Fair and balanced
Fair and balanced FAIL
(Griff Jenkins with Protesters at the Democratic National Convention)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: andyivey1138
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous ELECTION.. | What do you mean I don’t ‘look 16?’ Next »
» 125 comments
-
Recent Comments
Anderson on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked mothergoose on And then the nasty ol… shortright; founding… on And then the nasty ol… methree on GOD HATES FAGS methree on Mr. Yang Was Just Asked methree on And then the nasty ol… methree on And then the nasty ol… fish eye no miko on And then the nasty ol… fish eye no miko on And then the nasty ol… jow cool on GOD HATES FAGS 
Cheezburger Network Blog
First!
Subtlety FAIL
At least he admits his failure.
first
…failed subtlety FAIL.
I win
Protesters FAIL.
Leftists don’t like free speech.
You’re kidding, right?
Fairness doctrine.
Awareness: FAIL! No lefties are talking fairness doctrine, only the righties.
You’re kidding, right?
Awareness FAIL FAIL.
It’s liberals who are trying to pass the fairness doctrine to force equal time onto the right wing radio talk shows. However they fail to address the possibility or fairness of equal time on left wing TV networks, which is fine with me. I say free speech for all, don’t force anyone to say what they don’t want to say. It’s _their_ network, talk show, etc.
Documentation, please. So far it’s only the righties running scared. “Oh no, Air America wants our airtime!” As a listener to Air America, I can tell you none of their hosts and none of the Democratic politicians I’ve ever heard of have one good thing to say about the Fairness Doctrine. Druggie Limbaugh et al sure seem scared that someone might pass it though!
I was trying to figure out who listens to Air America. So you’re the guy!
“Air America wants our airtime”? That’s about the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while. No one who plays Rush et al would be willing to blow off their advertizers to put that garbage on. And it’s *only* liberals supporting it. Maybe Air America’s folks don’t because they know what a bad precident it is and how it could turn on them. But I wouldn’t know if that’s true or not ’cause I have better things to do with my time than listen to AA – like watching paint dry.
Pelosi supports the “fairness doctrine”.
I’m pretty sure the topic will be brought back up if a democrat gets in the white house. It’ll be the talk of the town then.
Leftists don’t like free speech.
The whole point of violent protesters like those at the RNC is to shut down the meetings of people who disagree with them.
I laughed aloud. I believe the point of protesting at the RNC is to ensure that the protesters’ voices are heard, and that the RNC should be advised that the protesters hold the RNC’s views to be abhorrent.
They are in fact “intolerant” of the RNC’s views. I get it.
Are you intolerant of their supposed intolerance?
Just pointing out hypocrisy (sp?) when I see it. Ok with you? I’m not in anyone’s face about it.
What hypocrisy? The RNC expresses their view, the demonstrators express theirs. Nobody’s rights were abridged. The problem comes about when the RNC thinks they have a right to silence dissent, or to pack it off into “free speech zones.” If they’d bother reading that “goddamn piece of paper”, they would know that the entire country is a free speech zone.
You are kidding…that’s a good one. I mean, the whole “protesters blocking the streets things weren’t REALLY intended to disrupt others right to freely assmble. No, of course not!
Shouting down, ganging up on others isn’t in ANY way intended to intimidated the speaker…no, this is as the left would call it, a “civil” discussion.
Yes, it’s the RIGHT of the loudest, most OBNOXIOUS to speak freely, of course. If you don’t rise to that level, well sorry, you’re just out of luck.
It’s one thing to be critical of another’s opinion…but quite another to try to even disallow someone to freely express themselves. It’s a distinction you apparently don’t understand.
Well said!
There is a right to protest, but that doesn’t include the right to silence others.
They think their free speech is more important than others free speech obviously.
yes but its very simply see,
if lets say someone doesnt want to listen to you,
then maybe being obnoxious forces them to listen to you.
Nothing add but ZING!
“You are kidding…that’s a good one. I mean, the whole “protesters blocking the streets things weren’t REALLY intended to disrupt others right to freely assmble. No, of course not!”
Your argument is illogical. Them NOT being allowed to fill the streets would disrupt their right to freely assemble.
I am intolerant of the intolerance of people who being intolerant to people who are intolerant.
That’s intolerable!!
I just absolutely can’t stand intolerant people
Damn you and your clever ways and swanky hat!!!
I’m intolerant of most everything except the cold and human stupidity.
The latter is so abundant I couldn’t help but learn to get over it.
(that’s not a reference to anyone, so please, nobody throw a hissyfit)
…and the Dutch.
It’s called free speech. You are free to speak about whatever you’d like, and I’m free to speak by saying that you’re full of shiite.
Simple, really.
No.
The violent demonstrators aren’t about speaking their own minds.
They’re all about shutting up the people they don’t like.
That’s why they’re violent.
They’re about being heard over the din. I don’t agree with violent protests, but those are by far in the minority. 99% of protesters just want their voices out there.
That’s what they’re there to say?
Seems clear to me.
Who was intolerant? The protesters who wanted their voices heard, or the
RNC for arresting many of them before the convention claiming a bunch
of hippies were terrorists?
If you are denying others the right to free public assembly, you might as well be a terrorist. It’s like taking a news network off the air when they don’t agree with your opinion – different right, same purpose. Well, maybe terrorist is too harsh a word – more like, Traitor.
I’m gonna go ahead and say that the protesters were intolerant, because when they arrested the hippies they found a bunch of Molotov cocktails, bags of urine, and chemical solvents. That’s not free speech. It’s terrorism, and they absolutely deserved to be arrested for such a thing.
Docvumentation, please? (Frankly, this is small potatoes compared to the guns and drugs they found on those tweakers in Denver.)
He is. SRSLY, every word he says is for the lulz, fyi.
Are they talking about the reporter or the violent liberal protetors ?
We do like free speech. When you give your opinion, that is free speech. When I point out that you are an idiot for having such a stupid opinion, that ALSO is free speech. Get it?
Well, one is a statement of opinion about a situation or condition, while the other is a direst attack on the person. While both are considered free speech, one is a debate fail (or properly “argumentum ad hominem”).
For example, if I say that I oppose McCain’s desire to overturn Roe V. Wade on the grounds of public safety, I am expressing my opinion on a subject. When Evil Pundit oh-so-wittily calls me a Libtard, he is attacking ad hominem.
It’s OK, Mavrik McCain was for Roe vs Wade before he was against it.
He was never for it; he was only pandering for votes.
…
I thought it was the other way ’round
Nope, it’s leftist protesters who want to shut down FOX because they don’t like what it says.
Why would they want it shut down? Fox news makes conservatives look ignorant, intolerant, and chock full of fearmongering.
More of America listens to Fox news because 70% of them believe all the other news sources are biased.
I’m amused that these people think that out of all the news sources out there, fox news is the least biased.
You can be as amused as you like. It’s the truth all the same.
Which explains why so many Fox viewers *still* think we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that Saddam had a 9/11 connection.
The average education level of Fox news viewers is pretty damn poor. No wonder they have to reiterate their talking points using simple words in big font. They covered the RNC speeches like they were talking to idiots.
They did find yellow cake uranium.
No no no. That was a twinkies factory. It’s confusing because they have about the same half-life.
Point!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Fix news that refered to bumping fists as a “Terrorist fist jab”?
And FoxNews is fair and balanced because they say it is? Ha!
NPR & PBS are both painfully fair and balanced, being polite to the Republicans that try to hack away their funding.
Fair and balanced is very hard to find. I’m not familiar enough with NPR and PBS to comment on those, but ABC (publicly funded Australian radio and TV networks) are legally obliged to be neither left nor right.
Well they used to say CNN stood for Clinton News Network..
Oh no, they -still- call it that. I mean, it is chock full of bleeding eart Clintonistas like Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck who shamelessly pander to the left-wing agenda…
No, wait–
Sorry herb, that monkey’s free and there ain’t no putting it back! hehe
NPR fair and balanced????
WTF????
LOLOLLOOLOLOLOL
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Oh, was that out loud? PBS is only slightly more balanced the NPR…. occasionally
And btw, all you ppl talking about free speech do realize that the ammendment only guarentees that the gov’t cant infringe on your right to free speech and not individuals or groups, right?
Yeah, every time Liberals watch FOX news they remember why they became Liberals in the first place; because they hate America.
Sense. Your post made none.
I’m not sure whether to explain this to you or leave you hanging. I think I’m going to stick with the latter, for the moment. It’s more amusing.
Oh, keep on thinking that. I moved on hours ago.
I can explain it.
Either you were being sarcastic or stupid. (Take your pick)
*claps*
It’s a sad reflection on the state of affairs when that sort of statement is taken as a straightforward opinion rather than sarcasm.
Well sarcasm is usually picked up by tone of voice, and therefore is difficult to convey through forums.
That statement is an absolute paradox.
Tell that to O’Reilly.
If O’Reilly is your source of reason, than all this detritus and drivel makes perfect sense. You have my condolences.
Hawt falafel in the shower.
There are lots of things I’d like to tell O’Reilly.
Yeah, says the guy supporting the party who’ve thrown their toys out the pram in a politically correct huff over a common saying.
When Obama calls a woman a pig, you know he’s desperate and flailing.
The only desperation and flailing I see around here is from you.
oooooooooooooooooooo-
No that wasn’t a good come back.
oooooooooooooooooooo-
Yes it was!
Your mom.
Go ahead! Call him a “Poopyhead”! You know you want to!
For the record, most Republican’s are embarrassed about that accusation, so you might want to change your schtick on this one.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=putting+lipstick+on+a+pig
Knowledge of English sayings FAIL.
I’m always so impressed by your ability to stay on topic.
I’m pretty sure he was calling Palin the lipstick. McCain is the pig.
Actually, I’m pretty sure that he didn’t call either one of them a pig OR lipstick, but that’s not nearly as funny.
Hey, don’t look now, the GOP is crying because somebody didn’t call their tough choice for VP a pig.
Ok, here you go, in small words.
Obama was not talking about palin when he made the lipstick on a pig comment. (The same saying that McCain’s has used on several occasions)
Obama was talking about McCain’s policies.
If you want to call Obama sexist for making that comment, then McCain must be many times as sexist, as he has used that comment far more times, reffering to Hillary.
Double entendre: he haz it!
Have you noticed that Obama did what any troll would do? The original lipstick reference was funny and became famous, and he just jumped the chance. Amazing how you can NOT see it.
Putting lipstick on a pig didn’t originate with McCain, Palin, or Obama. It is a very old, folktimey type saying. Like, “long way ’round red robin’s barn” or “six of one, half dozen of another” or “more [insert word] than you can shake a stick at”. Politicians love to use these phrases because it makes them more identifiable to the general pubic. This is probably why McCain used it (many times in fact, once even about Hillary Clinton so take your sexism accusations and shove them) because it makes him seem less like a guy who married a millionaire and more like someone people could “have a beer with” since that seems to be how people vote these days.
Thank you for pretty much covering what I was going to say. I do have one question though. Long way ’round red robin’s barn? What does that even mean?
omg,
are righties so desperate you have to take every comment out of context,
right after he said the pig comment,
he said he was refering to the system Mccain wants to put in place.
god dam,
watch the entire clip,
not just whatver fox news shows u,
god dam.
Learn. To. Spell.
“When Obama calls a woman a pig, you know he’s desperate and flailing.”
Sooo… are you just willfully ignorant or do actually not have any idea what you’re talking about?
Obama, Sept. 9: John McCain says he’s about change too. And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush — except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in Washington. That’s not change. That’s just calling some, the same thing something different. You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
Funny… I don’t see the words “Palin”, “Woman”, or “Pit Bull” anywhere in that statement.
F. T. W.
yay for transcripts. and a basic understanding of cliché colloquial sayings.
speak man speak.
And all he wanted to do was get their side of the story. All they’d say to him was “Fox News Sucks”…
And they believe in the Press???
To be fair, though, they can’t tell the difference between saying ‘this sucks’ and laying out a decent argument anyway.
Not true. Some are quite eloquent in laying out their opposition to the shamefully apparent biases of the FoxNews Network, but these are not the people that the station will show footage of.
Hell, there was that whole incident where a staff writer for (I believe) the Washington Post criticized FoxNews in an editorial. When the morning show “Fox & Friends” ran the story, they digitally altered the press photo to make him significantly uglier and goofier-looking. That takes class.
Yes, but when ‘they’ i.e. #FOX news# hear an opponent talk, all they hear is blah blah blah’ regardless of what is actually being said…
Fox news trivializes and insults people who disagree with them instead of talking about the issues. It’s an entertainment channel, not real news.
Shame it’s not very funny.
Clark Kent gets knocked the f**k out in 3…2…1…
I like this caption better. =3
Second.
When did the conservatives become such a bunch of wusses?
When did Republican demonstrators ever get violent at a Democratic convention ? Or yell “CNN sucks”?
They weren’t at the convention proper. The were elsewhere on the streets of Denver, bullhorning how Democrats are all hellbound sinners and holding giant posters of miscarriages masquerading as abortions.
Or gather together some buddies, meth, and rifles and plan to off the Democratic contender… wait…
They were too busy putting on their white hoods and lighting up crosses.
BREAKING NEWS:
-
Two creatures previously believed to belong only in fairy tales have today been proven to exist: Trolls and Virgins.
-
Film at 11
Since when did CNN have a liberal bias on the level of Fox’s conservative bias?
I think it was a year or two back that I saw a study done on bias in the media. THe 3 major news outlets were right at 90% democrat in their news departments. Fox News was just over 70% democrat. I guess that are conservative…in comparison. I will try to find a link for that study.
You won’t find that link because your information is way off base. It’s “common knowledge” that the media has a liberal bias. Everyone knows it, everyone states that as fact. But it’s not. Oh look, I don’t have to promise to post my non-existant link later:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story
Yeah thats it, link to a “study” from one of the most liberally biased media sources there is.
Just search around the net, there have been plenty of studies on it and all show a large liberal bias from the main news sources. Yes fox is biased the other way but not as much as the other are biased to the left.
Or, here’s an idea, pick up any newspaper or watch your favorite news program for a while and do your own study. Yes I’ve done it. Yes the ones I watched were heavily to the liberal side. They were cnn, cbs, abc, and nbc.
when were there any other conservative protests other than this one?
Defending my rights with my lefts.
It has a double meaning! Nice, even if unintentional!
seconded!
Yet again, Yanks don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between “some people who can be described as liberal/conservative on certain significant issues” and “anyone, anywhere, ever who belongs to a huge, painfully ill-defined chunk of the political spectrum”.
For a people who invented modern democracy, you REALLY aren’t very good at it.