Okay, Richk Santorum did not put it quite that way. I am suspending, for one night before my "sanctions" against Fox become much tougher, this blog's policy of not mentioning the unfair and unbalanced nwtwork by the namm me of "Fox". I am really only dong it in this article to make SANTORUM sound coherent, and make this article a little coherent for Santroum's benefit,. Rick Santroum RIGHTLY said today that Fox "news" is being unfair to his campaign. What else is new. No, my reference to Fox as the unfair and unbalanced network PREDATES Santourm's rise in the nomination fight. But you EXPECT this blog to be ahead of the curve.
No conservative shoulkd watch Fox "News" (on any kind of regular basis). Fox is NOT a "frfiend" of conservatives. Fox is not even FAIR to conservatives. Bil O'Reilly said that AGAIN tonight (as he has realy said many times in the past). You should BELIEVCEVE him. O'Reilly first scornfully talked about Santorum's complaint about Fox, and then DOUBLED DOWN on the Fox "all in" policy in favor of Romney. There is no mroe DISHONEST man on television, and I include the "journaliss' of CNN and MSNBC whe I say that.
How many electoral votes does American Samoa have? For that matter, how many electoral votes does Hawaii have? For tha matter, what are the GOP chances of winning Hawaii in the fall (ZERO is basically the correct answer, unless Obama totally implodes--which is possible, but then Santourm will beat him just as easlily as Romney). Oh, American Samoa has ZERO electaoral votes Yet, Bill O'Reilly PRAISED Fox "News" tongiht for making a PONT out of Romney winning more DELEGATES eysterday than Santorum, because the way the RULES work, even though Santorumm rather decisively won the tow major PRIMARIES yesterday (in Alabama and Mississippi). As happens more and more often with Fox, Fox was MORE DISHONEST than CNN and MSNBC today. That is because of the Fox AGENDA in faovr of Romney. O'Reilly, dishonest as he is, tried to accuse the Fox competition of being 'dishoenst" because they paid little attention to the fact that Romney won mroe delegates yesterday. O'Reilly accused the mainstream media of wanting to "weaken" Romney 9which they do), without mentioning that Oreilly and Fox obviusly want to PROP UP Romney. No, O'Reilly, it does not get any more DISHONEST thatn to claim lthat yesterday was a Romney victory!!!!!! This is not new on the part of this blog. This blog has told you O'Reilly is intellectually DISHONEST for YEARS (not just n this elecitn).,
"But, Skip, read your own stuff. Did d your own article onot say that Santorum was "bleeding delegates" and had to strat paying attention to delegates or face the inevitable of losing the nomination>" Right. I said that, and iit is true. But that is not the same as saying that Roppmney did not LOSE yesterday. Of coures Romney lost. It just did not derail his path to the nominatioin. The difference is between an honest person (like myself) and a DISSHONEST person (like O'REilly). It is one thing to say that Romeny is still the likely nominee unless Santroum can start brfeaking trhough on the delegate fron (or put togetehr a STRING of primary victories, including states like Illinois). It is another thing to FALSE claim that American Samoa (lol) and Hawaii really show that Romney is not a WEAK candidate. CNN and MSNBC want to weaken Romney , because they are partisans in favor of Obama. O'Reilly and I agree on that. But it was NOT CNN and MSNBC who caused Romney to LOSE the tow MAJOR PRIMARIES on Tuesday. It is ROMNEY who weakened ROMNEY on Tuesday, even after Fox was trupeting PLLS (before Tuesday) thaqt Ro;mney was going to do well in Alabama and Mississippi. Inideed, I told you the Fox reactino to the FOX FAILURE LAND INCOMPETENCE of constantly reporting polls as if they mean something. The Fox reaction to being WRONG and INCOMPETENT on their "predictions" for Tuewdsy in faovr of Romney: Double down and IMMEIDATELY start citing the POLL for Illinois. That is like Romney DOUBLING DOWN on the UNFAIRNESS of Fox toward Santroum.
This blog has advocated thqat you BBOYCOTT Fox for a a long time now. If you are a conservative, you should not delude yourself that Fox is favorable to conservatives. On the "news" side (the fake "journalists" of Fox News), Fox is fully as BAD as CNN. On th eopinion side it is only Hannity that can be called a conservative, and this lbog has correctly told you thqat the problem iwth Hannity is that he has a CABLE TV MENTALITY. Further, he is not very bright. The most you can say about Fox, on the opinion side, is that Fox has an ESTABLISHMENT GOP agenda (which this blog regards as LEFTIST). Doubt mme? Well, O'Reilly is to the LEFT of the estalbishment GOP (although perhaps where they are in private.). O'Reillly basically faovrs a government TAKEOVER of the oil industry. O'Reilly RIDICULES Gingrich's correct position that we CAN do something abut gasoline prices by saying that the ONLY thing that can be done (beyond the government CONTROLLING prices by dominating the oil companies in the typical Obama matnner, only worse) is to CUT BACK on use of gasoline and energy. This is not far from O'Reilly ENDORSING OBAMA. Wht else can you thinkk when O'Reilly is parroting the Obama line that America had to forget about being America, and SURREWNDER our lifesyle because we dont' want to OFFEND the environmentalists and lefitsts out there (who want to destroy capitalism, as O'Reily ADMITS he wants to do with regard to oil, on the EXSCUSE that the oil companies are not really enganging in a rfree market anyway).
Look what happened to Santorum, and other conservatives, in the debates (and other coverage). This blog CHRONICLED the CRIMES of Fox "News" against Santourm, and agaisnt conservatives like Bachmann and Cain (in addition to crimes agianst anti-estalbishment non-conservatives like Gingrich). It was FX that jumped all over Santorum on "social issues', to the pont of REFUSING to let him het out any other messsage. It is FOX how asked the MOST DEISGRACEFUL questions of Santorum on social issues in the debates--WORSE than those asked by CNN. It is FOX who DEFENDED CNN's John King for the DISGRACEFUL questin to Newt Gingrich, because FOX well knew that their own questins were just as bad, or worse. It is FOX who has Chris Wallcace, who is as bad, or WORSE, than ANY person on CNN. It is FOX who has Juan Williams, and FEATURES him, even though Williams is of the FAR LEFT. It is FOX who has weekend "programming" basically somewhere to the LEFT of Barack Obama (as, again, chronicled in this blog) . Huckabbee is the only exceptin.
No,. This blog has correctlly shown yo that Fox is "CNN LIGHT", and I am thinking of deleting the "light". As this blog has informed you, it is NO ACCIDENT that Fox hired John Robers from CNN to fill a major positin, after this blgo had previouisly written an article showing how bad Robers was while he was with CNN. There is no doubt, as this blog told you well before Sanmtourm (this blog ahead of the curve, as usual) is "all in" for Romney. But it goes well beyond that, and predates Romney by years. Fox has STEADILY moved toward CNN and the mainstream media, apparently for APPROVAL. This is sort of like the reaons that the GOP estalibshment steadily adopts the positions of the mainstream media--seemingly for APPROVAL because the estabishment GOP has NO courage or convictions of its own.
Message to Fox "News: This blog is EXTENDING its Iran-type sanctions against Fox. Oh, I will maintiain my two minute limit for surfing Fox during the daytime. I will continue to refer to Fox ONLY as the 'unfair and unbalanced network" (where "unbalanced" means INSANE, as well as a lack of people with REAL consrevative convictoins). But my BOYCOTT of Fox News IN THE EVENING will now be TOTAL. Oh, for tthe pat 3 months, I have hardly seen Fox during its "prime time lineup"--starting at 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. But I have made EXCEPTIONS for "special occasions", such as interviews or electinos nights. For example, tonight I looked at part of O'Reilly spedifically to see the Fox reactin to the Santruom wins on Tuesday. I have seen all I need to see of Fox. Now the goal is to HURT Fox. I have told you conservatives out there that Fox is NOT your friend. Taht is 100% correct. I will not wgo further: Fox is YOUR ENEMY . Fox is certainly MY ENEMY. They are both incompetnet and unfair--a deadlih combination. Thsu, this is my NEW policy on my Fx boycott: A TOTAL BLACKOUT of Fox for the evening hours, startng at that 5 p.m. Easterrn time slot. Taht TOTAL BLACKOUT will also apply to the weekend DESERT that is Fox "News". That means that I will Nno onger look at any ELECTION COVERAGGE on Fox in the evening hours. It means that I will no longer look at Fox ONE SECOND during the indicated hours, no matter who is being interviewed or what the "news" event. The boycott, for the indicated times, is NOW TOTAL. No exceptins. No Obama-type "waivers" given msyelf. If you know me at all (from this blog), you know that I mean it. Fox is now DEAD to me. Why keep "srufing" in the daytime, when I say above that Fox daytime is jsut as bad as CNN (as it is)? Well, I surf CNN now MORE than I surf Fox. It is just a way to keep up with the ESTABLILSHMENT "spn" on the "newass" (laong iwth myu Yaho/AT&T "default" internet page featruing the AP and ABC "News"). Rush Limbaugh will not be the main source of my "conservative" news, as he really has always been. This boycott is designed to HURT Fox, for BETRAYAL. Their "prime time' lineup needs to GO DOWN, and the two mnutes I surf during the daytime is hardly going to help the network. I am not gong to worry about Fox anyomore, which is basically my attitude toward the GOP as a party (the rank-and-file being antoerh thing).
Bill O'Reilly may be thankful. There will not longer be these blog articles going off into the void of the internet exosing him for the DISHONEST person that he is. But I can't take it anymore. Goodbye, Bill. It has NOT been nice "knowing' you.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No, I willl noo longer even watch a nighttime DEBATE on the unfari and unbalanced network. I will see the clips anyway. I never have gone to the Fox website, or any of the other media websites, and that policy will continue. But it is amazing how my disgraceful Yahoo "page", Rush Limbuagh, Drudge, surfing in the daytime for a few minutes, and diverse other sources tell me EVERyTHING I need to know (as NONE of these people is either imaginative or competent, and they copy each other). It helps that I am one of the smartest people on the planet, even if I can't READ the way I once could (and miss it). What? You say that I don't have enough influence to "hurt" the unfair and unbalanced network? Who is it do you thiink is BEHIND the correct Santorum charge against the unfair and unbalanced network? Think about THAT for awhile!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment