Everything I said about the AP and mainstream media last night (and I stand by every wod--exept the tryupos) apllies to the unfair and unbalanced network.
Yep. As expected (by me), that network was promoting this morning its "first" interview with that new woman "ccuser" seeknig her f15 minutes of fame. What did I expect the unfair and unbalanced network to do? Not take advantage of the RATIGNS--even if this is an evil smear, rather than news"? Well , I EXPECTED them to do exactly what they are dokng. Hoever, if they expected any RESPECT from me, as "journalists", then they needed to act like "lournalists". As it is, the fact is that I respect NO ONE on the unfair and unbalancecdd network,. The network proves every day that I was correct--months ago now--to call for you to BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network.
There is only one difference in the EVIL of the unfair and unbalanced network, and that of the mainstream media: The unfair and unbalanced network will be just as unfair to LFTIST DEMOCRATS as they are to Republicans. In other words, if a woman comes out and accuses Barack Obbama of sexaul misconduct, the unfair and unbalanced network MIGHT (if they can overcome their fundamental cowardice and fear of being attacked as racists by the rest of the media) feature such accusation on their news casts. The maiinstream media--the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth--will ignore any such attack on Barack Obama (or any other leftist Democrats), or else aggressively DEFEND the Democrat (while ATTACKNG the "accuser") That is even what CNN TRIED to do with that sleazeball, Anthony Weiner. The mainstream media is actually RIGHT that the media should be very careful not to reporta back fence goossip. The problem, of course, is that they eagerly abandon that "princiiple" when they hae a chance to SMEAR a Republklican. The unfair and unbalanced network is willing and eager to SMEAR both sides. Nope. I do NOT accept the idea that they have to be "competitive". And the Nazis under Hitler 'had" to follow the orders they were given. That did not stop them from being convicted of "crimes against humanity". Did I just say thagt today's media, including the unfair and unbalanced network, are committing 'crimes aagainst humanity"? Well, not in the sense that the Nazis did. But yes, these peole are committing moral crimes against both journalism and humanity. They are evil peole, spreading evil--and I include the unfair and unbalanced network in that assessment.
What does it tell you that this new "accuser" is already makng the "rounds" of alll of the networks, giving interviews? Right. It tells you all you need to know about this person, and this SMEAR. This is obviiously an attempt to "get" Herman Cain---part of an orchestrated campaign to "get" Hrman Cain--and it has no redeeming social value. Nope. It is a self-serving LIE to suggest that the unfair and unbalanced network" can 'expose" this new "accuser" in an interview. Any such defense is MORE EVIL than the original crime, because it suggests a total lack of a clue as the nature of these attacks. The whle ponit her is the ATTACK. The credibility doe s not matter. It is the SOKE that is intended to matter, and not the fire. The "interview" of teh unfaair and unbalanced network can only feed the smoke, and the mainstream media (smarter than the unfair and unbalanced network in ADVOCACY) knows it. That is why the mainstream media does its best to INGNORE things, until it has to pay attention, and then ATTACK the "accuser" (of a Democrat). The unfair and unbalanced network is probaly smarter in getting VIEWERS, but as an advocacy network they are inept. They don't care. They aer WHORES. Nope. They are only "journalists" in their dreams. Again, I have no respect for these people. And I will continue to say so every day, because they make it obvious every single day that ththey deserve no repsect.
By the waay, see my articles--including the one last night--about how this SMEAR of Herman Cain involves the old stereotype that black men are out to "get" white women. Have you noticied how UNSUCCESSFUL Herman Cain appears to be. Th emedia is suggesting that HUNDREDS of women hae sufferend "bold sexual advances" from Herman Cain. yet, there is (as yet--they ae looking for w real whore willing to come forward on this) NO woman has actually said she had sex with Herman Cain. That does not say much about his sexual prowess, does it? At least Bill Clinton had all kinds of women coming forward to say--with PROOF--that they actually had sex with Bill Clinton. And Bill Clinton is W:HITE. This is actuallyu disturbing. As I have stated, it might be some comfort to me that my lack of sexual "endowment" and success is because I was not born black. However, if Bill Cointon is representative of WHITE men, then I don't even have that comfort. And if Herman Cain is representative of BLACK men, then they appear to be all t"talk" and no action
By the way, the mdiea (prestent ABC headline on AT&T/Yahoo) is insisting upon calling this new woman the "4th accuser" of Herman Cain. That is a LIE. This woman is the FIRST "accuser" of Herman Cain, and look at how LITTLE she is accusing him of!!!!!!! As stated in the previous paragraph, she is not even "accusing" Cain of being successful at having sex. What about the previous "3 accusers"? What about them? As far as I am concerned, they do not exist. They are ANONYMOUS--making attacks from the shadows abut UNSPECIFIED conduct. If we are going to allow a rPresidential candidate to be "taken down" by TAHT, then we deserve what we will get. What we will get is the destruction of the United States as a great country, and we are well on our way to achieving that. Our evil media is right at the forfront of trying to bring about that destruction. Is this smear campaign against Herman Cain REALLY more imiortant than the type of President he would actually make. The media seems to think so. yet, it is obvous that such ATTITUDE will DESTROY us in the end (whether Herman Cain is the answer to our need for a new knind of President or not).
Oh. ABC is saying taht Cain is going to "respond" to this new "accusation". I hope not, unless he is going to repsond with some ATTACK. For Cain to talk aobut the "details' ovf every new "bimbo" that the media drags up, or who decides she wants her moment of fame, will be ha huge mistake. Cain needs to TALK aoubt what the intends to do for this country, and to DISMISS the attacks upon him. TALKING aouut the "details" of those allegatins is ridiculous,. If Cain has definitive information to DISCREDIT this woman, fine. Otherwise, he needs to simply DISMISS her "charges" (of WHT, in terms of a non-rime allegely committed more than a decade ago)? Cain has to restrain his urge to TALK (about what the media wants to talk about), and to learn to DISMNISS these evil people for how they are (talking abut the media). Even that dismillsal needs to be QuCK, and then Cain needs to return to his "message" (AFTER the QUICK ATTACK on the smear campaign against him).
Som epossible Cain humor (feedig off of what I say above about his sexual prowess) "To listen to these people tryin gto smeear me, I am the most amazingly unsuccessful rake in the history of man. I evidently hit on every woman I see, and yet I am NEVER successful. These people seem to be using the reputation of blakc men to feed these attacks upon me. I hae to apologize to other black men. I am obviously not up to your standard, and am bringing down the sexual reputation of my race. What this smear against me seems to be mainly suggewting is that I am INEPT at this kind of thing. You might well wonder how, if I am this inept, how I have been married for 43 years and avoided being laughed out of alll responsible positions. That is what insults me most about this smear: the idea that I am so crude and inept as to be a cartoon cahracter. It really is insultig propaganda. The most inslulting thing, for YOU, is that they expet you to belive this stuff. I think better of you than that. I guess the test if whether you will prove me right, or them right, about how intelligent you are. Now about my 9-9-9 plan and what is really IMPORATNT to this country (rather than my sexual prowess, or lack of it)............."
Fox News (granting another waive to myself as to mentining the despised name): BITE ME. You deserve no repect, and get none from this blog.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).