Fox News gets 'Outfoxed' --- show's anchor gets pwned by Vanity Fair Woman

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Wow. This editor from Vanity Fair is amazing. The Fox News anchor is just regurgitating some white house rhetoric about the inauguration, and the host from Vanity Fair totally pwns her.

Fox News - 'Fair & Balanced', my ass

http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/1695

Enjoy! :D

(Haven't been able to check the political boards in awhile at work since CheapyD needs to block my company's server since it messes with CAG's server, so don't know if it's been posted although I did a search and found nothing.)
 
She's amazing? for being a parrot herself?

Yeah, she's amazing for countering the right rhetoric with the laundry list of standard dem talking points:

-wartime lavishness
-humvee armor shortage
-soldiers are sitting ducks
-democracy not working in iraq (elections haven't even happened yet)
- the worse the war gets, the more lavish the inagural

Talk about regurgitation. They don't even seem to know how the inagural events are paid for. That's why the following article is a much more interesting read:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10667866.htm?1c

Enjoy some actual facts instead of 2 ditzy women talking about something which they are to ill informed to comment upon.
 
Yes, she's amazing. This is someone from ... VANITY FAIR ... (not a senator, politican, etc.) calling the republicans AND Fox News on their hypocrisy, watching the host try to stick up for their homeboy, and then getting their ass kicked until they had to finally cut her off for making Faux News look like a bunch of right-wing fanboys. Reminds me of Jon Stewart on Crossfire awhile back.
 
As far as the failing of Iraq, I think colin powell would agree with her. Though oliver willis's site reminds me of frontpagemag, except liberal. Interesting response from one of the users:

I just saw the History Channel's fine documentary on the French Revolution. I'm thinking there's a few heads in this administration I'd really like to see on the end of a stick... being paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue, after the storming of the capital...
Click to expand...

Looks like someone wants a visit from big brother.......
 
I really would have expected someone from Vanity Fair to have better hair. Anyway, she's quite right. Its a completely inappropriate time for a massive party for the benefit of a few rich donators to the Republican party. The entire afair is in very bad taste.
 
It's not as inappropriate as making a specticle of a democrat's funeral. Democrats really aren't a good judge of what is and isn't appropriate.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's not as inappropriate as making a specticle of a democrat's funeral. Democrats really aren't a good judge of what is and isn't appropriate.[/quote]

don't really want to sign up for their newspaper, mind a copy and paste job?

Also while it was mainly funded by outsiders, I do agree with her. The Inaguration is in bad taste. Basically for as much as the Republicans have spoke up the war on terror, they never seem to act like we are in a war, unless it benefits them politically.

When you claim to be a war time president, you should act like it IMO.
 
Exactly what does one have to do to 'act' like we're at war. What are the general rules here ?

Personally, I don't think there are any, and if there were, it would be something akin to: Anything Bush isn't doing.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Exactly what does one have to do to 'act' like we're at war. What are the general rules here ?

Personally, I don't think there are any, and if there were, it would be something akin to: Anything Bush isn't doing.[/quote]

I just do not think you should throw as lavish of an inaguration as he did. I do not mind him having a party but was a huge expense, and it is not like he was not already president. Getting inagurated for the second time and throwing a big bash is pretty lame IMO and mostly only done to insure you are on the front page of the paper.

Why not have a more toned down inaguration that would help strengthen your image among the people who dislike you, and make those that do think you are an even better leader for doing something such as that? I also doubt the party needed to last more than one day and a whole bunch of artists Bush has probably never even heard of needed to perform.

I wonder if they are now going to put a delay on the mic's of live performers at the July 4th bash, after what happened the other night?
 
Torn between good and evil, bmulligan takes another swing at it. "This one's a gimmie," he said as he paused during his backswing. But alas, he could not follow through. Something was stuck, gears snarled, cogs concocted, grease drowning out his pleas for truth, justice, and the american way. He didn't have the strength to continue. He collapsed right there, the ball never leaving the tee. "Owch," he mumbled, crawling back to conciousness, "I never realized being consistant was so difficult."

"But it isn't difficult," said Satan standing behind him, "you just have to make sure you're aiming in the right direction." The Devil grabbed him from behind, kicked open his legs, and forced a swing like no other he's ever experienced. "See? It's easy, you just have to do it my way and you'll shave stroke after stroke."

"Thanks," mulligan peeped through trembling lips, almost afraid to speak. "I thought I was going to die," he muttered.

"Silly boy,"exclaimed the horned horror," You can't die.......You're already dead !!!"
 
The Narrator's Apprentice said:
Torn between good and evil, bmulligan takes another swing at it. "This one's a gimmie," he said as he paused during his backswing. But alas, he could not follow through. Something was stuck, gears snarled, cogs concocted, grease drowning out his pleas for truth, justice, and the american way. He didn't have the strength to continue. He collapsed right there, the ball never leaving the tee. "Owch," he mumbled, crawling back to conciousness, "I never realized being consistant was so difficult."

"But it isn't difficult," said Satan standing behind him, "you just have to make sure you're aiming in the right direction." The Devil grabbed him from behind, kicked open his legs, and forced a swing like no other he's ever experienced. "See? It's easy, you just have to do it my way and you'll shave stroke after stroke."

"Thanks," mulligan peeped through trembling lips, almost afraid to speak. "I thought I was going to die," he muttered.

"Silly boy,"exclaimed the horned horror," You can't die.......You're already dead !!!"
Click to expand...

:shock: :rofl:
 
What's fascinating is that the anchor is completely taken aback by what Bachrach (any relation to Burt?) was saying.

Typically, anchors go with the flow, and try to string people along in conversation. Occasionally, some comments might make an anchor blush (The Newlywed Game's "in the butt, Bob" comment comes to mind). For the most part, anchors, while having conventions of interviews, are impartial.

This came across as a woman who was blown away that someone was going to criticize the inaugural. I don't care for what Bachrach said; some of the points are good (we need to provide better vehicle armor), while it doesn't matter (since most of the party was privately subsidized, it's not as if money is really being diverted from armor to pay for this; the tax burden on Washington DC is another story, however).

The actions of the host are staggering and unprofessional. There's a reason that Tim Russert is perhaps the only news anchor that I respect. He asks tough questions and provides excellent follow ups. However, I have no idea what his personal political views are. I'm afraid that the same cannot be said for this Fox anchor. Not at all.

myke.
 
The point is that there shouldn't be any criticism. It is a stupid party that every president does and is completely unimportant.

The libs show their ignorance and irrational hatred of Bush by trying to attack anything and everything about his presidency including this dumb party.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']The point is that there shouldn't be any criticism. It is a stupid party that every president does and is completely unimportant.

The libs show their ignorance and irrational hatred of Bush by trying to attack anything and everything about his presidency including this dumb party.[/quote]

It's the most expensive inauguration to date. DC is being stuck with a $10-20 million bill for safety (normally the party pays for it). Also we're at war. Of course there's reason to call this extravagance tacky.

It should have been scaled back. Bush could have asked the donors to give half of the money to the USO or Tsunami relief and he would have looked like a hero (or at least a President to admire). Instead he looks more like an Emperor.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Scrubking']The point is that there shouldn't be any criticism. It is a stupid party that every president does and is completely unimportant.

The libs show their ignorance and irrational hatred of Bush by trying to attack anything and everything about his presidency including this dumb party.[/quote]

It's the most expensive inauguration to date. DC is being stuck with a $10-20 million bill for safety (normally the party pays for it). Also we're at war. Of course there's reason to call this extravagance tacky.

It should have been scaled back. Bush could have asked the donors to give half of the money to the USO or Tsunami relief and he would have looked like a hero (or at least a President to admire). Instead he looks more like an Emperor.[/quote]

Funny how you libs dis the war when it suits you, and now you use the war cause it helps you bash bush.

Stop being tools.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='Scrubking']The point is that there shouldn't be any criticism. It is a stupid party that every president does and is completely unimportant.

The libs show their ignorance and irrational hatred of Bush by trying to attack anything and everything about his presidency including this dumb party.[/quote]

It's the most expensive inauguration to date. DC is being stuck with a $10-20 million bill for safety (normally the party pays for it). Also we're at war. Of course there's reason to call this extravagance tacky.

It should have been scaled back. Bush could have asked the donors to give half of the money to the USO or Tsunami relief and he would have looked like a hero (or at least a President to admire). Instead he looks more like an Emperor.[/quote]

Funny how you libs dis the war when it suits you, and now you use the war cause it helps you bash bush.

Stop being tools.[/quote]

you cannot leave the war and if you are there, you should do your best to protect them instead of throwing a big bash. No one is saying he should not have an inaguration but Bush uses the war on terror only when his numbers start to drop (part of the reason that we went into Iraq, Karl Rove even admitted as much in a memo before the 2002 election). I guess this is the reason we will end up going into Iran in 2007 (after speaking it up for 9 months, starting in August of 2006)

Basically he could have started his term off and done something that would have united the country insteaad of trying to widen the divide. This was not a celebration of democracy, it was a celebration to show everyone he was the president and F-You to the rest of the world. Karl Rove really screwed up when he allowed this to go off

Both parties use the war on terror, but Bush could utilize the asset he is strongest on a lot more than he is
 
Man, you people are really dumb.

Every president has an inaguration. Get over it.

Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Man, you people are really dumb.

Every president has an inaguration. Get over it.

Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

I guess you do not get the fact that no one is saying he should not have had an inaguration (IT IS WRITTEN INTO THE FREAKIN CONSTITUTITION) rather the fact that the size was a little excessive.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Man, you people are really dumb.

Every president has an inaguration. Get over it.

Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

Other Presidents had the common decency to scale back inaugurations during war. Bush lacks even that.

No one said there should be no inauguration, just a smaller one.
 
Its not even a matter of scaling back: even just staying equal with his first inauguration would have at least sounded a lot more reasonable. Instead, he throws the most expensive bash ever (albeit not by a huge margin, though that doesn't cover the ~$15M security cost he dumped on DC instead of including it in the other expenses, which was previously the norm.)
 
[quote name='Drocket']Its not even a matter of scaling back: even just staying equal with his first inauguration would have at least sounded a lot more reasonable. Instead, he throws the most expensive bash ever (albeit not by a huge margin, though that doesn't cover the ~$15M security cost he dumped on DC instead of including it in the other expenses, which was previously the norm.)[/quote]

That's his nice FU to DC which overwhelmingly voted against him.
 
This party is rather outrageous. For the sakes of analogy, if I was a stockholder in a debt-ridden company that was involved in a hostile take-over, I would expect that their Christmas party would be a modest affair. Yet Dubya is doing what he does best, running another company into the ground and having a grand ole time doing it.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

:baby: Sounds like someone's cranky because they ran out of excuses.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

:baby: Sounds like someone's cranky because they ran out of excuses.[/quote]

Agreed. I totally feel left out of the game, now, and I thought I made some pretty fucking valid arguments about that particular Fox News anchor. Instead of discussing the anomaly that is an anchor essentially saying "wha-wha-what!?!?! You're saying something I disagree with!?!?!," we're back at "stop bashing Bush, doo-doo head."

Thanks for the generalized "you're dumb" retort. It's like being in the room with Sean fucking Hannity himself.

myke.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

:baby: Sounds like someone's cranky because they ran out of excuses.[/quote]

That's funny cause I'm not the stupid idiot who is bitching and moaing over every insignificat thing the president does. :roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

:baby: Sounds like someone's cranky because they ran out of excuses.[/quote]

That's funny cause I'm not the stupid idiot who is bitching and moaing over every insignificat thing the president does. :roll:[/quote]

Well, you're certainly the one who bitches and moans about EVERYTHING else.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

:baby: Sounds like someone's cranky because they ran out of excuses.[/quote]

That's funny cause I'm not the stupid idiot who is bitching and moaing over every insignificat thing the president does. :roll:[/quote]

Well, you're certainly the one who bitches and moans about EVERYTHING else.[/quote]

Couldn't you come up with anything better than that? Surely you didn't miss the countless liberal bitching topics while making your way here? You know the ones that greatly outnumber any conservative topics. :roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']That's funny cause I'm not the stupid idiot who is bitching and moaing over every insignificat thing the president does. :roll:[/quote]
Because dumping an unexpected $15M+ debt on our Washington DC's security force, thereby causing budget problems that will interfer with the city's ability to protect our nation's capital and some of our most important historical monuments, simply because Dubya wanted some more balloons qualifies as 'insignificant' :roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

:baby: Sounds like someone's cranky because they ran out of excuses.[/quote]

That's funny cause I'm not the stupid idiot who is bitching and moaing over every insignificat thing the president does. :roll:[/quote]

I see, so you think that justifying a war using false pretenses, rewriting the constitution using biblical law, and rewarding Our Leader with a lavish 40 million dollar party in the middle of a divisive and poorly-supplied war are "insignificant things". If it matters that little to you, why are you posting?
 
I see, so you think that justifying a war using false pretenses, rewriting the constitution using biblical law, and rewarding Our Leader with a lavish 40 million dollar party in the middle of a divisive and poorly-supplied war are "insignificant things".
Click to expand...
:rofl: :rofl:

You forgot to mention the raping and the pillaging!!
:rofl:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']

Stop attacking Bush for every single thing he does. It's old already.[/quote]

Nah we just attack Bush on the stupid crap he does. I know a fine line between that and "every single thing"

:D
 
Usick finally made the leap to manhood. But after the mitzpah he still didn't feel like a man. He needed to prove something, either to himself or the rest of the world, he wasn't quite sure yet. All he really knew was that he had to do something big to make his father proud.

His chance arrived later than he'd hoped so he wasn't going to let it pass him this time. The bandwagon was in town again and Usick knew this might be his last chance at fame. He lept from his balcony and landed in the sturdy, waiting arms of a stagehand. Some might call her a roadie or groupie, she said she was just 'with the band.' He didn't care, he was on a quest for grail, with a handsome girl named "Cam" to accompany him. Along the way she taught him how to play many differnt instruments, and how to beat a drum. And then came that 'special' night when the full moon lit the thick night air and the moistness looked like cotton candy.

Usik will always remember that night as his true stepping off point. Somehow he knew it was meant to happen that way and he can still hear his father saying 'it takes a man to make a man,' echoing in the moonlight.
 
Bottom line scrub you know we all bitch because he's flushing our country down the toilet. I partially thank Bush that the $ is worth shit right now. I look at the tax cut he gave to the rich when we "are at war".
Oh btw sorry but Bush ISN'T a "Wartime" President. He can stamp that label on himself to try to keep his popularity up and fan away the critisizm since it's "wartime" and his actions can be rationalized more because it's "wartime" but I don't buy it. I know that label was put on Bush to keep his popularity up and I'm not smoking that shit. The "skirmish' in Iraq is over technically. The majority of fighting rather and now we're occupying it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
8 posts or not, you're my favorite poster here.

myke.[/quote]


Why, because of his vapid attacks that sound like a wannabe Steven King masturbating to himeself in the mirror? Or the constant homoerotic undertone that's about as sophisticated as those bullies in middle school who taunted other kids by calling them gay.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='mykevermin']
8 posts or not, you're my favorite poster here.

myke.[/quote]


Why, because of his vapid attacks that sound like a wannabe Steven King masturbating to himeself in the mirror? Or the constant homoerotic undertone that's about as sophisticated as those bullies in middle school who taunted other kids by calling them gay.[/quote]

The Stephen King comment was redundant; all SK books are as you just described.

Well, I satisfy myself by thinking that there is latent homoerotic tendencies in any person who has such homophobic thoughts come to mind. Those least bothered by it are those most comfortable with people doing whomever they choose.

myke.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='mykevermin']
8 posts or not, you're my favorite poster here.

myke.[/quote]


Why, because of his vapid attacks that sound like a wannabe Steven King masturbating to himeself in the mirror? Or the constant homoerotic undertone that's about as sophisticated as those bullies in middle school who taunted other kids by calling them gay.[/quote]

The Stephen King comment was redundant; all SK books are as you just described.

Well, I satisfy myself by thinking that there is latent homoerotic tendencies in any person who has such homophobic thoughts come to mind. Those least bothered by it are those most comfortable with people doing whomever they choose.

myke.[/quote]

Good point, I think some of the more vehement conservative bashers of gay rights are overreacting to some latent feelings within. Yet I also believe that many are basing their morality on a few selective passages of the bible (similarly to how in the old south when they justified slavery by using selective quotations from the bible. I don't think any of those bigots secretly wanted to be slaves...)

You've got to admit that there are alot of people in American society that think it's funny to insult others by calling them gay or fag. Strip away all the fancy words, and that's all NA is doing.
 
[quote name='camoor']You've got to admit that there are alot of people in American society that think it's funny to insult others by calling them gay or fag. Strip away all the fancy words, and that's all NA is doing.[/quote]

There are a lot of people in a lot of societys that do that; I won't point the finger at Americans for exclusively hating homosexuals. I also think it's becoming more and more taboo to do so.

I think it took a long time after the civil rights act to change American discourse towards blacks; Archie Bunker may have gotten away with what he did in the late 70's, but not today he wouldn't. Similarly, I think that homosexuals, to a small degree, are alright to mock and use vulgar terms for, but, eventually, the discourse will get beyond that (for the most part; I don't want to come across like a fool who thinks nobody uses racist/sexist epithets anymore).

I have not read this book myself, and I'm debating on whether or not I want to: It's called "God's Politics," by Jim Wallis. Wallis is an evangelical preacher (quick note: evangelicals are the kind of christians who keep score by converting non-christians to christianity, so they're particularly annoying regardless), who argues that right-wingers don't have a majority stock in christian faith. His big one-liner is that "if Jesus was president, his priorities would not be in tax-cuts for the wealthy, capital gains tax cuts, and invading Iraq." I think his simple argument is that the left tends to want to protect and assist the poor much more than the right does, and that the left needs to reclaim its own faith (which, in his mind, it already has, but ignores). By reclaiming it, it may become easier to find the "average american" having a place in the democrat party.

I think it looks interesting, but (1) I never trust an evangelical, (2) I don't really dig the "christianity is the default faith" mentality in America, and (3) I don't need to read this book to get the argument; I've always thought that Jesus would not be a capitalist (which, if you consider the Catholic church's Vaitcan I council, they consciously made the decision, as a church, to cease professing its disdain for capitalism).

myke.
 
[quote name='Pot'][quote name='Kettle'][quote name='Pot']The point is that there shouldn't be any criticism. It is a stupid party that every president does and is completely unimportant.

The libs show their ignorance and irrational hatred of Bush by trying to attack anything and everything about his presidency including this dumb party.[/quote]

It's the most expensive inauguration to date. DC is being stuck with a $10-20 million bill for safety (normally the party pays for it). Also we're at war. Of course there's reason to call this extravagance tacky.

It should have been scaled back. Bush could have asked the donors to give half of the money to the USO or Tsunami relief and he would have looked like a hero (or at least a President to admire). Instead he looks more like an Emperor.[/quote]

Funny how you libs dis the war when it suits you, and now you use the war cause it helps you bash bush.

Stop being tools.[/quote]
 
[quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='camoor']You've got to admit that there are alot of people in American society that think it's funny to insult others by calling them gay or fag. Strip away all the fancy words, and that's all NA is doing.[/quote]

There are a lot of people in a lot of societys that do that; I won't point the finger at Americans for exclusively hating homosexuals. I also think it's becoming more and more taboo to do so.[/quote]

You guys' political correctness is showing, and you're also showing how dumb it is. Calling something or someone "gay" doesn't mean you hate gays any more than calling someone "retarded" means you hate people who are retarded.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='camoor']You've got to admit that there are alot of people in American society that think it's funny to insult others by calling them gay or fag. Strip away all the fancy words, and that's all NA is doing.[/quote]

There are a lot of people in a lot of societys that do that; I won't point the finger at Americans for exclusively hating homosexuals. I also think it's becoming more and more taboo to do so.[/quote]

You guys' political correctness is showing, and you're also showing how dumb it is. Calling something or someone "gay" doesn't mean you hate gays any more than calling someone "retarded" means you hate people who are retarded.[/quote]

Thanks! I'm more than happy to show my political correctness. To me, the implied usage of "gay" or "retarded" is that such things are worthless, inappropriate, and terrible. Seeing as how I don't find that to be the case, I find the usage to be detestable.

((As an aside, calling something "gay" also requires zero creativity. I expect more out of people.))

My understanding of political correctness is that as we, as a society, develop, we understand (mostly through hindsight) that our behavior is not always laudable. Political correctness exists so you don't call black people "the n-word to be replaced on CAG by 'night-traps'" anymore.

Never forget that.

myke.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='camoor']You've got to admit that there are alot of people in American society that think it's funny to insult others by calling them gay or fag. Strip away all the fancy words, and that's all NA is doing.[/quote]

There are a lot of people in a lot of societys that do that; I won't point the finger at Americans for exclusively hating homosexuals. I also think it's becoming more and more taboo to do so.[/quote]

You guys' political correctness is showing, and you're also showing how dumb it is. Calling something or someone "gay" doesn't mean you hate gays any more than calling someone "retarded" means you hate people who are retarded.[/quote]

Of course, it's all in the phrasing. I'm talking about the "that last ref call was gay" usage.

Alternatively, if you're talking about someone's last name, or the fact that they are happy, go for it.

At this point though, it's semantics. You're missing the forest for the trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top