FOX News Dana Perino introduces "the amazing Secretary Hillary Clinton"

[Natural Citizen]

This, I believe, was one week prior to hosting the FOX GOP debate whereby Perino took the opportunity to try to reduce the debate to a game show...

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Introducing the UGLY FAT Whale Hillary Clinton, who could not keep her husband's DNA out of the throats of young interns.

 

[buttercup]

They're all friends behind the scenes.

Don't be fooled, people.

 

[Oddball]

wow

 

[Natural Citizen]

"Left'' and ''Right'' are, in my own view, just convenient, lazy catch phrases which are so routinely invoked out in the wild of the www to avoid the responsibility and expectation of having to actually explain one's own fundamental principles and primary foundation for moral code in a meaningful, relevant way.

I got a chuckle out of someone's post around here earlier that reminded of this phenomenon.

Of course, that's not even considering the Univision ''Moderator'' that FOX employed there in that same GOP debate. Holy Moly. That one was as ''leftist'' as they come.

Ah well. Not my circus...not my monkeys.

Humorous, though, if it wasn't so pathetically apparent that there really isn't much meaningful difference in the talking heads employed to mediate perception by programming so many with what to say and what to think and what to ask and to make sure the narrative and terms of controversy are very strictly controlled.

 

[Natural Citizen]

 

[Esdraelon]

"Left'' and ''Right'' are, in my own view, just convenient, lazy catch phrases which are so routinely invoked out in the wild of the www to avoid the responsibility and expectation of having to actually explain one's own fundamental principles and primary foundation for moral code in a meaningful, relevant way.

Why bother to try to elucidate rather than use a commonly accepted label? No one really gives a shit anyway.

 

[MisterBeale]

View attachment 836041

This, I believe, was one week prior to hosting the FOX GOP debate whereby she took the opportunity to to try to reduce the debate to a game show...

It sort of reminds me of a security establishment game I had a lot of fun playing. . . . they claim they don't track any "personal," data, but, whatever, I don't care. When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose. Someone's got to have the courage to go check this shit out.

But we'd have to be a fool to believe their claims, TBH.

I found it here;

Harvard Kennedy School’s Misinformation Review Promotes Its Own Misinformation - CovertAction Magazine

Denigration of Conspiracy Theorists Is Right Out of the CIA’s Playbook In January 2020, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy inaugurated a new online peer reviewed academic journal titled Misinformation Review. The journal’s co-founding editors...

covertactionmagazine.com

". . . Based on a model adopted by the Department of Homeland Security whose purpose was to help people combat Russian election interference, the game’s setting is Harmony Square, a peaceful place where residents have a healthy obsession with democracy.

At the start of the game, players are hired as Chief Disinformation Officer. Their job is to ruin the square’s idyllic state by fomenting internal divisions and pitting its residents against each other, causing the square to gradually go from a peaceful state to full-blown mayhem. . . "

default - Harmony Square

Can you destroy Harmony Square with disinformation? A serious game designed to expose techniques used to mislead and exploit media.

harmonysquare.game

If I remember right, I think I scored a 78%.

I was a great agent provocateur, troll and disinformation agent, but. . .

I could have scored higher, but on the last few questions I was particularly defiant, I knew the answers they wanted, but I wasn't going to give them what they wanted and agree with party dogma on the rest of the program. . .

 

[The Duke]

Oh, so Perino was the moderator of that shitshow of a debate?

Bet she's not asked to do that again.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Oh, so Perino was the moderator of that shitshow of a debate?

Bet she's not asked to do that again.

I'm pretty sure she was performing precisely as her employer wanted and expected.

FOX is basically just CNN or MSNBC. And even more so as of late since they canned the folks they had who actually practiced real journalism pertaining to real and relevant matters pertaining to American peace and prosperity and civil liberties.

There's only the illusion of difference being maintained now to keep the terms of controversy as controlled as possible. If you turn on FOX, they're routinely showing videos of CNN and MSNBC talking heads invoking their talking points in order to make their own loaded counterpoint to whatever pablum it might be that CNN and MSNBC is airing.

And then if you turn on CNN or MSNBC, they're showing video of FOX's talking heads invoking their talking points, also to make their own loaded counterpoint to whatever pablum it may be that FOX is airing.

And then they all basically just argue against the shallow, mediated, controlled talking points of each other on their platforms that ultimately form the narrative/terms of controversy that they're trying to sell collectively to the viewership as a whole so that their audience doesn't get the silly idea of thinking for themselves and perhaps forming questions that actually matter.

They don't call it programming for nothing...

 

[Natural Citizen]

It sort of reminds me of a security establishment game I had a lot of fun playing. . . . they claim they don't track any "personal," data, but, whatever, I don't care. When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose. Someone's got to have the courage to go check this shit out.

But we'd have to be a fool to believe their claims, TBH.

I found it here;

Harvard Kennedy School’s Misinformation Review Promotes Its Own Misinformation - CovertAction Magazine

Denigration of Conspiracy Theorists Is Right Out of the CIA’s Playbook In January 2020, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy inaugurated a new online peer reviewed academic journal titled Misinformation Review. The journal’s co-founding editors...

covertactionmagazine.com

". . . Based on a model adopted by the Department of Homeland Security whose purpose was to help people combat Russian election interference, the game’s setting is Harmony Square, a peaceful place where residents have a healthy obsession with democracy.

At the start of the game, players are hired as Chief Disinformation Officer. Their job is to ruin the square’s idyllic state by fomenting internal divisions and pitting its residents against each other, causing the square to gradually go from a peaceful state to full-blown mayhem. . . "

default - Harmony Square

Can you destroy Harmony Square with disinformation? A serious game designed to expose techniques used to mislead and exploit media.

harmonysquare.game

If I remember right, I think I scored a 78%.

I was a great agent provocateur, troll and disinformation agent, but. . .

I could have scored higher, but on the last few questions I was particularly defiant, I knew the answers they wanted, but I wasn't going to give them what they wanted and agree with party dogma on the rest of the program. . .

Yeah, I probably wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole, man. lol...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Why bother to try to elucidate rather than use a commonly accepted label? No one really gives a shit anyway.

I generally say what I say in places like this for the sole benefit of casual passers-by who just might care and who just might value actual principles rather than just placating mediated catch phrases for the purpose of general entertainment.

The most dangerous people in the world, to the usurper, historically speaking, are people who are capable and willing of thinking for themselves. And that's why usurpers aren't interested in promoting any kind of genuine, principle based critical thought, but rather commonly accepted, shallow labels that can be arbitrarily mediated as the short-term political terms of controversy/goals of ''team blue'' and ''team red'' change. They're not interested in a genuinely informed electorate at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Because the officials who call the game between ''team red'' and ''team blue'' aren't so different. Not where it really matters, they aren't.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yeah, I probably wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole, man. lol...

Believe me, I thought of you while I was pushing them keys.

Bravery in WWII was being at the head of the charge.

. . . in WWIII? It is willing to take those risks, and get that information for the rest of you folks.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm pretty sure she was performing precisely as her employer wanted and expected.

FOX is basically just CNN or MSNBC. And even more so as of late since they canned the folks they had who actually practiced real journalism pertaining to real and relevant matters pertaining to American peace and prosperity and civil liberties.

There's only the illusion of difference being maintained now to keep the terms of controversy as controlled as possible. If you turn on FOX, they're routinely showing videos of CNN and MSNBC talking heads invoking their talking points in order to make their own loaded counterpoint to whatever pablum it might be that CNN and MSNBC is airing.

And then if you turn on CNN or MSNBC, they're showing video of FOX's talking heads invoking their talking points, also to make their own loaded counterpoint whatever pablum it may be that FOX is airing.

And then they all basically just argue against the shallow, mediated, controlled talking points of each other on their platforms that ultimately form the narrative/terms of controversy that they're trying to sell collectively to the viewership as a whole so that their audience doesn't get the silly idea of thinking for themselves and perhaps forming questions that actually matter.

They don't call it programming for nothing...

Precisely.

I found that entirely to be the case, and on point, especially when Tucker asked that question of O'Riley in that last interview he did. . . It was one of the most important questions. Why did Fox News fire, both O'Riley and Tucker, at the height of their popularity, if it really is "just about the money?"

O'Riley artfully dodged the question.

It was yet another clue that made me highly suspicious that O'Riley, and maybe even Tucker are both, if not spooks themselves, then paid informants.


Most folks that have looked into things, suspect that the yarn he was spinning about the JFK assassination, was likely hogwash.

Investigator’s tape exposes Bill O’Reilly’s JFK fib​

January 31, 2013

JFKfacts » Investigator’s tape exposes Bill O’Reilly’s JFK fib

None the less, I still recommend everyone go to Rumble and check out Tucker's interview with him. . . IF they ARE spooks, super valuable information there.

 

[JGalt]

The only thing "amazing" about Hillary is the fact that she never went to prison.

 

[MisterBeale]

The only thing "amazing" about Hillary is the fact that she never went to prison.

I thought the only thing amazing about her was the acting. . .

She was never going anywhere. .. .

MENA COCAINE CONNECTION: When the Bush-Clinton Crime Family Ruled Arkansas – The Millennium Report

ARKANSAS CONNECTIONS: A Time Line of the Clinton YearsArkansas Connections: A Time-line of the Clinton Years by Sam Smith

 

[SweetSue92]

I'm pretty sure she was performing precisely as her employer wanted and expected.

FOX is basically just CNN or MSNBC. And even more so as of late since they canned the folks they had who actually practiced real journalism pertaining to real and relevant matters pertaining to American peace and prosperity and civil liberties.

There's only the illusion of difference being maintained now to keep the terms of controversy as controlled as possible. If you turn on FOX, they're routinely showing videos of CNN and MSNBC talking heads invoking their talking points in order to make their own loaded counterpoint to whatever pablum it might be that CNN and MSNBC is airing.

And then if you turn on CNN or MSNBC, they're showing video of FOX's talking heads invoking their talking points, also to make their own loaded counterpoint to whatever pablum it may be that FOX is airing.

And then they all basically just argue against the shallow, mediated, controlled talking points of each other on their platforms that ultimately form the narrative/terms of controversy that they're trying to sell collectively to the viewership as a whole so that their audience doesn't get the silly idea of thinking for themselves and perhaps forming questions that actually matter.

They don't call it programming for nothing...

The only time I ever, ever watch Fox now is when traveling and I don't get NewsMax or News Nation. I haven't had them on my TV since late August when they canned Tucker. That was a last straw situation from me.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

This, I believe, was one week prior to hosting the FOX GOP debate whereby Perino took the opportunity to try to reduce the debate to a game show...

This is why I don't take "debates" seriously, and neither should President Trump

 

[Natural Citizen]

The only time I ever, ever watch Fox now is when traveling and I don't get NewsMax or News Nation. I haven't had them on my TV since late August when they canned Tucker. That was a last straw situation from me.

One of the downsides of bringing up things like this out in the open, particularly in places like this, is that in order to get a point across with regard to how things really are and how these entities actually operate among themselves is that you risk people taking it personally. As if you're trying to cut them down personally for watching this stuff. I think about that sometimes whenever I bring up this false paradigm and the actual mechanics of it as it pertains to targeting the consumers of the product, so to speak. It's never actually my intent to ridicule the regular American folks who partake in it. In fact, I think it's necessary to pay attention to what kind of game they actually play among themselves with the electorate/viewership. It's the only real value in watching them, in my view. To better understand what flavor of bullsugar they're running from week to week and how they intend to manipulate the consumer/viewership into regurgitating whatever it is they want regurgitated out in the wild of the www or wherever.

But...that, too, is in their favor. And I could go deeper into that insofar as how that pehenomenon tends to play out. It's another aspect of the whole divide and conquer routine which these entities wholly depend on. But that's not the point in why I'm responding here to your thought on it. So I won't.

Nobody should feel like they're being coerced into justifying why they do or do not tune into these frauds. And I'm not even contending that you are trying to justify that. Your thought just reminded me of that particular phenomenon.

There's a lot of people on here who I really don't have a problem with personally, whether I agree or disagree with them about whatever the topic of the moment might be. The majority of folks, in all honesty. But bringing this kind of thing up tends to stimulate the idea that one is attacking people personally. That's not the case at all. It's kind of a catch 22 bringing this stuff up. As I said, that, too, is something that these entities rely on occurring. It's kind of a safety net for the entities calling the game when people react by arguing over team red vs team blue or FOX vs CNN's loaded talking points, rather than reasoning and saying...wait a minute...they're all on the same damned team. The entities calling the game don't want that. Huh uh...

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

No, they're. NOT "all on the same damn team"

People follow a spectrum and are not all at your place or Hillary's as if those are the only two positions available.

I see it as just being gracious. It doesn't mean she supports Hillary's goals.

How would you like her to introduce this woman on national television