Stupid? Or Evil? (Fox Proves The Only Way to Fight Terrorism Is To Switch Off Fox)

10 comments on “Stupid? Or Evil? (Fox Proves The Only Way to Fight Terrorism Is To Switch Off Fox)”

1. I’m thinking about the “Old” Conservative Right that Morphed into the current generation. Help me out here, all I can come up with is Joe Pyne. I don’t think you can blame Paul Harvey,Ronald Reagan,Barry Goldwater,Ayn Rand,or WFB Jr. for the current mess. The Irony is,I loved Joe Pyne. I guess Nixon would be an inspiration for the Foxians,he was a really nasty guy.

   Reply

2. @ Rex Caruthers:
   Not sure what you’re looking for. It’s not as though either right or left has lacked for fools and demagogues over the years.

   I think there’s something to be said for the analysis that Obama’s reluctance or inability to seize the populist moment ceded the energy to the right in 2009. The right was poorly positioned to do anything but ride the wave, which has by now swamped whatever remnant intellectual pretensions it might have nurtured. The best lack all conviction… and so on.

   Reply

3. @ Rex Caruthers:
   Allen Berg comes to mind along with Pyne

   Reply

4. So when MSNBC repeats the Wahhabist propaganda of the Levick Gorp,
   about Gitmo. when it pretends that terrorism is not a real issue, even though their headquarters at Viacom very nearly became a crime scene, when the had a nice laugh about “Mesopotamia” even the best of the Ilkwan fighters ran aground there, when they stoked paranoia with their insinuations about NSA surveilance, and they have been luke warm to say the least about the war, they claimed to support in Afghanistan. Really Fox is the problem.

   Many have complained that Fox has not been sufficiently critical of
   the ideological project that certain relatives of Prince Talal, like
   Azouzi (short for Abdulazziz jr, have engaged in, but as compared
   to Air America TV, and CNN, which is more like the BBC, stylistically

   Reply

5. miguel cervantes wrote:

   Really Fox is the problem.

   When you reply to an argument by bringing up anything else other than the subject of the argument, it tends to suggest you have no answer to the argument.

   Why don’t you just admit that Fox & Friends, the Bushies on hand, and everyone associated with the network were caught with their collective pants down and last week’s undies? C’mon. It’ll be good for your soul.

   Reply

6. They were naive about a great many things, they trusted that Imam Rauf was actually ‘bridge building’ when he was pouring napalm on an open flame. theY trusted that Alamoudi was really providing vise counsel to the Islamic chaplains in churches and even prisons

   Reply

7. @ miguel cervantes:
   When you reply to an argument by bringing up anything else other than the subject of the argument, it tends to suggest you have no answer to the argument.

   Why don’t you just admit that Fox & Friends, the Bushies on hand, and everyone associated with the network were caught with their collective pants down and last week’s undies? C’mon. It’ll be good for your soul.

   Reply

8. are Zombies still in possession of souls?

   Reply

9. @ fuster:
   Much more frightening to contemplate is the soul in possession of zombies.

   Reply

10. Well no, from dilgent watchings of Resident Evil, the Dead series, et al, it would seem they are just the atavistic id, not the anima that distinguishes us from the lower beasts.

    The Daily Show and Colbert, is the institutionalization of the hipster
    ethos of the 60s, that really came to light with SNL. It made willful
    ignorance of significant matters, in a leftwing pose cool. Obama could not have been elected without them, as Jason Mattera has pointed out

    Reply