...in obnoxiousness?

Rich Sanchez
Glenn Beck
Lou Dobbs

To speak of the big fish. The rest of CNN just kind of hangs off their collective nutsacks.

Time for a new 24 hour news channel?

...in obnoxiousness?

Rich Sanchez
Glenn Beck
Lou Dobbs

To speak of the big fish. The rest of CNN just kind of hangs off their collective nutsacks.

I do wish that our news sources could stay above the fray.

Time for a new 24 hour news channel?

Or, how about no 24-hour news channels? There really isn't 24-hours worth of news anyway...

Glenn Beck is such a pro establishment, American flag waving dipshit, but Dobbs has passion, a populist tone that I adore, but best of all he is pissed off as hell, and doesn't mind showing it.

There really isn't 24-hours worth of news anyway...

Only because the current definition of news revolves around the latest celebrity faux pah.

I used to like Dobbs, but I came to realize that he is little more than an arrogant hate-monger.

Hate monger or just really angry. Depends on your perspective I suppose.

Dobbs plays faster and looser with the facts than Michael Moore on meth. Did he ever apologize for claiming that illegals caused 7000 cases of leprosy in three years?

Lou acts like illegals hop the border to eat babies, rape women, and pounces on every story and half-truth that can stir the public into an immigrant-hating frenzy.

I can't listen to Dobbs anymore. Talk about a one-track mind...

7000 cases of leprosy, lol. I"m going to do some fact checking and see where he sourced that. 7000 counts of theft, wife beating, and DUI surely, but leprosy, that's a funny accusation.

...in obnoxiousness?

Rich Sanchez
Glenn Beck
Lou Dobbs

To speak of the big fish. The rest of CNN just kind of hangs off their collective nutsacks.

Time for a new 24 hour news channel?

Yep.
That Rich Sanchez is a really obnoxious newer "talking head". His intensely aggressive, in-your-face style of reporting is just incredibly annoying.
Glenn Beck is yet another in a series of condescending, arrogant, pudgy entitled white guys.
And Lou Dobbs has simply gone a bit over-the-top lately with his rants. I used to have more respect for him.

7000 cases of leprosy, lol. I"m going to do some fact checking and see where he sourced that. 7000 counts of theft, wife beating, and DUI surely, but leprosy, that's a funny accusation.

"If we reported it, it's a fact." - Lou Dobbs

"7000 over the past 30 years... not the past 3." - Reality

7VgJa6oALyY

Also funny to see Olbermann walk the dog all over Lou Dobbs:

b2RydYVhIL4

CNN is to news what McNuggets are to chicken. Both are fat-filled, reconstituted facsimiles of a once recognizable menu item/information source, designed to meet maximum profit margins, and mass produced to be mindlessly and effortlessly consumed.

If CNN represents the Golden Arches of television broadcasting, then the FOX News channel is its dirtier Burger Barn rival, throwing guns and girls into its primetime mix of hard-broiled infotainment. CNN speaks for elite interests more directly as a corporate entity devoted to reflecting the values of the CEO's and cash cow political parties it serves. Useful idiots like Lou Dobbs strike the perfect balance between populist sentiment (always a ratings bonanza) and elite opinion. As a cleverly disguised corporate shill, he functions as McMedia's Ronald McDonald, a deceitful spokesperson for the "little guy", promoting a toxic ideology as if it were a "wholesome" menu choice like salad. Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is the crude, low budget version of this corporate brand, the pitiable shmuck who dances and waves on the street wearing a styrofoam hotdog costume.

...in obnoxiousness?

Rich Sanchez
Glenn Beck
Lou Dobbs

To speak of the big fish. The rest of CNN just kind of hangs off their collective nutsacks.

Time for a new 24 hour news channel?

I think Olbermann is obnoxious too. He tries real hard to be funny and slick. It doesn't work.

What you don't really like is a conservative opinion. That's what really bothers you, not the person. :rolleyes:

I think Olbermann is obnoxious too. He tries real hard to be funny and slick. It doesn't work.

What you don't really like is a conservative opinion. That's what really bothers you, not the person. :rolleyes:

I couldn't agree more. It's a lack of right wing ideologues blathering about the "Liburral" media that is responsible for the decline of journalism in this country. And people like Keith Olbermann should shut their pinko pie-holes and get down to the more serious business of defending Christmas.

I couldn't agree more. It's a lack of right wing ideologues blathering about the "Liburral" media that is responsible for the decline of journalism in this country. And people like Keith Olbermann should shut their pinko pie-holes and get down to the more serious business of defending Christmas.

So, I guess your ideal must be Rush Limbaugh, then? He's really "funny and slick" himself. :jester:

You want to talk about a corporate shill, then what about Wolf Blitzer? I heartily agree with you in his case.

And sorry, but I find Keith Olbermann very entertaining and quite witty. And who can deny that he looks killer in his pinstripe "gangsta" suits. ;)

7000 cases of leprosy, lol. I"m going to do some fact checking and see where he sourced that. 7000 counts of theft, wife beating, and DUI surely, but leprosy, that's a funny accusation.

After years of daily 1 hour broadcasts, this unimportant slip up is all they could find to hold against him, so naturally they have to puff it up as 'completely destroying his credibility' and claiming it as some sort of major lie.

All it amounts to is a tabloid style hatchet job in an election year. The sleazy millionare 'Progressive news anchor' Amy Goodman and her racist fans came up with that pathetic attempt, the same 'investigative team' that completely ignores the slime Noam Chomsky and his utter lack of credibility, along with his toady protege Norman Finklestein, giving them free walks on their made-up nonsense on Democracy Now!.

It's the buildup to the coming election year, so these hacks have to do what their big money sponsors pay them for, and it ain't 'reporting the facts'; Dobbs has a much better reporting record than his racist and corporate enemies do. And if you want, I can find a list of who pays Amy Goodman for her propaganda.

So, I guess your ideal must be Rush Limbaugh, then? He's really "funny and slick" himself. :jester:

You want to talk about a corporate shill, then what about Wolf Blitzer? I heartily agree with you in his case.

And sorry, but I find Keith Olbermann very entertaining and quite witty. And who can deny that he looks killer in his pinstripe "gangsta" suits. ;)

I was being sarcastic, QSS.

After years of daily 1 hour broadcasts, this unimportant slip up is all they could find to hold against him, so naturally they have to puff it up as 'completely destroying his credibility' and claiming it as some sort of major lie.

All it amounts to is a tabloid style hatchet job in an election year. The sleazy millionare 'Progressive news anchor' Amy Goodman and her racist fans came up with that pathetic attempt, the same investigative team' that completely ignores the slime Noam Chomsky and his utter lack of credibility, along with his taody Norman Finklestein, giving them free walks on their made-up nonsense on Democracy Now!.

It's the buildup to the coming election year, so these hacks have to do what their big money sponsors pay them for, and it ain't 'reporting the facts'; Dobbs has a much better reporting record than his racist and corporate enemies do.

Democracy Now is a commercial-free, independent media outlet, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is a corporate entity, serving the interests of big business. It's sort of like saying McDonald's is a front for PETA - one would need to invert logic (with tinfoil hat firmly in place) to follow the absurdly circuitous path of your "reasoning". Then again, I don't base my assumptions on whatever I can pull out of my ass, so you have me there. If you have actually read anything by either Naom Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, you will find detailed and verifiable documentation of their sources as outlined in the footnootes. You call them liars, yet you cannot come up with a single example of a falsehood, or even a factual error that can be attributed to them.

Also funny to see Olbermann walk the dog all over Lou Dobbs:

b2RydYVhIL4

Keith's arguments against Dobbs.

1) Joe McCarthy (ad hominem)
2) Hundreds of illegal immigrants are needed to maintain a horse (ridiculously inaccurate)

Seems Keith is the crazy one. And Keith's iambic pentameter style of speaking is painful to listen to. Keith needs to learn how to inhale from the diaphragm and then speak smoothly and use words that don't have to be coughed out.

Lou Dobbs was wrong with one particular statistic. Big flucking deal. The violent crime stats you suggested were hyperbole are real.

Keith's arguments against Dobbs.

1) Joe McCarthy (ad hominem)

By whose standards? Joe McCarthy helped perpetrate the myth of the 'Red Menace' to boost his standing with the electorate, while his present day counterpart uses a similar rhetorical trope boost his ratings.

2) Hundreds of illegal immigrants are needed to maintain a horse (ridiculously inaccurate)

Really? Can you provide proof that it doesn't? Since Americans are unwilling to pick their own fruit, there is no reason to assume they are eager to shovel horse manure for an equally unliveable wage.


Seems Keith is the crazy one. And Keith's iambic pentameter style of speaking is painful to listen to. Keith needs to learn how to inhale from the diaphragm and then speak smoothly and use words that don't have to be coughed out.

Whenever you are unable to form a cogent argument of your own, always attack your opponent's "style". That way you never have to worry about dealing with humbug facts.

Lou Dobbs was wrong with one particular statistic. Big flucking deal. The violent crime stats you suggested were hyperbole are real.

It is a "big flucking deal" when someone in a position of power willfully and egregiously abuses public trust to advance a racist agenda. As for crime statistics, the majority of violent crimes in this country are perpetrated by men against women. Based on your reasoning, we should consider violence the default position of men and pre-emptively criminalize them all. I would suggest you consider that scenario before you stereotype minorities.

It is a "big flucking deal" when someone in a position of power willfully and egregiously abuses public trust to advance a racist agenda. As for crime statistics, the majority of violent crimes in this country are perpetrated by men against women. Based on your reasoning, we should consider violence the default position of men and pre-emptively criminalize them all. I would suggest you consider that scenario before you stereotype minorities.

"racist agenda"? You are way off base there if you are talking about Dobbs. You just made as$ out of yourself and showed how dumb you are.

"racist agenda"? You are way off base there if you are talking about Dobbs. You just made as$ out of yourself and showed how dumb you are.

Yes, well, she also thinks Chomsky has credibility and Democracy Now! isn't an agenda driven shill outfit who doesn't take money from wealthy special interest groups and skew her 'reporting' to reflect their interests, usually racially motivated.

It's also hilarious reading posts by antisemites whining about 'racist agendas' while supporting gangsterism and murder syndicates with genocide in their 'national charters'.

Then again, I don't base my assumptions on whatever I can pull out of my ass, so you have me there.

BS. You just pull it out of somebody elses ass once in awhile, for variety ...

If you have actually read anything by either Naom Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, you will find detailed and verifiable documentation of their sources as outlined in the footnootes.

Now you're just raving nonsense. That was easy ...

You call them liars, yet you cannot come up with a single example of a falsehood, or even a factual error that can be attributed to them.

Chomsky has been lying out his ass for years. Just one example of his intellectual dishonesty is his rabid support of Pol Pot:

Ponchaud’s book was harder to ignore. It was based on the author’s personal experience in Cambodia from 1965 until the capture of Phnom Penh, extensive interviews with refugees and reports from Cambodian radio. Moreover, it had been favorably reviewed by a left-wing author in The New York Review of Books, a publication for which Chomsky himself had often written. Chomsky’s strategy was to undermine Ponchaud’s book by questioning the credibility of his refugee testimony. Acknowledging that Ponchaud “gives a grisly account of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge,” Chomsky said we should be wary of “the extreme unreliability of refugee reports”:

Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.

In 1980, Chomsky expanded this critique into the book After the Cataclysm, co-authored with his long-time collaborator Edward S. Herman. Ostensibly about Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, the great majority of its content was a defense of the position Chomsky took on the Pol Pot regime. By this time, Chomsky was well aware that something terrible had happened: “The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome,” he wrote. “There can be little doubt that the war was followed by an outbreak of violence, massacre and repression.” He mocked the suggestion, however, that the death toll might have reached more than a million and attacked Senator George McGovern’s call for military intervention to halt what McGovern called “a clear case of genocide.”

Instead, Chomsky commended authors who apologized for the Pol Pot regime. He approvingly cited their analyses that the forced march of the population out of Phnom Penh was probably necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. If this was true, Chomsky wrote, “the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives.” Chomsky rejected the charge of genocide, suggesting that

the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors.

After the Cataclysm also presented a much more extended critique of refugee testimony. Chomsky revealed his original 1977 source for this had been Ben Kiernan, at the time an Australian graduate student and apologist for the Pol Pot regime, who wrote in the Maoist-inspired Melbourne Journal of Politics. What Chomsky avoided telling his readers, however, was that well before 1980, the year After the Cataclysm was published, Kiernan himself had recanted his position.

Kiernan had spent much of 1978 and 1979 interviewing five hundred Cambodian refugees in camps inside Thailand. They persuaded him they were actually telling the truth. He also gained a mass of evidence from the new Vietnamese-installed regime. This led him to write a mea culpa in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars in 1979. This was a left-wing journal frequently cited by Chomsky, so he must have been aware that Kiernan wrote: “There can be no doubting that the evidence also points clearly to a systematic use of violence against the population by that chauvinist section of the revolutionary movement that was led by Pol Pot.” Yet in After the Cataclysm, Chomsky does not acknowledge this at all.

Kiernan later went on to write The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide under the Khmer Rouge 1975–79, a book now widely regarded as the definitive analysis of one of the most appalling episodes in recorded history. In the evacuation of Phnom Penh in 1975, tens of thousands of people died. Almost the entire middle class was deliberately targeted and killed, including civil servants, teachers, intellectuals, and artists. No fewer than 68,000 Buddhist monks out of a total of 70,000 were executed. Fifty percent of urban Chinese were murdered.

Kiernan argues for a total death toll between April 1975 and January 1979, when the Vietnamese invasion put an end to the regime, of 1.67 million out of 7.89 million, or 21 percent of the entire population. This is proportionally the greatest mass killing ever inflicted by a government on its own population in modern times, probably in all history.

Chomsky was this regime’s most prestigious and most persistent Western apologist. Even as late as 1988, when they were forced to admit in their book Manufacturing Consent that Pol Pot had committed genocide against his own people, Chomsky and Herman still insisted they had been right to reject the journalists and authors who had initially reported the story. The evidence that became available after the Vietnamese invasion of 1979, they maintained, did not retrospectively justify the reports they had criticized in 1977.

They were still adamant that the United States, who they claimed started it all, bore the brunt of the blame. In short, Chomsky still refused to admit how wrong he had been over Cambodia.

http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

Chomsky is a hack and a fraud. Anybody in the Peanut Gallery can Google up 'Noam Chomsky's lies' and keep themselves busy for weeks. Not that it matters to his fans, since they all heartily endorse genocide and murder here on an almost daily basis.

Yes, well, she also thinks Chomsky has credibility and Democracy Now! isn't an agenda driven shill outfit who doesn't take money from wealthy special interest groups and skew her 'reporting' to reflect their interests, usually racially motivated.

I heard that Democracy Now -- led by that self-hating anti-semitic jew Amy Goodman -- is taking money from Civil Rights Lawyers! In other words, a bunch of racists!

[QUOTE][Chomsky is a hack and a fraud. Anybody in the Peanut Gallery can Google up 'Noam Chomsky's lies' and keep themselves busy for weeks./QUOTE]

FLOP has proved that any idiot in the Peanut Gallery can google up "Noam Chomsky's lies" and keep himself busy for years, not weeks.

Chomsky is Professor Emeritus at MIT; Farnsworth,Luther P. isn't, and never will be.

After years of daily 1 hour broadcasts, this unimportant slip up is all they could find to hold against him, so naturally they have to puff it up as 'completely destroying his credibility' and claiming it as some sort of major lie.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/OPINION01/712060341/-1/PREPSSPORTS

"On March 28, 2006, Dobbs said on his show, "And it's costing us, no one knows precisely how much, to incarcerate what is about a third of our prison population who are illegal aliens." As it turns out, the number of noncitizens incarcerated in the U.S. federal and state prisons is closer to 6 percent, not 33 percent.

On April 14, 2005, Lou Dobbs opened his show saying: "The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans. Highly contagious diseases are now crossing our borders decades after those diseases had been eradicated in this country."

(Blatant hate and fear mongering)

CNN correspondent Christine Romans filed a report, then told Dobbs, "There have been 7,000 [cases of leprosy] in the past three years." CBS' "60 Minutes" later challenged the fact, pointing out that there had actually been 7,029 cases reported over 30 years. When Lesley Stahl confronted Dobbs on the statistic, he defended it, saying: "Well, I can tell you this. If we reported it, it's a fact."

Dobbs' reporter, Romans, said her source was "Dr. Madeleine Cosman, a respected medical lawyer and medical historian." Cosman, who died in March 2006, was a medical lawyer and staunch anti-immigrant activist. She was recorded saying publicly of Mexican men: "Recognize that most of these bastards molest girls under age 12, some as young as age 5, others aged 3, although, of course, some specialize in boys, some specialize in nuns, some are exceedingly versatile and rape little girls aged 11 and women up to age 79."

On May 23, 2006, Dobbs aired a report on a state visit by Mexican President Vicente Fox. His correspondent Casey Wian called it a "Mexican military incursion" and displayed a map of the U.S. with the seven Southwest states highlighted as "Aztlan," which, Wian reported, "some militant Latino activists ... claim rightfully belongs to Mexico." The graphic came from the Council of Conservative Citizens, which the Southern Poverty Law Center points out is the current incarnation of the old White Citizen Councils of the 1950s and 1960s. The SPLC has reported that several of Dobbs' guests and sources have had links to the CCC. Another guest, Glenn Spencer, head of the anti-immigrant group American Patrol, speaks on the white-supremacist circuit. While CNN's Wolf Blitzer had Spencer on, he told his audience that the SPLC had designated American Patrol as a hate group. When Dobbs had him on, he never identified the connection.

In our conversation with Dobbs, "Democracy Now!" co-host Juan Gonzalez raised the issue of history, of how immigrants have been scapegoated: the Irish in the 1860s, the Chinese in the 1880s, later, Southern Europeans. Dobbs rolled his eyes, saying, "Are you holding me responsible?" No, and Dobbs knows better. But he must be held responsible for not bringing a historical context to this crucial discussion of immigration reform."

This is the type "expert" that Dobbs gets his immigrant facts from. When taken to task on his sources, Dobbs stands behind them 100%.

pzdAmu_GffM

_ahEhcVW7oQ

Is CNN starting to rival Fox News...

YES IT IS AND i HOPE THAT THE POLITICALLY CORRECT LITTLE ASSWIPE DRONES THAT BLATHER ON ABOUT "FAUXNEWS" START CRITICIZING CNN AND, IN GENERAL, EATING THEIR OWN.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/459/capslocksoy1.jpg

By far the most obnoxious personality on TV news is Keith "I hate the truth" Olbermann. The guy has a one track mind and constantly goes on rants with "facts" he must know are simply educated opinions at best.

By far the most obnoxious personality on TV news is Keith "I hate the truth" Olbermann. The guy has a one track mind and constantly goes on rants with "facts" he must know are simply educated opinions at best.

Hmmm. Try and insert "Glenn Beck" instead of Olbermann here, and it's just as true. Well, excepting the part about the opinions being "educated".
;)

Hmmm. Try and insert "Glenn Beck" instead of Olbermann here, and it's just as true. Well, excepting the part about the opinions being "educated".
;)

Or it is true, ditto for O'Reilly, contra just hates Olbermann because he's one of the few true journalists out there who has the balls to tell the truth about the fascists.

I challenge contra to find one thing Olbermann has lied about, he must drive the neo-cons absolutely nuts..

By far the most obnoxious personality on TV news is Keith "I hate the truth" Olbermann. The guy has a one track mind and constantly goes on rants with "facts" he must know are simply educated opinions at best.

..and substitute Lou "I hate immigrants" Dobbs and it applies even more closely.

If I wanted to be a cable news guy, I'd have to choose one side of the debate and stick to it. If I wanted to be a cable news guy with a prime time slot, I'd have to pick one side of the debate and have a friggin' cow over it.

It's entertainment, and each entertainer chooses his stance as he applies for the position. I remember this guy from his MSNBC days

http://www.foxnews.com/images/1324/15_61_gibson_john_320.jpg

Clever and amiable, and definitely a centrist as far as his political leanings. He left MSNBC in the 90s, and the next time I saw him he was a firebreathing nutcase rightwinger on FoxNEWS. Now he's one of the guys that is always tossing out the backbencher bombs that I never would've thought that the guy that I knew on MSNBC would've put up with, let alone generated himself.

I think that if you want a paycheck in the cable news industry, you have to become a cartoon character and crank it up. It's like WWF wrestling now. No one is being themselves on that circuit. I sure as hell don't buy into any of it. No one is really that stupid or mono-channeled unless they're getting paid big money to be.

NOREASTER: It's like WWF wrestling now. No one is being themselves on that circuit

..and for further political analysis we go to our White House correspondent, Hulk Hogan...