Before I start, I've got a few links. I don't link much because that's Glenn's job. But just in case you haven't seen this you might want to go watch it.
Addison (the other one) demanded that I link to this rant over at Cold Fury.
And via Jane (Good luck in Spokane sweetie. Keep in touch!), comes my Mastercard commercial. I've got this one on my PC, but don't have the bandwidth to put it up on my site. Swallow all liguids before watching it. It's priceless!
The Dimocrat Party has completely lost its mind! They're a little upset with Fox News.
The latest target is Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel, which 38 left-leaning congressional Democrats accused Tuesday of being "unfair and unbalanced" in the way its represents liberals and Democrats.
They report and we decide. Poor widdle wiberals are upset. Boo! Hoo! Mommy, make that mean old Fox News Channel quit picking on us! Waaahhhh!
In a letter to Murdoch, they asked for an opportunity to meet with him to pressure -- sorry -- to discuss their concern that his news network, which has become America's primary source of news on cable television according to its market share, "has a deliberate bias in favor of, and often serves as an extension of, the Republican Party's policies and ideology."
As opposed to ABCCBSNBCCNNCNBCMSNBCPBWPBR which serves as an extension of the Dimocrat Party's policies and ideology.
I remember one night O'Reilly had a Jesse Jackson spokesman (Jesse Jackson will not appear on O'Reilly. He only likes to appear on programs that throw him softballs. Hillary Clinton is the same. She will appear on Hannity and Colmes as long as Hannity is not allowed to ask any questions.) on his program and he asked him to give one example of FNC's bias. The guy replied that he could give hundreds. O'Reilly asked for just one. He could give hundreds but he could not give just one. Amazing.
I, on the other hand, can give examples off the top of my head. During the Clinton administration when referring to Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch, CNN always called them a right wing activist organization. Now that they are suing the Bush administration for release of records, they are a "watchdog group". Liberal bias? Nah!
Never mind the possibility, however small it may be, that it is the signers of the letter -- including Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., Pete Stark, D-Calif., and John Conyers, D-Mich., who are inarguably among those farthest to the left among the Democrats in Congress -- who have a biased viewpoint.
These folks are so far to the left that to them even CNN is a right wing news organization.
They want a meeting so that they can introduce a chilling effect into Fox's coverage of U.S. politics. Before an argument starts that this is nonsense, imagine the reaction if senior Bush adviser Karl Rove asked the owners of The New York Times to come by the White House for a chat about its coverage of the Iraq war.
Exactly. These people are not used to a media outlet that actually shows the other side of the issues. I'll admit that Fox News leans to the right. The liberals, and that means the news readers like Blather, Jennings, and Brokaw will not admit that they lean to the left. As I say, I can give examples off the top of my head of the liberal bias of the left wing media in this country. I remember on election night Blather fucked up and when he called one of the states he said "We won in ......". Oooops! The bias showed there didn't it?
Who is more in touch with us rubes in flyover country? By the ratings, those of us with cable choose Fox. Maybe it's because they have the best looking babes. Or, maybe it's because they are more in touch with what we believe.
Another example of the Dim's losing it is the dingbats who want the United Nations to oversee the elections in Florida. The left wing is going crazy.
In the Fat Liberals Against Guns department, remember when Rosie O'Pigo railed against guns, but had bodyguards who carried guns? Well guess what? Fatass Michael Moore has armed bodyguards too.
Toto I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
Posted by denny at August 5, 2004 09:07 PMAmendments to the Constitution
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Note 13: Only the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th articles of amendment had numbers assigned to them at the time of ratification.
Freedom of the Press, sounds like the Left want to ignore the Constitution again. Call me crazy but are elected officials suppose to defend the consitution. This is the rule book in which we live by.
Posted by: Greg DiCroce on August 6, 2004 10:23 AMThe girl in the Mastercard spoof is about two or three echelons out of that fellow's league.
Had I at television, one of my goals would be to see Laurie Dhue as much as possible.
Posted by: addison on August 6, 2004 01:51 PMI have a question - I was looking at Kerry's published war records
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html
I have no idea how to judge what I'm looking at - are they legit? I came to you because I read your blog every day (yes, I really do) and because YOU were in Vietnam, too - I figure you know the facts....
I've been fuming over this since yesterday when I first read it, Denny. One of the few times I've had what Kim calls an RCOB moment.
WTF part of "Congress shall make no law" are these people incapable of understanding, exactly?
Those congresscritters need to become unemployed at their next election. Actualy, I lean heavily towards "Rope, politician, lamppost - some assembly required" for them.
Posted by: Ironbear on August 6, 2004 06:12 PM