Pictures of Journo-List Members. Recognize any of them?

[Dante]

thank you FOX News for helping to change the face of journalism.

Given the topic of this thread, that is the most brain-dead response imaginable.

it was a reply to a post, not a comment on the thread.

 

[sitarro]

uh, where do you see Alan Colmes?

Willow is old, we can give her a pass.

It's your young lack of experience and knowledge about life that is needed to be given a pass every day kid......... when you've aged enough to grow pubic hair, maybe you'll understand something besides video games.

 

[hortysir]

thank you FOX News for helping to change the face of journalism.

Given the topic of this thread, that is the most brain-dead response imaginable.

it was a reply to a post, not a comment on the thread.

It was just screaming irony, though, man

 

[Charles_Main]

well, a journalist isnt supposed to give opinion
but many still do

Are you trying to hijack this thread with deflections, also?

None of the Journo-list members are journalists - they are opinion writers.

Get it?

Not sure why that really matters. Their Intentions were to make enough noise about something true or not, To get the Left wing Media to pick it up and run with it. They knew they could do it, and they did it. Just because they are opinion writers makes it no less unethical that they planned a concerted effort to skew coverage, Favor one candidate, and smear anyone who opposed him. The Main Stream Media IMO did in many cases pick up what these people were saying, and repeat it.

Oh and there are some people on that list who are not Opinion Writers, and or were not always opinion writers. Some of them were indeed suppose to be objective Journalists.

 

[jeffrockit]

There is no scandal.

No scandal if you think journaists need have no ethics.

(Then a lot of 'blah, blah, blah, - deleted)

These aren't journalists or reporters - they are Leftwing OPINION columnists.

Are you seriously going to tell me that Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Bernard Goldberg, Krystol, Barnes, etc. NEVER talk to each other? Never discuss ways to make the other side look bad? Right after 'Hannity' goes off the air, you think that Sean and Malkin cease all conversation? Or do you think they may say things that they wouldn't want published by a snot-nosed little prick?

Please.

Thinking they have said these things means nothing. Perhaps, as Political Chic did, you can post some exact quotes from Hannity and the rest discussing ways to "make the left look bad". Anything short of that is just your opinion and not fact.

 

[Synthaholic]

I am so glad that you have come to this board, welcome...

If that's sincere, thank you.

Lately I have had the fear that the revelations about liberal administration in government, i.e. President Obama et. al. would leave us with no lying, unbashed, scurrilous, defamatory curs, you know, such as yourself...

So good to see that that is not the case!

So, you've got nothing to refute my point, just insults. Got it.

1. First, I do welcome you, as I welcome all that I meet. I also mean it when I say that I am even happier to see new left leaning members, as the alternative would be...somewhat boring.

I'm getting bored already!

2. Now as for refutation, it is alway jaw-dropping for me when I run into a member who does not realize, has not been brought up to understand, that lying and besmearching the reputations of innocents is wrong, is evil...

But they are not innocent. The question in front of these email correspondents was whether they call out the racists. If you believe that Fred Barnes is employing a race-baiting tactic in order to harm this Black president, then it's acceptable to call him a racist. They were saying "pick one, and call him a racist". Doesn't really matter which one, as long as they are using these tactics.

I always love to hear Rightwingers cry when they are punched back.

3. Any vituperation that you detect is meant to underscore your explicit agreement with such iniquity. To avoid the attachment of same requires that you move 'honesty' higher in your character resume.

Maybe tomorrow I'll re-read that very slowly. Maybe not.

4. It is frivolous to try to parse words such as 'journalist,' and claim that the group in question should not be so identified. The name of their listserv is 'journolist.' Do you have a theory why they chose it?

Do you agree that the kid working at Target prolly prefers being called an 'Associate' rather than a cashier?

5.Certainly you would not be ready to claim that being liberal is not also a criterion for admission to the group...or would you be ready to parse same, as progressive, leftist, of some such.???

Well, yes, it is a group of Liberals. Nice detective work.

In short, I do welcome you, and also reiterate my contumely for any who would use the terrm 'racist' strategically, or- such as you- who would defend it.

The strategy is not to call people racists. The strategy is to answer the attacks from the fringe Rightwing.

How do you feel about the people who use the term 'Marxist' or 'Fascist' or 'Socialist' strategically? Where can I find some posts from you criticizing the use of those terms? Since I'm new here, it will give me an opportunity to see for myself if you are full of shit.

Please answer the question I posed, about Hannity, etc., in post #57. Thanks.

 

[Synthaholic]

Are you trying to hijack this thread with deflections, also?

None of the Journo-list members are journalists - they are opinion writers.

Get it?

Not sure why that really matters. Their Intentions were to make enough noise about something true or not, To get the Left wing Media to pick it up and run with it.

See my response about Fred Barnes, above. Truth on the subject of what is racist is in the eye of the beholder. I think, and a lot of Liberals think, that racists use racist tactics.

They knew they could do it, and they did it. Just because they are opinion writers makes it no less unethical that they planned a concerted effort to skew coverage, Favor one candidate, and smear anyone who opposed him. The Main Stream Media IMO did in many cases pick up what these people were saying, and repeat it.

How is this different from what Limbaugh has done for years?

Oh and there are some people on that list who are not Opinion Writers, and or were not always opinion writers. Some of them were indeed suppose to be objective Journalists.

I think I asked for someone to name them. I can't find any. You want to give it a try?

 

[Synthaholic]

No scandal if you think journaists need have no ethics.

(Then a lot of 'blah, blah, blah, - deleted)

These aren't journalists or reporters - they are Leftwing OPINION columnists.

Are you seriously going to tell me that Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Bernard Goldberg, Krystol, Barnes, etc. NEVER talk to each other? Never discuss ways to make the other side look bad? Right after 'Hannity' goes off the air, you think that Sean and Malkin cease all conversation? Or do you think they may say things that they wouldn't want published by a snot-nosed little prick?

Please.

Thinking they have said these things means nothing. Perhaps, as Political Chic did, you can post some exact quotes from Hannity and the rest discussing ways to "make the left look bad". Anything short of that is just your opinion and not fact.

I'm not going to be an enabler to your immaturity. If you want to look silly and claim that the Wingnut Media doesn't ever talk to each other about the best strategies for attacking Obama, then have at it.

 

[DiveCon]

These aren't journalists or reporters - they are Leftwing OPINION columnists.

Are you seriously going to tell me that Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Bernard Goldberg, Krystol, Barnes, etc. NEVER talk to each other? Never discuss ways to make the other side look bad? Right after 'Hannity' goes off the air, you think that Sean and Malkin cease all conversation? Or do you think they may say things that they wouldn't want published by a snot-nosed little prick?

Please.

Thinking they have said these things means nothing. Perhaps, as Political Chic did, you can post some exact quotes from Hannity and the rest discussing ways to "make the left look bad". Anything short of that is just your opinion and not fact.

I'm not going to be an enabler to your immaturity. If you want to look silly and claim that the Wingnut Media doesn't ever talk to each other about the best strategies for attacking Obama, then have at it.

no, you made a claim, back it up

 

[Synthaholic]

Thinking they have said these things means nothing. Perhaps, as Political Chic did, you can post some exact quotes from Hannity and the rest discussing ways to "make the left look bad". Anything short of that is just your opinion and not fact.

I'm not going to be an enabler to your immaturity. If you want to look silly and claim that the Wingnut Media doesn't ever talk to each other about the best strategies for attacking Obama, then have at it.

no, you made a claim, back it up

Don't lie.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm not going to be an enabler to your immaturity. If you want to look silly and claim that the Wingnut Media doesn't ever talk to each other about the best strategies for attacking Obama, then have at it.

no, you made a claim, back it up

Don't lie.

i'm not

when you have some PROOF to back up what you said, till then its just another liberal fantasy

 

[Synthaholic]

no, you made a claim, back it up

Don't lie.

i'm not

when you have some PROOF to back up what you said, till then its just another liberal fantasy

Don't lie, divecon.

 

[DiveCon]

Don't lie.

i'm not

when you have some PROOF to back up what you said, till then its just another liberal fantasy

Don't lie, divecon.

how many times do i have to tell you, "I'm NOT"

 

[xotoxi]

Pictures of Journo-List Members. Recognize any of them?

I don't recognize any of them...but Kate Steadman is a fucking hottie!

 

[PoliticalChic]

If that's sincere, thank you.



So, you've got nothing to refute my point, just insults. Got it.

1. First, I do welcome you, as I welcome all that I meet. I also mean it when I say that I am even happier to see new left leaning members, as the alternative would be...somewhat boring.

I'm getting bored already!



But they are not innocent. The question in front of these email correspondents was whether they call out the racists. If you believe that Fred Barnes is employing a race-baiting tactic in order to harm this Black president, then it's acceptable to call him a racist. They were saying "pick one, and call him a racist". Doesn't really matter which one, as long as they are using these tactics.

I always love to hear Rightwingers cry when they are punched back.



Maybe tomorrow I'll re-read that very slowly. Maybe not.



Do you agree that the kid working at Target prolly prefers being called an 'Associate' rather than a cashier?

5.Certainly you would not be ready to claim that being liberal is not also a criterion for admission to the group...or would you be ready to parse same, as progressive, leftist, of some such.???

Well, yes, it is a group of Liberals. Nice detective work.

In short, I do welcome you, and also reiterate my contumely for any who would use the terrm 'racist' strategically, or- such as you- who would defend it.

The strategy is not to call people racists. The strategy is to answer the attacks from the fringe Rightwing.

How do you feel about the people who use the term 'Marxist' or 'Fascist' or 'Socialist' strategically? Where can I find some posts from you criticizing the use of those terms? Since I'm new here, it will give me an opportunity to see for myself if you are full of shit.

Please answer the question I posed, about Hannity, etc., in post #57. Thanks.

So good to see you back! After all, what good would this debate be without the human piñata!

1. Since honesty is clearly not high on your list of priorities, perhaps understanding the writ should be...
The strategy of the liberal journalists was to throw around the term 'racist,' that particular word, arbitrarily, as in "Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
The quote seems to place you into an untenable position, as you state "The strategy is not to call people racists."Perhaps you should read more carefully...

2. You are not free to define any critic of Obama policy as 'racist.' The term has a specific meaning.
But, civil protocol is also not a hallmark of your side.

3. "Ackerman wasn’t talking about a strategy to expose real racists, in the media or anywhere else. The Washington Independent reporter wanted to conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House. Notice that Ackerman doesn’t even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism, but just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat. "
Hot Air Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists

4. This is why I was pleased to have another leftist join the board, as the both insipid and dishonest nature of your responses paints your side far better than I could.

5. Several times you have attempted to defend what you claim to find no harm in...yet would show 'Hannity' doing the same, ...what...'strategy'? You puncture your own defense, since if the procedure where not wrong, why would you point it out on the other side?

a. Further, the defense is imaginary and hypothetical, as there is not a corresponding conservative 'listserv' strategizing as these liberal knaves do...

6. So it wasn't necessary to use the Rosetta Stone to see that 'I'm getting bored already!'
actually means 'I'm looking like a loser already.'
True, you are, and don't think I don't appreciate it.

Brutal, huh? Sorry you didn’t run with scissors when you had the chance?

Now, write soon.

 

[Synthaholic]

The strategy of the liberal journalists was to throw around the term 'racist,' that particular word, arbitrarily, as in "Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
The quote seems to place you into an untenable position, as you state "The strategy is not to call people racists."Perhaps you should read more carefully...

2. You are not free to define any critic of Obama policy as 'racist.' The term has a specific meaning.
But, civil protocol is also not a hallmark of your side.

3. "Ackerman wasn’t talking about a strategy to expose real racists, in the media or anywhere else. The Washington Independent reporter wanted to conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House. Notice that Ackerman doesn’t even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism, but just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat. "
Hot Air Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists

You say 'Liberal journalists', plural, then talk about Ackerman. Should this be a thread about this Ackerman fellow, then?

And what was the response from the other opinion writers when Ackerman threw this out for discussion?

5. Several times you have attempted to defend what you claim to find no harm in...yet would show 'Hannity' doing the same, ...what...'strategy'? You puncture your own defense, since if the procedure where not wrong, why would you point it out on the other side?

You clearly have trouble seeing peripherally. Most likely due to the blinders. I didn't point out Hannity's gang to show how wrong it is, I did so to show how normal it is.

Now pay attention: every group talks amongst themselves.

a. Further, the defense is imaginary and hypothetical, as there is not a corresponding conservative 'listserv' strategizing as these liberal knaves do...

How do you know? Maybe it just hasn't been made public in an act of yellow journalism yet.

6. So it wasn't necessary to use the Rosetta Stone to see that 'I'm getting bored already!'
actually means 'I'm looking like a loser already.'
True, you are, and don't think I don't appreciate it.

Your vanity is amusing.

 

[jeffrockit]

These aren't journalists or reporters - they are Leftwing OPINION columnists.

Are you seriously going to tell me that Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Bernard Goldberg, Krystol, Barnes, etc. NEVER talk to each other? Never discuss ways to make the other side look bad? Right after 'Hannity' goes off the air, you think that Sean and Malkin cease all conversation? Or do you think they may say things that they wouldn't want published by a snot-nosed little prick?

Please.

Thinking they have said these things means nothing. Perhaps, as Political Chic did, you can post some exact quotes from Hannity and the rest discussing ways to "make the left look bad". Anything short of that is just your opinion and not fact.

I'm not going to be an enabler to your immaturity. If you want to look silly and claim that the Wingnut Media doesn't ever talk to each other about the best strategies for attacking Obama, then have at it.

See the way it works on this board, in order for anyone to take anything you state as fact, you need to provide links, quotes etc. Not really a hard concept unless you want zero credibility in your posts. Nothing immature about it as I would expect you to require the same of the other posters. I for one am never going to take a posters statement on a message board as nothing more than opinion if it is not backed up with fact. There are too may posters with blind partisanship and idealogue hate to believe any unfounded posts.
Ill take your response as a "no" to having links to back up your claim.

BTW, how I appear to you on this board matters not to me. It may give you some sort of power in you mind but has no affect on me.

 

[Synthaholic]

See the way it works on this board, in order for anyone to take anything you state as fact, you need to provide links, quotes etc. Not really a hard concept unless you want zero credibility in your posts. Nothing immature about it as I would expect you to require the same of the other posters. I for one am never going to take a posters statement on a message board as nothing more than opinion if it is not backed up with fact. There are too may posters with blind partisanship and idealogue hate to believe any unfounded posts.

I did not state anything as fact. Are you going to lie, also?

 

[jeffrockit]

See the way it works on this board, in order for anyone to take anything you state as fact, you need to provide links, quotes etc. Not really a hard concept unless you want zero credibility in your posts. Nothing immature about it as I would expect you to require the same of the other posters. I for one am never going to take a posters statement on a message board as nothing more than opinion if it is not backed up with fact. There are too may posters with blind partisanship and idealogue hate to believe any unfounded posts.

I did not state anything as fact. Are you going to lie, also?

Never stated you did. I did say if you want anything to be taken as factual, you need to back it up with facts (ie links, video, etc). Looks like you are the one being dishonest. i am done with this discussion as i am here only for the debates, not back and forth grade school bickering. If you feel the need for the last word, go for it.

 

[Article 15]

Your vanity is amusing.

She's just a silver-tongued doucherag ideologue who blames liberals for everything wrong in the world ... a total snore.