preaches about how FOX allows O'Reilly to go on the air and defend the monster who abused Sean Hornbeck but he works for a network that tolerated Dave Chappelle and his racism for 5 years. He also works for Comedy Central, part of the Time-Warner network a network which has its own history of sexual harasment (the janitor down in accounts receivable) and hiring Daffy Duck. But Colbert is the moral authority on what networks should and should not allow.*
*(plagiarized from a previous Sueeld "olberman" post)
I thought I recognized the thought pattern.
Neon, that quote from Sue is almost as priceless as Stephen Colbert himself. Funny stuff.
Yeah I guess its funny to lie about people.
Yes, that's why we laugh at you! : )
[just kidding]
How can it be plagiarism if you afford attribution? Theft? Perhaps.
Apparently, Suee doesn't want credit for it, so I claim it as my own.
Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, not Time Warner. I guess facts don't matter to defenders of Bill O'Reilly. As for the rest of your post: I'm no huge fan of Chapelle, but I think it's pretty clear that if you think he's racist, you're not getting the joke. But, yes, Comedy Central does have some offensive crap on it. What's your point? It's not like the corporate overlords read over every script of every show to make sure it matches their corporate philosophy, or whatever you're suggesting.
[link to dictionary.reference.com]
If "hiring Daffy Duck" didn't do the trick, I'm not sure a link is worth the electrons.
[Smacks head] Oops. My bad. I guess it's just a sign of how used to trolling we all are. But, yeah, the "Daffy Duck" bit really should have clued me in...
Except I never said this about Colbert. I love Colbert and watch him alot. Big difference between Colbert and Olbermann, one is on Comedy Central and one works for MSNBC a main stream media organization. If you want to smear me and make claims I said stuff that I did not fine, but you lose credibility.
Drat! Foiled again! Caught in my own lie!
At least you admited you lied. Thank you
Lighten up Sue, it was just a little ribbing. Don't take it so seriously. I don't think anyone was being mean spirited.
Understood, I do not mind being a target of a little ribbing.
"It's like watching Dorian">[link to www.cliffsnotes.com] Gray and his picture at the same time"
Priceless!
Why is this here? Why is this here? Why is this here? Who cares, man? Colbert is a hoot! Get a sense of humor ya buncha mission statement purists. Olberman, Colbert, Stewart, whoever man, they are exposing conservative misinformation and MMFA is giving them aid and comfort.
Deal with it.
This kind of collaborative amplification and dissolution of Republican lies is absolutely the right way to deal with the Republican Noise Machine. Face up to it, turning the authoritarians out of the Republican Party will be done by this very method of cooperative coordination and unity of purpose by the netroots activists.
I mean really, do you think MMFA is stupid? Do you think the left-wing bloggers are stupid? One person can't dispel the myths and lies of Republicans like some lone gunslinger who rides in to clean up the town. No, it takes a village. It takes community effort and that is the way of the liberal; mutual responsibility and community activism.
Olberman, Colbert, Stewart, whoever man, they are exposing conservative misinformation and MMFA is giving them aid and comfort.
No these are simply repeating subjects recently highlighted & exposed here by MMFA. It is redundant. It serves no real purpose, other than a back slap & a pat on the head from Brock to his buddies.
Those of us who find it silly will continue to say so.
Deal with it.
should read These Threads
**slam** **thwack** **boom**
Outta here by J!
It's easy when someone throws one in the size of a beach ball ;-)
Uh ... I hate to interrupt you two's little love fest ...:) ... but Roundhouse's post is basically right on.
You guys both spend an inordinate amount of time posting on threads that you say shouldn't even be here. Right. They're so irrelevant you have to post 20-plus times on them...
I gotta hand it to you though, Jeter ... It takes a Yankee fan to strike out and think he hit a triple ... :)
Wait, I think that's "born on third, thinks he got a triple" Maybe I'm just thinking about Bush.
nevermind.
I gotta hand it to you though, Jeter ... It takes a Yankee fan to strike out and think he hit a triple ... :)
sportsguydave,
Factoring in your Liberal bias, I would object strongly to the league about you umpiring any of my games ;-)
I just have this hunch that you can't be fair & balanced behind the plate.
Baseball? Is a game starting? Wait! Let me get my fabulous hat!!!
Hey Jeter:
Actually I get my fill of baseball just covering it. You couldn't pay me enough to be an umpire. Those guys take a hell of a lot of abuse for not very much money - at the lower levels, anyway.
I could make an exception for you ... might be a little bit of an expanded strike zone tho .. :)
Please, take your man-love for Jeetah off the board.
Repeat the word silly until the sun implodes, I don't really care. The fact remains that aggregating perspectives and matching redundancy for right-wing redundancy is the best way to stifle these nitwits.
Roundhouse,
I don't care if hundreds of folks repeat the story, as long as MMFA doesn't feature each of them repeating the story.
Do you see the difference?
That's what get's redundant.
MMFA highlights/exposes Conservative MIS-information. Fine. Great. We all comment on it.
Then Keith repeats the MIS-information & gives it an award.
Now Colbert repeats it & get a thread.
Redundant. Unnecessary clutter here IMO.
Ya, you wonder if this staggeringly hurtful conservative misinformation needs all this repetetive emphasis, well, either it's not really sticking, or it needs to be beaten into our heads for any affect.
Tommy, I think MMFA is simply running out of real [important] MIS-information.
So we get repeats, like this thread
OR
Like O'Reilly/Kos. Each day it's O'Reilly is still saying this or that about Kos.
Who the hell is this Kos fella 80% of America wants to know ;-)
Or actually probably doesn't care...
MMFA wouldn't need to repeat things, if the right wing loons were repeating the same debunked dribble day after day after day.
You do know the solution to your problem, right? In order to cut down on redundancy, I won't repeat the answer for you! ; )
Hehehe touché RoundHouse ;-)
Some fight fire with fire
I fight redundancy with redundancy :-)
And then do it again, for good measure.
Jeetah, if you don't like most MMFA stories, why don't you tell them? Email them directly. They could use a good laugh.
I'd be careful with the emails, Jeter. Tommy has been experiencing some security problems there. i.e., his personal email being hacked into and commented on, somehow, by posters at MMFA. ;0)
I know it was just a typo/brain fart, Tommy, but I'm still loving the image of you trying to communicate directly with Jeter via "reply to this comment", then being confounded by Clams breaching your security software.Good stuff!
The fact remains that aggregating perspectives
Roundhouse, you still haven't figured out the rules, have you? The right gets to reinforce, push the party line in the Great Echo Machine, and repeatedly dredge up old, moss-covered, long-discredited stories (remember this started with Hannity bringing up Vince Foster) as much as they want. (I nearly said to their hearts' content but had trouble with the implication.)
But those on the left have to say something once, after which neither the original speaker nor anyone else on the left may make any reference to it. Ever.
On a separate but related point: As for the "why is this here" argument, MMFA's purpose is to point out conservative misinformation. The occasional post noting how someone else exposed or nailed such misinformation seems to fit right in with that.
**sniff, sniff** Who can fight back the tears knowing what the left has to go through everyday?
Funny, that little victim rant gets repeated all the time - guess it slipped through.
What is obvious is that Tommy has no valid objection or counter-argument to what was said above, and so he is reduced to trying to make light of the previous post in a deragotory way.
Well said, LARRYE - the louder and longer, the better.
The WITH (why is this here?) crowd seems more intent on yakking about the purpose of an article than its content.
Nice try; no points.
For me, I am much more impressed by a huge brass band with a 40-member drum corps than I am with 3 guys playing kazoos accompanied by a guy beating on an oatmeal box.
HEY ! What's wrong with my oatmeal box playing ?
O O
\__/
{plaintive melody, being whistled in the background} The lone horseman, dusty, unshaven rides slowly into small, shabby western town. Armed only with barbed witt, genius comic timing, he singlehandedly inpsires the cowering townfold to take up arms against a gang of mudrering, lawless, greedy, whoring thugs, who have had their way for too long. Colbert, to the rescue!!
Yeah Hannity flogging the Vince Foster non story is pretty funny but it's not my favorite Hannity moment.
On the eve of Hillary Clinton's autobiography being released she was making the rounds of news/talk shows to publicize it.
As counter programming Fox, through the Hannity and Colmes show and the O'Reilly Factor, gave Juanita Broderick about 40 minutes of national airtime.
You might remember she is the woman who claimed Bill Clinton raped her. Special Prosecutor Ken Starr thoroughly investigated her claims and found she changed her story so many times he couldn't decide if she were committing perjury or simply mentally unstable. This is documented in his final report.
Despiite this, Sean Hannity fawned over her, told his viewers he found her story credible and lobbed softball after softball question at her for about 25 minutes. 25 minutes with a woman a Republican Special Prosecutor couldn't decide was a liar or crazy.
It was sickening and hilarious at the same time.
That's my favorite Hannity story. What's yours?
Juanita Broderick, she's the woman who signed an affidavit saying the "rape" never occurred. So, what are we supposed to believe? You can see a copy of the information of that at the Washington Post here.
Another piece of the "redundancy" argument: if they keep saying those silly things, telling those blatant lies, the similarity of subject matter at MMFA from day to day is their fault, not MMFA's. And if MMFA stops rebutting based simply on redundancy, the repetitive redudnant idjots claim to have won - after all, it has been two days since the last time MMFA blasted this particular lie/liar.
Hey Conley:
Being a repetetive right-wing liar is "hard work". ;)
The newest motto of the right: WE MULTI_TASK! We can out-lie them, and we can out-LAST them as well!
You forgot that we are in charge of the corporate media and can do just about anything we want.
Yeah, but they're scared of the liberal blog-o-sphere. They can't control it and life is hard when facts have a liberal bias.
Difference between strategy and tactics?
Okay, is it just me, or do these "Why is this hear?" threads seem to outpace all other topics? I mean, crap....the Madrassa School thread only has 14 posts so far! And ...really...do we ever get an answer to "Why is this here?"
Face it Nerzog, the reason there are such few posts there is because there is little disagreement.....so when everybody here is dissing me for derailing a thread or being contrary, just remember how much more interesting it is when not every post parrots one another.
You can publicly thank me and the other dissenting voices for keeping these debates lively ;)
Your posts don't make it any more interesting.
Your nonsense about "why is this here" is not productive or welcome or valuable.
There are good reasons for these posts by MMfA to be here.
When Keith Olbermann makes a non-journalist or a non-conservative his WPITW person, MMfA doesn't cover it. They only cover it when it's someone in the media or a conservative. It's only here to reinforce the message that MMfA pushed, and to give Olbermann's viewpoint on that issue MMfA already covered.
Your "dissenting" voices are really nonsensical voices. Your "why is this here" posts are worthless and actually hurt and devalue this site. I belive that's your point, as another poster said. Repetition has been the MO of the right. MMfA is following their lead, except that they're repeating the truth, and reinforcing logical points. THose on the right repeat nonsense over and over again in the hope that they'll convince some percentage of Americans that the lies and distortions are real and accurate.
I am so sorry that my posts don't offer the productivity or worth of a lenghty, inane post about Janey and her nail polish, as you did earlier......where was my head?
Perhaps you could direct me to MakeupMattersForAmerica and I can post there about political and media figures.
"Makeup Matters for America"...
Way too creative and humorous for a conservative. Fess up - which liberal did you steal that from?
Anyway, take heart, Tommy. You're not the only one who thinks this site wouldn't be the same without you...
I agree. It wouldn't be the same without Tommy. But, I'd be willing to give it a try.
: )
Hey! Does anybody remember the name of the GOP OPERATIVE who was found dead sitting in HIS CAR IN THE LEFT TURN LANE at an intersection in, I think it was DC? He too had a bullet in the brain. This happened about the same time that Foster off-ed himself. Except that the GOP guy's death was also ruled a suicide BUT HAD FAR MORE INCONSISTENCIES IN IT than the Foster death! But the media seems to have ignored the GOP death pretty much.
What about the girl found dead in Joe Scarbourough's office?
OOPS ! I should have read further. Sorry.
And then of course there is the DEATH of LORI KLAUSUTIS, office staffer for former Florida congressmen JOE SCARBOROUGH who, at a healthy vibrant 28 years old, was found dead of blunt force trauma to the skull IN SCARBOROUGH's office! The local coroner ruled it an accidental death and the MSM totally IGNORED it. Scarborough of course went on to get his own TV show.
Colbert is reinforcing the suspicion that the Clintons were involved in foul play simply by highlighting this BS on his program. I would believe he were truly accomplishing something progressive if he had mentioned the Klausutis and the GOP guy's deaths at least...but the mantra of modern propaganda is "Out of sight, out of mind!"
Dredging up old rumors...citizens' arrest!
Man, I think this topic was "wasted" on a Thursday, would have been a great lead in to the Friday Social Hour at MMFA. Adult beverages and finger food at Five on Friday!! Hope there is a worthy topic to work off of.
I know, The Fairness Doctorine!
Fairness doctorine? I'm working on a doctorate in fairness, and will bring the ginger ale.
God almighty, you guys...This is a perfect microcosm of the country these days. Sniping at each other endlessly, arguing the same point over and over and worst of all, losing sight of the mission while the bodies stack higher and higher.
What does this have to do with Colbert effortlessly dismantling a troll like Sean Hannity?