Monday, October 22, 2012

Bob Schieffer: Worst of Dishonest, Partisan Political Hacks

Remember that game (among othes) where the replacement officials made what appeared to be the WRONG call on the last play of the game, costing the Green Bay Packers the game?  Well, imagine that the OFFICIALS for the NEXT Greeen Bay Packers game (where there ws, in fact, another apparent bad call with regular officials) said this outrageous thing:

"You know, in myexperience, WINNERS do not compalin abut the officials." 

Can you even imagine OFFICILAS of a coming game trying to suggest they CANNOT BE CRITICIZED, and that--by the way--the Green Bay Pacers are lOSERS?  The NFL, and th eofficials, would never hear the end of it. But football referees and baseball umpires are more HONEST than "journalists" (among the most DISHONEST class of peopl ewho have ever lived on this Earth).  Sports officials, will, sometimes at least, ADMIT that they made a mistake, and even APOLOGIZE for it (although I did not see that happen with regard to the Green Bay game). 

This brings us to Bob Schieffer, moderator of tonnight's Presidential debate (terrible "choice"), who is ONE of those mostg DISHONEST people who have ever walked the Erth. Doubt me?  Never do that, unless yo want to look like a fool. Here is what I SAW Schieffer say, when he was asked a questin about previouis debate moderators being "criticized" for their performance:

"Well, i hope you will forgive me for a sports reference, but I have noticed that winners of a sports contest never complain about the officiating."

This is even MORE OUTRAGEOUS than if NFL officials for an upcoming game involving a team where there was an apparent bad call the previus week made a point out of suggesting that only LOSERS criticize the calls of an official.   This is not quite ture, by the way, as sometimes the WINNNER of a baseball or fotball game will mention "overcoming" a bad call.  It is, of course, "true", but DISHOENST and IRRELEVANT, to say that d"winnders' do not get as angry as losers about bad calls.  That is because, if you WIN, the "bad call" can be regarded as pretty much MOOT.  You overcame it.  But does that EXUSE THE BAD CALL.  ONly a man as truly DISHOENST and STUPID as Bob Schieffer would suggest it does.  Debates, of course, are not the same as sports contests (did I not just tell you Schieffer is STUPID).  It is not really a matter of who "wins" a debate, but MINDS CHANGED (r made up).  EVERY "bad call" by a moderator has SOME effecteven if it is "overcome (unless, as I recommend, a candidate does like Newt Gingrich and TAKES ON THE MODERATOR, in which case the candidate CAN benefit, although only with a very risky move). 

Look at what Bo Schieffer, DISHOENST man, attempted to do.  He attempted to say that there is NOTHING he could do--no matter how bad--for which he should be criticized , because "only losers" complain about the "officiating".  Thus, Cany Crowlye can't be criticized for a LIE about President Obama's statements on Libya, because if you complain it is becuase you are on the losing side". 

Sorary.  This is NOT "nit picking'.  This is the aCTUAL ATTITUDE of AlL of our DISHEONST "journalists".  They simply AVOID ever acknowledging mistakes, and even hanllenge the "Right" of people to criticize them.  These are some of the WORST, MOST ARROGANT, STUPIDEST LOSERS to ever walk the Earth.  Memo to Bob Schieffer:  you ARE on of those DISHOENST LOSERS.

If you are not dishonest, why wouuld you make a statment attmepting to IMMUNIZE yourseflf from criticism, no matter how BADLY yu do?  ONly DISHONEST people do this sort of COVER UP for themselves and their profession. 

Oh. You want to know abut the "partisan" part?  Aftter all, were not Jim Lehrer and Candy Crowley criticized from opposite sides.  This is another argumetn, by the way, from DISHOENST LOSERS:  the "argument" that "both sides are unhappy".  This isanother DISHOENST "argument" for "journalists" to avoid facing their DISHOENSTY.  and istakes.  Now I think Jim Lehrer did a pretty good job, becaUse--like a god sports officiall--he let the CNDIDATES (players) pay the game, rather than injecting HIMSELF into the game when he could avoid it.  But the fact is that both sides MAY BE unhappy because "journalists" have been THAT BAD.  More often than not, that is true.    But the "partisan" part of the headline comes from previus experience with Bob Schieefer, as itemized in previus articles posted on this blog (as far back as 2008). This outraeous statemetn I quote from Schiefer establishes that he is DISHOENST and INCOMPETENT.  Take my word for it that he is a partisan hack (also established by the fact that he is a CBS "journalsit").

P.S. No priifreadub  ir soekk cgecjbg (bad eyesight).

No comments: