Dumb Women on Fox News

[Political Junky]

Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!

Go ahead and show us all where I said or implied that.

The idea that said women are "dumb" is the OP's strawman. He set it up so he could knock it down, link-free I might add. It's entirely a self-indulgent point. What I just did was point out that, even given all that, he doesn't even have a logical bridge to reach his conclusion. First he says, "are these women 'dumb'?" Then he says "no because they've been to college". That's like saying "is it going to rain today? Yes, because I saw a cloud". Doesn't follow.

That's pretty much all I do around here is point out the logical train wrecks. It's a full-time job by itself.

No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.

Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".

I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.

Unless it's a guy. For some reason hideous guys make for good-listening.

Bill O'Reilly ?

 

[ScienceRocks]

This thread is sexist. Who are you to say that woman shouldn't love their husbands, raise their children and wear what they damn well please?

Who exactly are the control freaks???

 

[Pogo]

Go ahead and show us all where I said or implied that.

The idea that said women are "dumb" is the OP's strawman. He set it up so he could knock it down, link-free I might add. It's entirely a self-indulgent point. What I just did was point out that, even given all that, he doesn't even have a logical bridge to reach his conclusion. First he says, "are these women 'dumb'?" Then he says "no because they've been to college". That's like saying "is it going to rain today? Yes, because I saw a cloud". Doesn't follow.

That's pretty much all I do around here is point out the logical train wrecks. It's a full-time job by itself.

No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.

Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".

I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.

Are they? Why? If that's true, are we not valuing superficialities over substance?

How does a "good looking" face make a story any more valid? Is it about the content, or about the face presenting it? Aye, there's the rub.

Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.

Yes, it's exactly what television is all about, you are quite right.

But you didn't address the question at all. You just raised its value.

(Just a technical note -- AP serves newsprint, not TV media. TV media get their own, although there certainly is a common pool of stringers between them.)

 

[Pogo]

No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.

Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".

I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.

Are they? Why? If that's true, are we not valuing superficialities over substance?

How does a "good looking" face make a story any more valid? Is it about the content, or about the face presenting it? Aye, there's the rub.

Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.

Funny thing is most republican women are hot like the ladies on fox. My wife makes those women look average. It's the people watching the shows and assuming those women were picked because they are hot that are mistaken. All conservative women are hot. I think it's what's inside that make them hot. This as opposed to the evil shit that makes democrats look ugly.

Yuh huh...

 

[ChrisL]

No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.

Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".

I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.

Are they? Why? If that's true, are we not valuing superficialities over substance?

How does a "good looking" face make a story any more valid? Is it about the content, or about the face presenting it? Aye, there's the rub.

Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.

Yes, it's exactly what television is all about, you are quite right.

But you didn't address the question at all. You just raised its value.

(Just a technical note -- AP serves newsprint, not TV media. TV media get their own, although there certainly is a common pool of stringers between them.)

I never said it added any validity. I said that is what people would prefer to look at. True story.

 

[ChrisL]

Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!

Go ahead and show us all where I said or implied that.

The idea that said women are "dumb" is the OP's strawman. He set it up so he could knock it down, link-free I might add. It's entirely a self-indulgent point. What I just did was point out that, even given all that, he doesn't even have a logical bridge to reach his conclusion. First he says, "are these women 'dumb'?" Then he says "no because they've been to college". That's like saying "is it going to rain today? Yes, because I saw a cloud". Doesn't follow.

That's pretty much all I do around here is point out the logical train wrecks. It's a full-time job by itself.

No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.

Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".

I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.

Unless it's a guy. For some reason hideous guys make for good-listening.

Yes, well, we all know there are double standards for men and women and that women are always judged upon their appearances first. There are some who are not so good-looking and successful though. Greta is the only one I can think of on Fox offhand, but I don't usually watch Fox or the other more partisan stations. On my local news, there are several older women who anchor and, while they aren't hideous, they aren't particularly gorgeous either.

Lol! Here's a picture of the news channel cast that I watch most frequently. None of them are really "lookers." There are a few more not included in this pic.

 

[ChrisL]

One is reminded of this story--

>> An interesting little cultural experiment in audience awareness was revealed earlier this month in Australia when the co-host of a TV program said he'd worn the same suit on the air-- for a whole year. No one even noticed. Karl Stefanovic said he wanted to prove that women on television, including his co-host, are held to a different standard than men. They're judged on how they look instead of how well they do their job.

Fellow Aussie Tracey Spicer has known that for some time, but only recently became fed up. The broadcaster, host and writer realized that after 30 years in the business she had become "a painted doll" and decided to ditch the hair, makeup and other beauty routines that cost her $200 a week.<< (from here)

​

If I'm being told something important, I like the image on the right doing the telling. Why? Because I know she's being straight with me rather than bullshitting. Now, if we're going out on a date that might change, but reporting the news is not going out on a date.

Well, she could at least brush her hair! Maybe just LITTLE makeup.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".

I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.

Are they? Why? If that's true, are we not valuing superficialities over substance?

How does a "good looking" face make a story any more valid? Is it about the content, or about the face presenting it? Aye, there's the rub.

Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.

Yes, it's exactly what television is all about, you are quite right.

But you didn't address the question at all. You just raised its value.

(Just a technical note -- AP serves newsprint, not TV media. TV media get their own, although there certainly is a common pool of stringers between them.)

I never said it added any validity. I said that is what people would prefer to look at. True story.

Good, now continue that thought.... as it stands it's unsubstantiated ipse dixit but let's assume just for argument that that's true -- why do you suppose it would be true?

Or really the question is...

Is it what people "prefer" to look at --- or is it what the TV (which we've already agreed is all about superficiality) "prefers" to present as a standard?

And just who the hell is TV to declare that?

Bravo to Tracey Spicer for standing up to it and declaring that she herself, not a media institution, will make that choice.

 

[ChrisL]

I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.

Are they? Why? If that's true, are we not valuing superficialities over substance?

How does a "good looking" face make a story any more valid? Is it about the content, or about the face presenting it? Aye, there's the rub.

Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.

Yes, it's exactly what television is all about, you are quite right.

But you didn't address the question at all. You just raised its value.

(Just a technical note -- AP serves newsprint, not TV media. TV media get their own, although there certainly is a common pool of stringers between them.)

I never said it added any validity. I said that is what people would prefer to look at. True story.

Good, now continue that thought.... as it stands it's unsubstantiated ipse dixit but let's assume just for argument that that's true -- why do you suppose it would be true?

Or really the question is...

Is it what people "prefer" to look at --- or is it what the TV (which we've already agreed is all about superficiality) "prefers" to present as a standard?

And just who the hell is TV to declare that?

Bravo to Tracey Spicer for standing up to it and declaring that she herself, not a media institution, will make that choice.

It's what gets the most ratings I suppose. Otherwise they would have more ugly people delivering the news. Most of the time, they are at least moderately attractive. Besides, don't blame me. It's because of you men, I'm sure. That stuff is what is important to you guys. I'm just stating what I've observed.

 

[PredFan]

The dumbEST woman on FOX News is twice as smart as the smartest person on NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

More liberal "logic"

The women who have opinions that disagree with my own are stupid.

The GOP has a war on women

You liberals are idiots.

 

[Pogo]

More liberal "logic"

The women who have opinions that disagree with my own are stupid.

The GOP has a war on women

You liberals are idiots.

That postulation was the OP's strawman. And I notice he's long since abandoned thread.
His very first line, even before bringing the women strawman in, was a complete fabrication. Small wonder he wants nothing more to do with it.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

More liberal "logic"

The women who have opinions that disagree with my own are stupid.

The GOP has a war on women

You liberals are idiots.

That postulation was the OP's strawman. And I notice he's long since abandoned thread.

It's no strawman, stupid liberal morons are the most hypocritical bunch of ******* retards I've ever came across.

Now, I don't prescribe to the notion that ALL liberals are stupid morons, but the ones who are, are complete hypocritical morons. See the thread crying about the Obama girls for more proof of that.

 

[Pogo]

Are they? Why? If that's true, are we not valuing superficialities over substance?

How does a "good looking" face make a story any more valid? Is it about the content, or about the face presenting it? Aye, there's the rub.

Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.

Yes, it's exactly what television is all about, you are quite right.

But you didn't address the question at all. You just raised its value.

(Just a technical note -- AP serves newsprint, not TV media. TV media get their own, although there certainly is a common pool of stringers between them.)

I never said it added any validity. I said that is what people would prefer to look at. True story.

Good, now continue that thought.... as it stands it's unsubstantiated ipse dixit but let's assume just for argument that that's true -- why do you suppose it would be true?

Or really the question is...

Is it what people "prefer" to look at --- or is it what the TV (which we've already agreed is all about superficiality) "prefers" to present as a standard?

And just who the hell is TV to declare that?

Bravo to Tracey Spicer for standing up to it and declaring that she herself, not a media institution, will make that choice.

It's what gets the most ratings I suppose. Otherwise they would have more ugly people delivering the news.

Exactly -- that's what I've been saying throughout, specifically in post 50. It's engineered as an emotional hook, for the purpose of drawing ratings, which means making money.

See, I don't believe the primary purpose of Fox Noise is informing its audience, or even misinforming its audience. I believe its primary purpose is manipulating its audience to mine more money.

Most of the time, they are at least moderately attractive. Besides, don't blame me. It's because of you men, I'm sure. That stuff is what is important to you guys. I'm just stating what I've observed.

I don't blame you at all; I blame the responsible entity, in this case Fox Noise. They exploit, you abide.
As for me I've already noted my preference for the genuine over the superficial.

 

[ChrisL]

Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.

Yes, it's exactly what television is all about, you are quite right.

But you didn't address the question at all. You just raised its value.

(Just a technical note -- AP serves newsprint, not TV media. TV media get their own, although there certainly is a common pool of stringers between them.)

I never said it added any validity. I said that is what people would prefer to look at. True story.

Good, now continue that thought.... as it stands it's unsubstantiated ipse dixit but let's assume just for argument that that's true -- why do you suppose it would be true?

Or really the question is...

Is it what people "prefer" to look at --- or is it what the TV (which we've already agreed is all about superficiality) "prefers" to present as a standard?

And just who the hell is TV to declare that?

Bravo to Tracey Spicer for standing up to it and declaring that she herself, not a media institution, will make that choice.

It's what gets the most ratings I suppose. Otherwise they would have more ugly people delivering the news.

Exactly -- that's what I've been saying throughout, specifically in post 50. It's engineered as an emotional hook, for the purpose of drawing ratings, which means making money.

See, I don't believe the primary purpose of Fox Noise is informing its audience, or even misinforming its audience. I believe its primary purpose is manipulating its audience to mine more money.

Most of the time, they are at least moderately attractive. Besides, don't blame me. It's because of you men, I'm sure. That stuff is what is important to you guys. I'm just stating what I've observed.

I don't blame you at all; I blame the responsible entity, in this case Fox Noise. They exploit, you abide.
As for me I've already noted my preference for the genuine over the superficial.

I already told you that I don't normally watch Fox news, so it's not me. However, you seem to be very familiar with it.

 

[Pogo]

More liberal "logic"

The women who have opinions that disagree with my own are stupid.

The GOP has a war on women

You liberals are idiots.

That postulation was the OP's strawman. And I notice he's long since abandoned thread.

It's no strawman, stupid liberal morons are the most hypocritical bunch of ******* retards I've ever came across.

Riiiiiight. Roll tape.

For the past 10 years FOX News has had higher ratings and the largest audience numbers (for news and business/political "talk" programs) than all the other TV and Cable news channels combined, which includes: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS!

Some folks claim that FOX's higher ratings are only because FOX purposely hires a lot of female "reporters" who do nothing but sit around in short skirts and merely "read everything off of a teleprompter".


Bottom line: The next time you hear someone criticizing FOX News for supposedly having a "bunch of dumb gals" as eye candy . . . Check out their qualifications...let them speak for themselves!

<snip>

Pop quiz: WHO suggested Fox News has a "bunch of dumb gals"?
(HINT: who titled this thread "Dumb women on Fox News"?)

Spoiler: Check your answer here

The OP, with the phrase "some people say" (rendered here as "some folks claim")

-- which, tellingly, is exactly the same phrase Fox Noise itself uses to erect its own strawmen and mysteriously unattributed rhetorical biases.

​

So yes, the claim absolutely belongs to the OP. He set up a strawman so he could knock it down, and then failed to do even that. Moreover his strawman about Fox women is itself built on a prior strawman (first paragraph) about ratings. Neither of which is in any way documented or attributed to ....anyone.

Now that 's what I call hot strawman-on-strawman action!

Now, I don't prescribe to the notion that ALL liberals are stupid morons, but the ones who are, are complete hypocritical morons. See the thread crying about the Obama girls for more proof of that.

I neither know nor care about that thread but it's obviously got nothing to do with this one. You're trying to bring in a red herring for the purpose of setting up a hasty generalization broad-brush ad hominem. Wait, read me the part about "idiots" again?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it's exactly what television is all about, you are quite right.

But you didn't address the question at all. You just raised its value.

(Just a technical note -- AP serves newsprint, not TV media. TV media get their own, although there certainly is a common pool of stringers between them.)

I never said it added any validity. I said that is what people would prefer to look at. True story.

Good, now continue that thought.... as it stands it's unsubstantiated ipse dixit but let's assume just for argument that that's true -- why do you suppose it would be true?

Or really the question is...

Is it what people "prefer" to look at --- or is it what the TV (which we've already agreed is all about superficiality) "prefers" to present as a standard?

And just who the hell is TV to declare that?

Bravo to Tracey Spicer for standing up to it and declaring that she herself, not a media institution, will make that choice.

It's what gets the most ratings I suppose. Otherwise they would have more ugly people delivering the news.

Exactly -- that's what I've been saying throughout, specifically in post 50. It's engineered as an emotional hook, for the purpose of drawing ratings, which means making money.

See, I don't believe the primary purpose of Fox Noise is informing its audience, or even misinforming its audience. I believe its primary purpose is manipulating its audience to mine more money.

Most of the time, they are at least moderately attractive. Besides, don't blame me. It's because of you men, I'm sure. That stuff is what is important to you guys. I'm just stating what I've observed.

I don't blame you at all; I blame the responsible entity, in this case Fox Noise. They exploit, you abide.
As for me I've already noted my preference for the genuine over the superficial.

I already told you that I don't normally watch Fox news, so it's not me. However, you seem to be very familiar with it.

And I already agreed it's not you, it's them. Which is what I've been talking about from the start.

And yes, I am familiar with broadcasting and the psychology of manipulation therein. In this environment you have to be; you either know what the bait looks like, or you end up as dinner.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

More liberal "logic"

The women who have opinions that disagree with my own are stupid.

The GOP has a war on women

You liberals are idiots.

That postulation was the OP's strawman. And I notice he's long since abandoned thread.

It's no strawman, stupid liberal morons are the most hypocritical bunch of ******* retards I've ever came across.

Riiiiiight. Roll tape.

For the past 10 years FOX News has had higher ratings and the largest audience numbers (for news and business/political "talk" programs) than all the other TV and Cable news channels combined, which includes: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS!

Some folks claim that FOX's higher ratings are only because FOX purposely hires a lot of female "reporters" who do nothing but sit around in short skirts and merely "read everything off of a teleprompter".


Bottom line: The next time you hear someone criticizing FOX News for supposedly having a "bunch of dumb gals" as eye candy . . . Check out their qualifications...let them speak for themselves!

<snip>

Pop quiz: WHO suggested Fox News has a "bunch of dumb gals"?

Spoiler: Check your answer here

The OP, with the phrase "some people say"

-- which, tellingly, is exactly the same phrase Fox Noise itself uses to erect its own strawman and unattached rhetorical bias.

Now, I don't prescribe to the notion that ALL liberals are stupid morons, but the ones who are, are complete hypocritical morons. See the thread crying about the Obama girls for more proof of that.

I neither know nor care about that thread but it's obviously got nothing to do with this one. You're trying to bring in a red herring for the purpose of setting up a hasty generalization broad-brush ad hominem. Wait, read me the part about "idiots" again?

Of course that thread has something to do with this one, they both are proof of the lies and hypocrisy of the left.

Please don't continue to insult your own intelligence by pretending that before this thread no one had dared to say that the conservative women in general and the women on Fox in particular are stupid. It's embarrassing, for you.

Why is that EVERY TIME you try to give a liberal the benefit of the doubt and have a rational discussion with them they go full retard?

Are you seriously so morally bankrupt that you can't simply say "yeah you know, that's true, many on the left do exactly what you are describing" at least once in a ******* awhile?

 

[Pogo]

More liberal "logic"

The women who have opinions that disagree with my own are stupid.

The GOP has a war on women

You liberals are idiots.

That postulation was the OP's strawman. And I notice he's long since abandoned thread.

It's no strawman, stupid liberal morons are the most hypocritical bunch of ******* retards I've ever came across.

Riiiiiight. Roll tape.

For the past 10 years FOX News has had higher ratings and the largest audience numbers (for news and business/political "talk" programs) than all the other TV and Cable news channels combined, which includes: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS!

Some folks claim that FOX's higher ratings are only because FOX purposely hires a lot of female "reporters" who do nothing but sit around in short skirts and merely "read everything off of a teleprompter".


Bottom line: The next time you hear someone criticizing FOX News for supposedly having a "bunch of dumb gals" as eye candy . . . Check out their qualifications...let them speak for themselves!

<snip>

Pop quiz: WHO suggested Fox News has a "bunch of dumb gals"?

Spoiler: Check your answer here

The OP, with the phrase "some people say"

-- which, tellingly, is exactly the same phrase Fox Noise itself uses to erect its own strawman and unattached rhetorical bias.

Now, I don't prescribe to the notion that ALL liberals are stupid morons, but the ones who are, are complete hypocritical morons. See the thread crying about the Obama girls for more proof of that.

I neither know nor care about that thread but it's obviously got nothing to do with this one. You're trying to bring in a red herring for the purpose of setting up a hasty generalization broad-brush ad hominem. Wait, read me the part about "idiots" again?

Of course that thread has something to do with this one, they both are proof of the lies and hypocrisy of the left.

First it's "liberals", now it's "the left". Why don't I go get something to eat while you make up your mind...

Please don't continue to insult your own intelligence by pretending that before this thread no one had dared to say that the conservative women in general and the women on Fox in particular are stupid. It's embarrassing, for you.

Link?

"Embarrassing"?? You're the one who suggested it -- and I just proved you wrong. With something the OP never used -- a link.

Why is that EVERY TIME you try to give a liberal the benefit of the doubt and have a rational discussion with them they go full retard?

aaaaand we're right back to "liberals" and ad hom.

Well, good to know the blanket statement is at least consistent. So there's that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

More liberal "logic"

The women who have opinions that disagree with my own are stupid.

The GOP has a war on women

You liberals are idiots.

That postulation was the OP's strawman. And I notice he's long since abandoned thread.

It's no strawman, stupid liberal morons are the most hypocritical bunch of ******* retards I've ever came across.

Riiiiiight. Roll tape.

For the past 10 years FOX News has had higher ratings and the largest audience numbers (for news and business/political "talk" programs) than all the other TV and Cable news channels combined, which includes: CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS!

Some folks claim that FOX's higher ratings are only because FOX purposely hires a lot of female "reporters" who do nothing but sit around in short skirts and merely "read everything off of a teleprompter".


Bottom line: The next time you hear someone criticizing FOX News for supposedly having a "bunch of dumb gals" as eye candy . . . Check out their qualifications...let them speak for themselves!

<snip>

Pop quiz: WHO suggested Fox News has a "bunch of dumb gals"?

Spoiler: Check your answer here

The OP, with the phrase "some people say"

-- which, tellingly, is exactly the same phrase Fox Noise itself uses to erect its own strawman and unattached rhetorical bias.

Now, I don't prescribe to the notion that ALL liberals are stupid morons, but the ones who are, are complete hypocritical morons. See the thread crying about the Obama girls for more proof of that.

I neither know nor care about that thread but it's obviously got nothing to do with this one. You're trying to bring in a red herring for the purpose of setting up a hasty generalization broad-brush ad hominem. Wait, read me the part about "idiots" again?

Of course that thread has something to do with this one, they both are proof of the lies and hypocrisy of the left.

First it's "liberals", now it's "the left". Why don't I go get something to eat while you make up your mind...

Please don't continue to insult your own intelligence by pretending that before this thread no one had dared to say that the conservative women in general and the women on Fox in particular are stupid. It's embarrassing, for you.

Link?

"Embarrassing"?? You're the one who suggested it -- and I just proved you wrong. With something the OP never used -- a link.

Why is that EVERY TIME you try to give a liberal the benefit of the doubt and have a rational discussion with them they go full retard?

aaaaand we're right back to "liberals" and ad hom.

Well, good to know the blanket statement is at least consistent. So there's that.

Um is there a difference between a liberal and someone on the left? Uh no there isn't.

Sorry you feel that being called a liberal is an ad hom, but it's merely pointing out what you are.