Whoever wants to hire Karl Rove has every right to do so.  If one doesn't want to watch or read his analysis, people have every right not to do so.  I don't.

To whine about his employment or the praise some have heaped upon him is well, whining.

Tommy has the strawman argument down pat, doesn't he?

No one said that any media source should be denied the right to hire Karl Rove.

I don't believe I said that Sue, perhaps you should fight your own strawman.

Then why did you feel the need to reaffirm the right?

A friendly reminder...

No, a strawman to distract us.

Wow, and I guess it's working, you keep responding.

It is quite funny to see how Sue always appears (Notthatgeorge, Ellie717) every few months with different names. The nastyness though is something we all can pick out.

I don't really see any nastiness in bottleblonde's posts, and whether you're right about her past screen names or not, would prefer responding to whatever someone is posting now.

Karl Rove as a political analyst on the tee vee is just ducky. I hope he is on the air broadcasting when they come to arrest him for the Siegleman affair.

You do not know Sue/Ellie /Notthatgeorge/Bottleblonde. She makes Karl Rove look like Mother Theresa.

Karl Rove is responsible for helping disenfranchise thousands of voters. In the case of Don Siegleman, he and his political operatives stole the election in the Alabama governor's race in the middle of the night. While this was happening, he continued his operation to find something on Siegleman that he could be prosecuted for. When nothing was found, they trumped up bogus charges and got the judge and district attorney (all buddies) to convict him. The whole sordid tale is a horror. Part of it:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1627427,00.html

For you to compare Rove's work to someone posting on a web site is beyond amazing.

Mary, it is called humor. Obviously you have none. If you want me to defend Karl Rove who stole an election find someone else to debate that with you. Geez.

Sorry I didn't get your humor. But at least I can use contractions.

So now you are an English Teacher?

Mary is our resident English Professor.

She also writes a mean limerick. 

Impressive.

What's impressive is how delusional you must be to believe that your multiple screen name usage is not evident to all around you.

What's impressive is that you, like your twin Sueeld, think that you can make a nasty, untrue statement (like that a previous poster is comparable to Karl Rove, and mean it) and when you get it pointed out how ridiculous that comparison is, you then attack the person who pointed it out and say that they suffer from a lack of a sense of humor.

Come on, JLyons. This is lame even by your standards. Last I checked, she wasn't responsible for foisting the worst president in history on America.

 

 

Even worse is that others more dedicated to this site than I am have determined that JLYON and SUEELD and BOBTHEP and probably several others are all the same poster. One major piece of evidence is the lack of any use of contractions by all the posters. Another is the lack of common sense, and another is the contrarian nature of most of their posts followed by denials of any ulterior motives when that is pointed out.

The nature of their posts are strikingly similar.  Occasionally JLyons and Sue disagree, but Bob seems completely identical to Sue.  Sue also got caught posting under two names in the same thread a while back, so that is an indicator as well.

Brab, do you have proof of that?  If you are going to accuse me of something, get the proof. Also show the link where I was "caught".

Otherwise shut the F up.  I have never been involved in this "Sue, Ellie crap. As for BobtheP, him and I have major differences if you followed especially on Iraq and Obama.

Check out the 361-380 page, Casey.

You have shown yourself to be involved in sockpuppetry, so spare us all the phony indignation.  You can't really blame people for noting that you, JLyons and Bob have incredibly similar attitudes, styles and syntax, especially when you're so concerns with the incarnations of sue/ellie. 

Oh Please, get a life.

Nice refutation of the evidence!  Maybe you should "shut the F up" now.

There is no evidence but thanks for trying. 

I was clearly making fun of how everyone was calling everyone "Sue".

Brab, you are a good poster, stick to your positions they are good and stop smearing people.

No, that's not true.  You were answering in place of Casey, which is clearly shown.  The part where you and Casey went back and forth about it was deleted, but I remember you weren't able to explain your post then either.

You got busted, so you have to deal with the credibility issues that follow.  Sorry. 

That was explained throughout, everyone was calling these people Sue.  Please continue to harp on that though, I am going to todays threads to discuss issues.

"Sue how did I miss the point, I agree with all of that. It is an outrage that he would even mention that wedding. Why did she not serve in Iraq?" - Caseyspring

Next post:"I assumed that your first post was being sarcastic..." - Nomobush

Next post:"Sue I was not being sarcastic, most Americans could care less about the Bush Twins..." - Sueeld

Nomo was talking to Casey.  You replied to Nomo, saying that you were not being sarcastic.  That has nothing to do with the name "Sue" at all, so your explanation doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.  You clearly responded to the post you intended to, just under the wrong name.  If you had responded to Casey as if you thought he was talking to you, that would be a different story.

 

Thanks for the kind words, btw, but an accurate and reasonable portrayal of your actions is not a "smear".

I think it is a smear, I think your better than that based on your posts. I will leave it at that.

Sueld

What exactly IS your definition of the word "smear", anyway?

You seem, based on your frequent use of the word, to confuse criticism with smearing.

Well? 

Bottlebonde, can you provide the names of these "other more dedicated posters". I am very curious.

No, you are not curious. You are frightened of being outed.

The lack of any contractions in your posts, the omnipresent jumping in to threads solely to protect and echo one another, and the ridiculous attacks on people while completely misunderstanding the differences between a smear and fair criticism ties you all together.

Oh, and the almost complete lack of any valuable contribution to any discussion besides the occasional "yeah, great point" kind of post.

And lastly, the fact that you know that you and Bobthep have different opinions on any issue. I doubt that anyone else here could describe any position that Bobthep has, or that you could not make a similar comment about any other infrequent poster, but somehow you know that you and he have opposing opinions? Don't you know that we know that sockpuppets often intentionally try to appear to be different people by throwing in different opinions at times?

And why do you feel that MMFA needs to be reminded of it?

It's not out of a desire to patronize, gosh no.

Well, when an entire thread is devoted to complaining about a media hire, then perhaps such a reminder is helpful.

Yes, COMPLAINING.  A complaint is not an infringement of rights by any stretch, but it sure is fun to try and make it look like one, isn't it?

I don't believe I said anyone's rights are being infringed upon, but if you can't accept a little criticism of a topic thread here, perhaps it is you who wants a little rights infringement.

And I didn't say that you said it.  I said that you found it necessary to reaffirm the right.  I merely wanted to know why.

What does it mean when you have to reaffirm rights in the face of a complaint?  What other reason is there other than you feel that rights are being infringed or are in danger of being infringed upon?

You have tried over and over again to paint MMFA as an organization that does not believe in freedom and the First Amendment, and over and over again you have failed. 

When your criticism is completely baseless and unfounded, don't start "whining" when someone criticizes it. 

Pete, Please link to a post of mine where I have stated that MMFA does not "believe in freedom and the First Amendment".

How ridiculous.

I didn't accuse you of stating it, I accused you of characterizing MMFA in such a way through your constant, patronzing reaffirmation of peoples' rights.  What other reason could there be for 'reminding' them?

So I just paint MMFA that way without actually saying it?  Sorry, I don't play those word parsing games like many of you engage in regularly.  If I somehow wanted to say it, I wouldn't subtle hide behind such paint.  I would say it.

subtly, not subtle

Yes, you are playing games, including the one you're playing now by not coming clean and answering the overall question:  Why is it necessary to reaffirm the rights of those that MMFA targets?  You simply won't answer it and will instead hobble around it and cherry-pick my posts in an effort to martyr yourself.

I answered it when you first asked it, you just didn't like the answer......so you overreact and haul out some idiotic accusation saying I think MMFA is against freedoms and the First Amendment in order to try and invalidate any criticism of the threads here.......you don't think I've seen it all before?  I have Pete.

Just so you know, Tommy, you have the right to dodge the question, but lack the ability to do so effectively.

Oh Governor, I specifically answered Pete's question, "A friendly reminder.."

Just because it's not the one he wanted, or you wanted, that is too bad. If you want the answer to be the one you want, then just ask yourself......or ignore me, which you adamantly said you'd do Governor, but you can't, can you?  Why?

That you think you can somehow reaffirm people's rights just by posting them here is laudable and laughable.  I can laugh more than laud, right?

What's laughable is the way you spin yourself around to the point of complete and utter senselessness........like only you can do, hahaha!

Take it on the road Governor, you're too precious for just us here..... 

You can always tell when Gov needs a nap.

Keep up the great work!  You're closing in on 30 posts in a single thread! Reaffirm people's right to redefine whining for partisan reasons if you're running out of material.

You pretty much answered it by putting a complaint on the same plane as an infringement of rights.  I didn't think you were serious, but now it seems you were.

Yes, buy keep in mind that questioning the praising of Rove’s punditry while his party disintegrating is whining, so there you go. 

Pete,

Tommy simply said that anyone who wanted to hire Rove had the right to do so, whether this annoyed others or not.

He was not saying that there was some sort of infringement of any constitutional rights involved here, just a matter of personal preference or desire if you will, to hire whomever one wants..

Thanks Jeter, exactly.  You got it, why can't others?

Yeah, sure.  So you were stating that companies had the right to hire Rove for no reason at all?  Nobody questioned that.  The column questions the wisdom and propriety of doing so and the presentation of Rove as a pundit.  You didn't comment on that, you commented on the right of Rove's employers to hire him.

So, either you just like to post tangential near non sequitors for no apparent reason or you were trying to imply that someone was questioning that right.  Which are you, an irrational threadjacker or, since you've stated you weren't trying to imply anything with your comment, a liar?

Exactly, his defense seems to be that he makes comments that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever.  Just a reminder about something that nobody was talking about, and something that nobody would talk about anyway.

It is interesting to point out that Tommy has posted on this thread well after you made this comment and did not comment under the above posting (moonbat's that is). I think he ignored your argument because he knows you are correct and so decided to continue to twist other people's words around.

That wousld be my conclusion as well.

Yes, and his reply to me had nothing to do with my point, and was only a baseless attack claiming that I'm someone I'm not.

"just a matter of personal preference or desire if you will, to hire whomever one wants.."

That's not the right to do something...a right is not a personal preference. 

I have the right to vote is a constitutional right.

I have the right to vote for anyone I want is a personal right or preference or desire.

Please don't start parsing, slicing & dicing. It is what it is.

But you weren't discussing voting.

Gov, If you don't understand the analogy, then don't display your ignorance so readily.

Nicely done, T.  Oh, and I understand that you're inclined to give Jeter a pass for not knowing the difference between parsing and parsley for purely partisan reasons, so there’s no need to explain that smudge on your nose.

Jeter, oh Jeter.......do you have any idea what he means here, because I don't.

Sounds like a lot of gobbledygook to me Tommy.

But Gov needs a nap so we need to excuse him I guess.

J, And it's so funny how everyone keeps insisting how ridiculous I am here, or off topic, or derailing the thread, yet they just can't help but jump in, now Brabantio and Moonbat have joined in........yet they discount everything I have said, as if they can persuade me otherwise, they are nothing if not predictable.

J, And it's so funny how everyone keeps insisting how ridiculous I am here, or off topic, or derailing the thread, yet they just can't help but jump in, now Brabantio and Moonbat have joined in........yet they discount everything I have said, as if they can persuade me otherwise, they are nothing if not predictable.

 

I think it looks better in bold. 

I have no intention of persuading you of anything.  Much like someone writing a column about the faults of hiring Karl Rove as any sort of broadcast pundit, I merely wish to point out to anyone with an open mind the folly of taking your words at anything close to face value.

Boehlert has written an entire column complaining about the hiring of Rove. You simply said: Whoever wants to hire Karl Rove has every right to do so.

I'm not sure why this perfectly reasonable remark [on your part] has them all hot & bothered.

Saying someone has the right to hire anyone they want is a reasonable counter to the complaint of someone getting hired.

Really, it was a simple statement of fact and it has driven them up the wall.....go figure.  

But it isn't about that at all, it's about Karl Rove, actually.  The left hates him with so much seething contempt and the idea that any media outlet would hire him is what is driving their emotional arguments here.  They want him jailed and the key tossed in the Potomac, yet he is thumbing their noses at them on Fox and elsewhere, so they are taking out their ire on me, and you......that is what this is about.  So anyone who dares say that the media has the right to hire him just fuels that anger and all arrows point at us in lieu of Rove who won't take their calls, or something.

Good thing we have thick skin and can take it. 

It suggests that the article says that they didn't have the right to hire him.

If you express your point of view to someone and they respond with "As a patriotic American I have to disagree with you", how would you take that?  It obviously suggests that your views make you unpatriotic, or something of the sort.  Otherwise, it's a complete non sequitur.  Would you believe that it's just to remind you that the person is a patriotic American?  If it's not relevant, then there was no purpose for stating it.

Good god Brab, It suggests nothing of the sort, it was a simple reminder that the media has every right to do so.  Why so many of you are stumbling over yourselves on this simple, elementary point is mind-boggling.

And I get accused or derailing threads??. If you can't get it, never mind.  You don't want too. 

Fine, so you were saying something that you knew had no relevance to the article, and reminding people of something that you know nobody would even argue anyway.  Why?  Nobody knows, but apparently that's just how you roll.

No relevance?  Are you kidding, it was the jist of the entire whining piece by Boehlert.  You're slipping.

Wow, Tommy, this is funny. You and Jeter have used "hot & bothered" "driven up the wall" and "emotional" to describe what you see as some sort of imagined hysteria on the part of other posters.

In about the first 5 posts( before the 100 or so that followed), I commented that you did this; stated the obvious(that "right" that nobody was arguing against), as an excuse to call MMFA whiners.

It's what you do every day, I wonder why anybody expects you to face it today.

Oh Colonel, I don't need an excuse to call MMFA whiners.  When threads such as this are posted, there is no need for an excuse, the thread speaks for itself, but as I said, I am here for "A friendly reminder".

I own the whining label often, why others can't do it is puzzling, oh well, liberals are a tough nut to crack I guess, but I keep trying, and whining......you have a good night now, hear? 

Whoever wants to whine about whining has every right to do so.  If one doesn't want to whine or whine about whining, people have every right not to do so.  I don't.

"It suggests that the article says that they didn't have the right to hire him."

"Good god Brab, It suggests nothing of the sort, it was a simple reminder that the media has every right to do so"

Then, "No relevance?  Are you kidding, it was the jist of the entire whining piece by Boehlert."

So your comment didn't suggest that Boehlert thinks they didn't have the right to hire him, but it was relevant because that's the jist of the entire piece.  Nice work.

In any event, it can't be relevant to the piece and just a simple reminder at the same time.  If it goes to the core of the piece then it's more than a reminder, I would think.  And if you are saying that Boehlert is saying that, then I wonder why you aren't bound to provide evidence of it the way you expect people to provide evidence when they describe your behavior.

Gov, If you don't understand the analogy, then don't display your ignorance so readily.

Thanks Tommy.

I read Gov's post & thought...can he really be that numb [yes he can] & do I really want to take the time to explain an analogy [of which he still wouldn't get]

Please let's find his binky and put him down for a nap ;-)

How's that internet connection working out today in that fancy hotel you're staying at?  You mentioned "the gay lobby" in yesterday’s CNN thread... is it nice? 

Jeter, Hook up the 1000 volts, Gov is losing it.......

I applaud you for not calling me a "retard" this time.  Perhaps you're learning.

Jeter, I am not parsing, you are conflating.  a right and a preference are not compatible.  Sorry.

The definition you are using of "right":

a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

And you're right, voting is a right by law, but who you vote for is not a personal right.  It's a preference.   

Oh come on.

I have the right to ignore you. How are you gonna parse that?

That is my personal preference/desire...and yes my right.

BTW, I'm not gonna ignore you. That's also my right ;-)

Ok, I can see what you're saying, but a personal preference and a right are still not the same, technically (I know it's word-parsing, but humor me, I was an English major.)

Ok technically I will defer to an English major :-)

But I'm using "right" as most would use in everyday language, even though it might be technically incorrect.

Now let's have a cyber handshake & remain cyber buddies.

cyber high-five!

But Jeter, why on Murdoch's Private Earth would Tommy feel the need to remind people that Faux News has the right to hire Karl Rove (and, corollarily, that Rove has the right to speak), if not to imply that someone (perhaps...I don't know...MMFA?) was somehow questioning that right?

Ain't nobody here thinks that Faux and Rove don't have that right. [The point, duh, is that giving Rove a forum for his propaganda without noting his likely ethical lapses (and treating him like a political guru without noting his manifest political failures) feeds the right-wing agenda. Does Tommy not recognize that? Don't you??] So Tommy's post was, at best, a misdirection and a distraction. Many here are not entirely surprised.

A complaint about misinformation in the media is worthy and legitimate. A complaint about the media hiring someone you don't like warrants "a friendly reminder" about said media's perfect right to do so.

Hope that helps. 

But nobody said that they didn't have the right to hire him, so nobody needs the "reminder".  One can argue that someone is wrong to do something without saying that they don't have the right to do it.  Isn't that true?

So Boehlert is saying the media is "wrong" to hire Rove, and I reminded him, and the rest of you, that it is their perfect right to do so.  So simple.

How many more times does this have to be explained?  If you don't like the reasoning behind it, fine - it's my opinion.

Oops...... 

"Wrong" is the opposite of "right", not "a right".  You can be wrong while doing something you have the right to do.  If that's not true, why not?  And if it is, then what does anyone's "rights" have to do with the article?

If you have "a right" to do something, then whether it's right or wrong is a matter of opinion. It's Boehlert's opinion that hiring Rove is wrong, and I reminded him, and the rest of you, once again, that they have "a right" to do so.  

So how many more times do you want to on this merry-go-round? 

It's an opinion piece, so we all know it's his opinion.  That didn't really answer the question at all.

There's any number of times that you've criticized people's posts on here, would you really accept "I have the right to post..." as a legitimate and relevant reply?

I accept it, absolutely.  If I don't like it, that's my problem.  You are the one who has such a hard time accepting answers you don't like.  So me thinks you're projecting a little......

I guess the next time you're criticizing what someone says here, they can just say they have the right to post here and that'll be the end of the conversation.  If you say so.

Absolutely, it took you how many years to get that from me?

Try it anytime, please. 

But since you know that they have the right to post already, why question anything anyone says here?  Do you really need to be reminded?

You've been told countless times that MMfA has the right to post whatever they want, yet we get WITH from you every day.  If knowing that they have the right to do it ends the conversation, why doesn't it just stop you from starting it in the first place?  Just curious how that works.

Then why don't you write to them and tell them to do away with the comments section?  

Because having the "right" to do something doesn't actually end the conversation, maybe?  I think the question is why don't you write that email, since that's your position.

I want to do away with the comments section?  Wow.......

You're the one who suggested it when I described your position to you.  If you didn't think it was a comment appropriate to that, why did you say it?

Again, you're making this all about what MMFA wants, demands, or likes.  What about the needs of the people for factual information and credible, reasoned commentary and debate?  Boehlert can't possibly be concerned about that could he?

Boehlert laid out plenty of reasons as to why any self-respecting media organization would not hire Karl Rove or give him any airtime. 

Yes, it's safe to assume that Boehlert does not like Rove, but he's also offering plenty of justification as to why anyone who cares about bringing credible sources of information and opinion before the people would do themselves a favor by passing on Rove and relegating him to the right-wing, street-corner lunatic fringe where he belongs. 

Boehlerts piece goes far beyond a simple, "I don't like Rove, so no one should hire him," and it most definitely was not, "I don't like Rove, so the media has no right to hire him."

As I said in my own post below, I have my own problems with the piece, but Boehlert more than makes the case of why Rove belongs anywhere but the media.   

 

What about ultra partisan and supremely biased Keith Olbermann, who is not a pundit guest, but hosts his own cable show?  Is Boehlert concerned about the people's needs where he is concerned, as he is just as partisan as Rove, and arguably has far greater reach and influence for one long hour each day, not to mention his election night coverage. No, of course, because MMFA, Boehlert and Olbermann operate under the same ideological umbrella, thereby their partisan efforts are welcomed, not labeled a "pundit problem".

Don't give me that baloney about people's rights, this is strictly partisan political agenda pushing, so unless we see a Boehlert column about Olbermann, I stand behind my posts here. 

By that logic nobody can complain about any conservative in the media unless they denounce Olbermann emphatically.  That seems somewhat unreasonable.

If Boehlert lists reasons, then he has reasons.  If he's actually making an argument you can't dismiss it just because he has an ideology.  Very few websites are genuinely non-partisan, yet you can still respect the views contained on any of the others depending on whether there is a legitimate argument being made there or not.

Well, Pete said it was about the needs of the people for factual and credible information, and you just pooh poohed that by saying very few websites are non-partisan, essentially saying screw those people with those needs, it ain't gonna happen.

So take it up with him then. 

Where did the assumption that partisan websites can't be credible and factual come from?  My point was that you evaluate them based on the strength of the arguments they make, and some are better than others.  You can't just dismiss anyone with an ideology on that basis alone.

Without your assumption thrown into the mix, I don't see how I "pooh-poohed" anything he said. 

So do you think Fox is credible, because they are quite partisan? Or is it just the left wing partisan outfits that are credible?

No, Fox is not credible, because of the myriad of examples of bias and misinformation.  A mainstream news outlet shouldn't have an ideology anyway, we're talking about individuals and websites.  As for left-wing sites, it depends on the site, doesn't it?  Some are more credible than others, obviously.

Newsflash - partisan outfits are the epitome of bias and skewed out of context information, aka misinformation, that is why they are called partisan.......you can't not get that?

No, partisan is just having an ideology.  It doesn't assert dishonesty.  You can have a viewpoint and make credible arguments at the same time.

I never said one word about dishonesty, you did. I repeated what you said, bias and misinformation.  Now you're expanding the definition because you can't make your point.  Don't get pissed at me for that.

"partisan outfits are the epitome of bias and skewed out of context information, aka misinformation, that is why they are called partisan..."

So providing "skewed out of context information" is not dishonest?  What are you talking about?  Partisan outfits who misinform are just doing it accidentally, or what? 

I stand behind my posts here.

 

All 52 of them?! 

"What about ultra partisan and supremely biased Keith Olbermann?"

Is Olbermann working for any candidate's campaign?

Was Olbermann ever embroiled in a scandal to exact political revenge?

Is Olbermann being accused in a plot to get a state governor thrown out of office and into jail? 

Did Olbermann's name ever come up in a mass firing of prosecutors for political reasons? 

Did Olbermann ever become a political liability to an elected official, forcing his "resignation"?

So now you want to argue degree of partisanship?  That's rich.

Actually, the first should have included, "and failed to disclose it?"

The next three are not about partisanship, they're about the rule of law.

The last one, I'll give you that.  

Oh, here's a couple more...

Did Oblermann ever violate laws governing presidential records?

Did Olbermann ever refuse to testify under oath? 

Pete,

If I came on these boards and went on about how partisan you were, and how it's just not right that you post here because your opinions are way too skewed to the left.......and then someone else responded to me saying that you have every right to post here, regardless, would you not say that person's response to me was perfectly appropriate as it pertains to my bellyaching?

Of course you would, and you should. 

Oh great, let's shift gears and drag out the old hypothetical, hypocrisy WAHHHmbulance again.  You and Jeter should be in awe of Boehlert for using the same thing in this piece with the Stephanopoulos hypothesis.  Yet you both still found a way to "whine" about it.

I was not questioning your "appropriateness" in reaffirming the rights of the media, I was questioning your reasons, just as Boehlert is questioning why the trend is toward hiring more partisan Republicans than Democrats to be pundits, and questioning what makes Rove a paragon of political analysis.

I would not view your criticism of, "it's just not right," as an infringement of my right to post here because I'm smart enough to know that only MMFA has the power to make that determination.  For this reason, someone else's rush to defend my right to post would not be appropriate simply because there was no infringement to begin with. 

This is also why I find your constant self-martyrdom so ridiculous, because no posters, no matter how pontificating or irrational they may be, are infringing on your right to post criticisms of MMFA.  Only the MMFA moderators can take that right away from you.

Again you insist on conflating the bowels of MMFA's forum with the media.  This is what makes your hypothetical completely inapplicable.  Is MMFA performing a vast public disservice by allowing anyone of unknown career credentials, reputation and partisan leanings the ability to post their comments here?  Is MMFA, either knowingly or otherwise, stacking the deck in favor of one political side vs. the other when it comes to who gets to post comments?

What about ultra partisan and supremely biased Keith Olbermann

Funny, I don't remember seeing Olbermann's name anywhere in the column, but I will give you a "friendly reminder" that NBC has the right to hire anyone they want. 

Off-topic I know, but can you please quote a sentence or two from this item that you consider to be "whining"?

Start with "Karl Rove's pundit problem", and follow it alllllllllll the waaaaaaay down to "Which one of those three just doesn't belong?" 

Take your pick Governor. 

Your definition of "whine" seems quite partisan to me.  I thought you denounced that sort of thing.

Does it seem that way to you?  Oh dear, I am sorry to hear that.  Oh well.

Oh well.

 

Oh well? 

When did Tommy start posting like Scarlett O'Hara with all the "Oh, Governor" and the "Oh, dear"s?

Or is he just channeling Winnie the Pooh?

As Winnie said when Eeyore got lost, "Oh, bother, where art thou?"

I don't believe I said anyone's rights are being infringed upon, but if you can't accept a little criticism of a topic thread here, perhaps it is you who wants a little rights infringement.

But Tommy, you haven't once said why Boehlert is wrong. All you've done is call him a whiner. 

How is this article incorrect? 

Don't bother waiting for an answer to that one.

"Whoever wants to hire Karl Rove has every right to do so."

Tommy

"No one said that any media source should be denied the right to hire Karl Rove."

Me

"I don't believe I said that."

Tommy

"Yes you did. It's a strawman to say that there's any issue with anyone denying anyone else the right to hire Karl Rove."

Me

Oh Sue, take your whine to the MMFA staffers, or particularly Boehlert, who writes an entire thread whining about the media hiring Karl Rove and giving him a platform.

Do you whine out of bed in the morning?

What's the point, you're not there to hear it.

Wow, 9 posts out of 19, how very helpful you are.

This makes 10

When Rove began lining up media jobs following his 2007 White House departure, there were howls of protest about such an obvious and controversial partisan being embraced by media outlets as a news analyst.

My beef with the Rove hiring, though, centers on two issues related specifically to him.

Boehlert remarks that there were HOWLS OF PROTEST & his own beef about Rove being hired seems to kill your argument. Seems to me he doesn't think Rove should be hired... his whining is predicated on his belief that an alleged partisan should NOT be hired as a pundit.

Funny MSNBC is made up of almost entirely partisan Democratic biased hosts & has an unfair balance of Democratic biased partisan pundits appearing on their network. But of course that's ok...eh Sue?

BTW Sue aka BottleBlonde, how many times have you reincarnated yourself here? I've lost count.

Jeter, i think this is 4 times, but there may have been more.  The nastyness just comes right out in her posts.

It certainly comes out in yours.

Yeah, and did you notice all the examples of nastyness (sic) in my posts?

You didn't? How strange. JLYONS said my posts were full of nastyness (sic). You mean that JLYONS was not telling the truth?

Right, BB, but, of course, Tommy never said that anybody did.He only stated the obvious, reminded everybody of their rights (rights that nobody seemed confused about), and decided that commenting is whining.

MMFA has the right to comment on the media, and wacky moves like hiring Karl Rove. Everybody is free to read or not read MMFA.Any whining about what MMFA posts is, well, whining.

Wow, that's as easy as it is utterly pointless.Keep up the good work, Tommy.

Thanks Colonel, somebody has to do it.

Damn, Tommy, you got your "I never said that" reflex in before I could !

Well, not only do I get paid by the post, but extra if it's super fast.

Oh and Colonel, I have spoken to the powers that be here at MMFA on your implied suggestion, if we have our way the header for this section will now look like this; 

Comments (those that agree),  Whining (those that don't)