# Pictures of Journo-List Members. Recognize any of them?



## Mad Scientist (Jul 24, 2010)

Pictures of the Leftist Conspirators. Oh and check out all the "diversity". 







*









**



*

Image posting *FAIL!* Have patience folks I'm working on it! 
*There!* Now it works. I had to cut the image up into four parts.

Enjoy!


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 24, 2010)

well, jeeze they are kinda small and my eyesight is strained but I can see stupid old Alan Colmes in there.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 24, 2010)

Yea this is a very disturbing situation. Just more evidence that the corrupt Liberal Press is completely out of control. There may have even been some laws broken. Some of these nutters were actually seriously discussing the deaths of some of their targets. This should probably be investigated by law enforcement. Of course the MSM has been pretty silent about this but this really is incredibly disturbing. This needs to be looked into further.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Yea this is a very disturbing situation. Just more evidence that the corrupt Liberal Press is completely out of control. There may have even been some laws broken. Some of these nutters were actually seriously discussing the deaths of some of their targets. This should probably be investigated by law enforcement. Of course the MSM has been pretty silent about this but this really is incredibly disturbing. This needs to be looked into further.


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 24, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> well, jeeze they are kinda small and my eyesight is strained but I can see stupid old Alan Colmes in there.


Image now fixed. Sorry!


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 24, 2010)

Some of these nutters did actually openly discuss their hopes for physical harm to befall some of their targets. I think law enforcement may have to get involved on this one. Threats of violence are no joke. All of these Leftist nutters should be thoroughly investigated. This really is very serious.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Some of these nutters did actually openly discuss their hopes for physical harm to befall some of their targets. I think law enforcement may have to get involved on this one. Threats of violence are no joke. All of these Leftist nutters should be thoroughly investigated. This really is very serious.


Why do you hate the Jews?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> well, jeeze they are kinda small and my eyesight is strained but I can see stupid old Alan Colmes in there.


uh, where do you see Alan Colmes?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these nutters did actually openly discuss their hopes for physical harm to befall some of their targets. I think law enforcement may have to get involved on this one. Threats of violence are no joke. All of these Leftist nutters should be thoroughly investigated. This really is very serious.
> ...


uh, why do you think they are all Jews?


----------



## Modbert (Jul 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> uh, where do you see Alan Colmes?



Willow is old, we can give her a pass.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...


Howdy DiveCon.

I'd say that 90% of them are Jews.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


so?
its not their religion or ethnicity at question here
so your comment was out of place


and welcome to the board


----------



## B. Kidd (Jul 24, 2010)

Sarah Spitz........that's got to be an a.k.a..


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



How do you know?  There is no comment in the OP - just a list of photos of mostly Jewish columnists and reporters.  We are left to wonder about the OP's motives.



And thanks!


----------



## Kat (Jul 24, 2010)

hmm What would make a person take notice they were mostly Jews?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

Kat said:


> hmm What would make a person take notice they were mostly Jews?


Stein, Shapiro, Sheiber, Rosen, Hirsh, etc.

That doesn't give you any clues at all, kat?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


ah, they are all members of that journo-list where that woman claimed she would ENJOY watching Limbaugh die
and wouldnt offer assistance


----------



## Kat (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > hmm What would make a person take notice they were mostly Jews?
> ...




Not my point Synth...I don't look for race, creed..etc. So no, until it was pointed out, I didn't notice.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 24, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> Pictures of the Leftist Conspirators. Oh and check out all the "diversity".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The New Face of American Fascism


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > Pictures of the Leftist Conspirators. Oh and check out all the "diversity".
> ...


Like you have the first clue what Fascism means.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these nutters did actually openly discuss their hopes for physical harm to befall some of their targets. I think law enforcement may have to get involved on this one. Threats of violence are no joke. All of these Leftist nutters should be thoroughly investigated. This really is very serious.
> ...



I don't, quite the opposite. Are you honestly tryng to say that all unethical journalists are jews?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...


You haven't showed where anyone has been unethical.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



It's a national socialist movement.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Then I apologize. I confused you for someone who actually reads the numerous threads on the subject before they comment.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, that's 'Socialism'.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


I'm reading THIS thread.  If you want to point to other threads, why not just post in those threads?

Now, where is the unethical behaviour?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...


i think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that every journalist on that list is unethical


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Fascism is socialism. They are two sides of the same coin. The international movement is called communism. The national movement is called fascism.

They are both totalitarian regimes in which government tries to control everything it touches, oppresses individuals, and generally ends up with mass murder.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Or any of them!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Yeah, calling for murder, conspirying to hide news stories. very ethical.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Where?  Or are you just making shit up?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


um, i'm not aware of one calling for murder
i know one said she would like to watch Limbaugh die, but she didnt want to kill him or have him be kiilled, but she said she wouldnt offer assistance to him, she would enjoy just watching him die


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Jul 24, 2010)

Very few Americans trust the Liberal dominated MSM at this point. This is just more sad evidence and good reason not to trust them. These Leftist nutters should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 24, 2010)

What's up with this journo-list?
1st I've heard of it


----------



## code1211 (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > hmm What would make a person take notice they were mostly Jews?
> ...




Sorry.  Never occurred to me, either.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

code1211 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Kat said:
> ...


some people dont LOOK for things like that


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



THere are other people who do. They are called racists.


----------



## Zander (Jul 24, 2010)

scumbags


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


no no no
only conservatives can be racist
didnt you get the memo?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


I was looking for the reason why this thread existed, since the OP just posted a bunch of photos.


----------



## chanel (Jul 24, 2010)

Hortsir - google Journolist and Daily Caller I think they are on day five of the scandal. Hopefully they are saving the best for last.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 24, 2010)

Tucker Carlson joined a group called Journolist and then proceeded to post a lot of things that he took out of context "proving" that the "journalists" involved were conspiring to take over the world or something similar.

In other words, more false right wing bullshit ala Brietbart.

But of course the same idiots that admire Brietbart believe Carlson.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

There is no scandal.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> There is no scandal.


Well there ya' go! Case closed.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

ravi said:


> tucker carlson joined a group called journolist and then proceeded to post a lot of things that he took out of context "proving" that the "journalists" involved were conspiring to take over the world or something similar.
> 
> In other words, more false right wing bullshit ala brietbart.
> 
> But of course the same idiots that admire brietbart believe carlson.


links?


----------



## chanel (Jul 24, 2010)

Tucker has invited the emailers to post all of their shit in its entirety - for "context" sake.  No one has obliged.  Wonder why...


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 24, 2010)

chanel said:


> Tucker has invited the emailers to post all of their shit in its entirety - for "context" sake.  No one has obliged.  Wonder why...


do you wonder why?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 24, 2010)

chanel said:


> Hortsir - google Journolist and Daily Caller I think they are on day five of the scandal. Hopefully they are saving the best for last.


Thanks.
I did.

It reads like it was taken right of Alinsky's rule book.


----------



## clevergirl (Jul 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Tucker Carlson joined a group called Journolist and then proceeded to post a lot of things that he took out of context "proving" that the "journalists" involved were conspiring to take over the world or something similar.
> 
> In other words, more false right wing bullshit ala Brietbart.
> 
> But of course the same idiots that admire Brietbart believe Carlson.



How is this "out of context"?

JournoList contributors discussed strategies to aid Mr. Obama by deflecting the controversy. They went public with a letter criticizing an ABC interview of Mr. Obama that dwelled on his association with Mr. Wright. Then, Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent proposed attacking Mr. Obama's critics as racists. He wrote:

"*If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of themFred Barnes, Karl Rove, who caresand call them racists. . . . This makes them 'sputter' with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."*

No one on JournoList endorsed the Ackerman plan. But rather than object on ethical grounds, they voiced concern that the strategy would fail or possibly backfire.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> There is no scandal.




No scandal if you think journaists need have no ethics.

Your remedial: Since David Weigel has been fired from the WaPo, many of the emails of the Journolist listserv group have come to light.

The following documents what many of us on the right have claimed about the machinations of the corrupt left wing press.

1....in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long  nearly a year since Wrights remarks became public  to dissociate himself from them. Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged.

2 at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.....*a campaign by professional journalists to tell ABC not to ask tough questions about a candidates links to radicals*

3. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obamas relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obamas conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares  and *call them racists....*

4. Ackerman appealed to the other members of the Journolist group: If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game theyve put upon us. Instead, take one of them  Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares  *and call them racists.* Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

5. Ackerman wasnt talking about a strategy to expose real racists, in the media or anywhere else. The Washington Independent reporter wanted to* conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him *as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House. Notice that Ackerman doesnt even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism, but just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat. 

6. It certainly puts efforts by the Left to paint the Tea Party as racist in an entirely new light. It also calls into question *the ethics and judgment *of anyone who participated in that Ackerman thread. 
Hot Air Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists


Hot Air  Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 24, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > well, jeeze they are kinda small and my eyesight is strained but I can see stupid old Alan Colmes in there.
> ...



did you or did you knot hear me say my eyesight was strained. Now that I can see, I can see he's not there Jose.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 24, 2010)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > uh, where do you see Alan Colmes?
> ...



and you are still a fucking MORON pass or Know pass.


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 24, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Tucker Carlson joined a group called Journolist and then proceeded to post a lot of things that he took out of context "proving" that the "journalists" involved were conspiring to take over the world or something similar.
> 
> In other words, more false right wing bullshit ala Brietbart.
> 
> But of course the same idiots that admire Brietbart believe Carlson.



all you nazis ever say is your stupid shit is "taken out of context."  libturds need asswipes.


----------



## Dante (Jul 24, 2010)

just like a wingnut, attacking people without being able to spell their names correctly.





see if you can find the fuck up. 

go to the OP and see what gets by these conservative nitwits


----------



## Dante (Jul 24, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> Pictures of the Leftist Conspirators. Oh and check out all the "diversity".
> 
> [IMGhttp://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q27/uhhuh35/JournoList01.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> ...



friggin' idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

spell people's names correctly if you're going to try and attack them

and why use Bold and Italic tags for images?


----------



## Dante (Jul 24, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> Pictures of the Leftist Conspirators. Oh and check out all the "diversity".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh I see. You took the image from iowntheworld.com and put it on your own uhhuh35 account. but why use the bold and italic element tags?

uhhuh35? you were born in 1935??


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 24, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > There is no scandal.
> ...



These aren't journalists or reporters - they are Leftwing OPINION columnists.

Are you seriously going to tell me that Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Bernard Goldberg, Krystol, Barnes, etc. NEVER talk to each other?  Never discuss ways to make the other side look bad?  Right after 'Hannity' goes off the air, you think that Sean and Malkin cease all conversation?  Or do you think they may say things that they wouldn't want published by a snot-nosed little prick?

Please.


----------



## Dante (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



the pole chic is none too bright


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 24, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> Pictures of the Leftist Conspirators. Oh and check out all the "diversity".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Their plan as stated was that if enough of them write about something, if they make enough noise. the Main stream Media Networks would pick up the story, and in many cases they were right. They helped drive the Media coverage, or non coverage of the Election. They did so with a well planned and executed campaign of coordinated propaganda and smears. This is more than a smoking gun of a left wing conspiracy to effect the coverage of a Campaign. This is clear evidence of a concerted effort to distort the truth, and effect the out come of an election by so called objective journalists. If you peoples faux outrage about FOX was real, you would have to be very disturbed by this, yet you ignore it, and dismiss it, because it is Liberals doing it.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 24, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




Lies, some of them are commentators, some of them are suppose to be Journalists.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 24, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> This is clear evidence of a concerted effort to distort the truth, and effect the out come of an election by so called objective journalists. If you peoples faux outrage about FOX was real, you would have to be very disturbed by this, yet you ignore it, and dismiss it, because it is Liberals doing it.


Actually, I'm not hearing anyone ignoring it or dismissing it.
If anything they're applauding it and excusing it because "FOX does it".
They do the same thing when comparing administrations.
Since Bush was a dumbass, it's okay for Obama to be one too.

(I think I just Bushwhacked a thread)


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 25, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Wow.

A commentator, by definition, is someone who gives their opinion, i.e., a pundit.

A journalist doesn't ever give their opinion.  They report.  You decide.  Remember?


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


well, a journalist isnt supposed to give opinion
but many still do


----------



## Kat (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



They do now days; see it all the time.


----------



## Dante (Jul 25, 2010)

Kat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



thank you FOX News for helping to change the face of journalism.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I am so glad that you have come to this board, welcome...

Lately I have had the fear that the revelations about liberal administration in government, i.e. President Obama et. al. would leave us with no lying, unbashed, scurrilous, defamatory curs, you know, such as yourself...

So good to see that that is not the case!


----------



## code1211 (Jul 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> Kat said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




To the contrary:  I had undergone abdominal surgery shortly before 9/11 and as a result was convalescing during the news coverage of that day and the following weeks.  It was fascinating.

However, there were various times when the exhausted anchors of the various networks who were on the air literally for hours were candidly expressing their private attitudes without actually saying as much.

Peter Jennings from ABC noted that Bush was in his airplane not landing and not addressing the public.  In an obvious snipe at Bush, Jennings followed this fact by saying that some Presidents were good at this and others weren't.  There was a definite dismissive in his posture and facial expression.  

If the anchor or the reporter had an ax to grind as a lover of Clinton and a hater of Bush, it came out simply due to the pace and demands of that period of journalism.  

One of my favorite vignettes from this very confusing and very interesting sequence of reporting was an anchor who started to report one part of one story and while he was talking, was handed, on air, four or five other stories.  He tried to keep them organized and scan them to see how important they might be and finally just looked at the camera and said something like, folks, there is just too much happening, excuse me while I try to sort through these pages and then I'll read them to you. 

It was refreshing and revealing to see the polish scrubbed from the broadcasts and the personalities.  They, like me, were confused and angry.

The best part was that the reporting was about the events and not so much about what the politicians said about the events.  MSNBC and FOX ran pretty much the same news and the same opinion.  

Back to your point, though, what are your examples of FOX News journalist bias in news reporting?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> thank you FOX News for helping to change the face of journalism.


Given the topic of this thread, that is the most brain-dead response imaginable.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


Are you trying to hijack this thread with deflections, also?

None of the Journo-list members are journalists - they are opinion writers.

Get it?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 25, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> I am so glad that you have come to this board, welcome...



If that's sincere, thank you.



> Lately I have had the fear that the revelations about liberal administration in government, i.e. President Obama et. al. would leave us with no lying, unbashed, scurrilous, defamatory curs, you know, such as yourself...
> 
> So good to see that that is not the case!



So, you've got nothing to refute my point, just insults.  Got it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


sorry, but its YOU who is doing the deflecting
and everyone can see that


----------



## clevergirl (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Who "they" are:

Left-leaning bloggers, *political reporters*, *magazine writers*, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList. 

I even included a slightly left leaning site that gives a left spin to the story. Clearly though they are not "just" opinion journalist's. That said, the problem with much of what leftist's call news is opinion. Newspapers have been editorializing headlines for a long long time now.

Read more: JournoList: Inside the echo chamber - Michael Calderone - POLITICO.com


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 25, 2010)

clevergirl said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


OK - who on the list is NOT an opinion writer?  Who on the list is a 'reporter', since you chose that word instead of journalist?

Heads-up:  I'm leaving for work in a bit, not 'running away'.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


read her link


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I am so glad that you have come to this board, welcome...
> ...



1. First, I do welcome you, as I welcome all that I meet. I also mean it when I say that I am even happier to see new left leaning members, as the alternative would be...somewhat boring.

2. Now as for refutation, it is alway jaw-dropping for me when I run into a member who does not realize, has not been brought up to understand, that lying and besmearching the reputations of innocents is wrong, is evil...

even when it is a member of the other side that is the target...
you know, 'the politics of personal destruction.'
a. Would you defend a car-jacker who only beat and robbed a conservative? No, then consider the meaning of Shakespeares':

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.


3. Any vituperation that you detect is meant to underscore your explicit agreement with such iniquity. To avoid the attachment of same requires that you move 'honesty' higher in your character resume.

4. It is frivolous to try to parse words such as 'journalist,' and claim that the group in question should not be so identified.  The name of their listserv is 'journolist.' Do you have a theory why they chose it?

5.Certainly you would not be ready to claim that being liberal is not also a criterion for admission to the group...or would you be ready to parse same, as progressive, leftist, of some such.???


In short, I do welcome you, and also reiterate my contumely for any who would use the terrm 'racist' strategically, or- such as you- who would defend it.


----------



## clevergirl (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Dave Weigel and Ezra Klein from the Post are reporters hired for the Post's on-line publication; Weigel has resigned over this controversy. They have done both opinion and hard story coverage for the paper. Ezra began JournoList while doing the Post's blog.

I do not understand what point you think you are making... If it is that they are diminished because they only write opinion (not true in any case) it certainly isn't one that those on the list are even trying to make?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 25, 2010)

mad scientist said:


> pictures of the leftist conspirators. Oh and check out all the "diversity".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*hey....where's all the black people????*


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I got the memo. I just disregarded it as uninformed tripe.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 25, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



i hear ya


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 25, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



You're honestly trying to argue that members of list serve called journo-list are not journalists? Seriously?

I suppose the members of the Democrat Underground aren't really Democrats.

Or that the members of the Republican National Committee aren't really Republicans.

Seriously, is this the best you have to excuse their unethical behavior?


----------



## Dante (Jul 25, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > thank you FOX News for helping to change the face of journalism.
> ...



it was a reply to a post, not a comment on the thread.


----------



## sitarro (Jul 25, 2010)

Modbert said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > uh, where do you see Alan Colmes?
> ...



It's your young lack of experience and knowledge about life that is needed to be given a pass every day kid......... when you've aged enough to grow pubic hair, maybe you'll understand something besides video games.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 25, 2010)

Dante said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



It was just screaming irony, though, man


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 25, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 26, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Thinking they have said these things means nothing. Perhaps, as Political Chic did, you can post some exact quotes from Hannity and the rest discussing ways to "make the left look bad". Anything short of that is just your opinion and not fact.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 26, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I'm getting bored already!



> 2. Now as for refutation, it is alway jaw-dropping for me when I run into a member who does not realize, has not been brought up to understand, that lying and besmearching the reputations of innocents is wrong, is evil...



But they are not innocent.  The question in front of these email correspondents was whether they call out the racists.  If you believe that Fred Barnes is employing a race-baiting tactic in order to harm this Black president, then it's acceptable to call him a racist.  They were saying "pick one, and call him a racist".  Doesn't really matter which one, as long as they are using these tactics.

I always love to hear Rightwingers cry when they are punched back.  



> 3. Any vituperation that you detect is meant to underscore your explicit agreement with such iniquity. To avoid the attachment of same requires that you move 'honesty' higher in your character resume.



Maybe tomorrow I'll re-read that very slowly.  Maybe not.



> 4. It is frivolous to try to parse words such as 'journalist,' and claim that the group in question should not be so identified.  The name of their listserv is 'journolist.' Do you have a theory why they chose it?



Do you agree that the kid working at Target prolly prefers being called an 'Associate' rather than a cashier?



> 5.Certainly you would not be ready to claim that being liberal is not also a criterion for admission to the group...or would you be ready to parse same, as progressive, leftist, of some such.???



Well, yes, it is a group of Liberals.  Nice detective work.



> In short, I do welcome you, and also reiterate my contumely for any who would use the terrm 'racist' strategically, or- such as you- who would defend it.



The strategy is not to call people racists.  The strategy is to answer the attacks from the fringe Rightwing.

How do you feel about the people who use the term 'Marxist' or 'Fascist' or 'Socialist' strategically?  Where can I find some posts from you criticizing the use of those terms?  Since I'm new here, it will give me an opportunity to see for myself if you are full of shit.  

Please answer the question I posed, about Hannity, etc., in post #57.  Thanks.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 26, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 26, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I'm not going to be an enabler to your immaturity.  If you want to look silly and claim that the Wingnut Media doesn't ever talk to each other about the best strategies for attacking Obama, then have at it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 26, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


no, you made a claim, back it up


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


Don't lie.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 26, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


i'm not

when you have some PROOF to back up what you said, till then its just another liberal fantasy


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Don't lie, divecon.


----------



## DiveCon (Jul 26, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


how many times do i have to tell you, "I'm NOT"


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 26, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> *Pictures of Journo-List Members. Recognize any of them?*



I don't recognize any of them...but Kate Steadman is a fucking hottie!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



So good to see you back! After all, what good would this debate be without the human piñata!

1. Since honesty is clearly not high on your list of priorities, perhaps understanding the writ should be...
The strategy of the liberal journalists was to throw around the term 'racist,' that particular word, arbitrarily, as in "Pick one of Obamas conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares  and *call them racists*.
The quote seems to place you into an untenable position, as you state "The strategy is *not to call people racists."*Perhaps you should read more carefully...

2. You are not free to define any critic of Obama policy as 'racist.' The term has a specific meaning.
But, civil protocol is also not a hallmark of your side.

3. "Ackerman wasnt talking about a strategy to expose real racists, in the media or anywhere else.  The Washington Independent reporter wanted to conduct a campaign against any figure on the Right, including journalists like Fred Barnes, to smear him as a racist for the political purposes of electing a Democrat to the White House.  Notice that Ackerman *doesnt even bother to ask people to look for actual evidence of racism*, but *just suggests to pick a conservative name out of a hat*. "
Hot Air  Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists

4. This is why I was pleased to have another leftist join the board, as the both insipid and dishonest nature of your responses paints your side far better than I could.

5. Several times you have attempted to defend what you claim to find no harm in...yet would show 'Hannity' doing the same, ...what...'strategy'?  You puncture your own defense, since if the procedure where not wrong, why would you point it out on the other side?

a. Further, the defense is imaginary and hypothetical, as there is not a corresponding conservative 'listserv' strategizing as these liberal knaves do...

6. So it wasn't necessary to use the Rosetta Stone to see that 'I'm getting bored already!'
actually means 'I'm looking like a loser already.'
True, you are, and don't think I don't appreciate it.

Brutal, huh? Sorry you didnt run with scissors when you had the chance?

Now, write soon.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 26, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> The strategy of the *liberal journalists *was to throw around the term 'racist,' that particular word, arbitrarily, as in "Pick one of Obamas conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares  and *call them racists*.
> The quote seems to place you into an untenable position, as you state "The strategy is *not to call people racists."*Perhaps you should read more carefully...
> 
> 2. You are not free to define any critic of Obama policy as 'racist.' The term has a specific meaning.
> ...



You say 'Liberal journalists', plural, then talk about Ackerman.  Should this be a thread about this Ackerman fellow, then?  

And what was the response from the other opinion writers when Ackerman threw this out for discussion?



> 5. Several times you have attempted to defend what you claim to find no harm in...yet would show 'Hannity' doing the same, ...what...'strategy'?  You puncture your own defense, since if the procedure where not wrong, why would you point it out on the other side?



You clearly have trouble seeing peripherally.  Most likely due to the blinders.  I didn't point out Hannity's gang to show how wrong it is, I did so to show how normal it is.

Now pay attention:  *every group talks amongst themselves*.



> a. Further, the defense is imaginary and hypothetical, as there is not a corresponding conservative 'listserv' strategizing as these liberal knaves do...



How do you know?  Maybe it just hasn't been made public in an act of yellow journalism yet.



> 6. So it wasn't necessary to use the Rosetta Stone to see that 'I'm getting bored already!'
> actually means 'I'm looking like a loser already.'
> True, you are, and don't think I don't appreciate it.



Your vanity is amusing.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 26, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



See the way it works on this board, in order for anyone to take anything you state as fact, you need to provide links, quotes etc. Not really a hard concept unless you want zero credibility in your posts. Nothing immature about it as I would expect you to require the same of the other posters. I for one am never going to take a posters statement on a  message board as nothing more than opinion if it is not backed up with fact. There are too may posters with blind partisanship and idealogue hate to believe any unfounded posts.
Ill take your response as a "no" to having links to back up your claim.

BTW, how I appear to  you on this board matters not to me. It may give you some sort of power in you mind but has no affect on me.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 27, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> *See the way it works on this board, in order for anyone to take anything you state as fact, you need to provide links, quotes etc.* Not really a hard concept unless you want zero credibility in your posts. Nothing immature about it as I would expect you to require the same of the other posters. I for one am never going to take a posters statement on a  message board as nothing more than opinion if it is not backed up with fact. There are too may posters with blind partisanship and idealogue hate to believe any unfounded posts.



I did not state anything as fact.  Are you going to lie, also?


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 27, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > *See the way it works on this board, in order for anyone to take anything you state as fact, you need to provide links, quotes etc.* Not really a hard concept unless you want zero credibility in your posts. Nothing immature about it as I would expect you to require the same of the other posters. I for one am never going to take a posters statement on a  message board as nothing more than opinion if it is not backed up with fact. There are too may posters with blind partisanship and idealogue hate to believe any unfounded posts.
> ...



Never stated you did. I did say if you want anything to be taken as factual, you need to back it up with facts (ie links, video, etc). Looks like you are the one being dishonest. i am done with this discussion as i am here only for the debates, not back and forth grade school bickering. If you feel the need for the last word, go for it.


----------



## Article 15 (Jul 27, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Your vanity is amusing.



She's just a silver-tongued doucherag ideologue who blames liberals for everything wrong in the world ... a total snore.


----------



## lennon47 (Jul 27, 2010)

The photo gallery is the staff at MSNBC


----------



## chanel (Jul 27, 2010)

> The Daily Caller has highlighted some of Journolists worst moments  such as when liberal members of the media plotted to kill important stories about the presidential campaign.
> 
> But the 400-member listserv, like any community, was a complex arrangement comprised of many individual voices.
> 
> ...



Read more: Heroes of Journolist: Dan Froomkin, James Surowiecki, Jeffrey Toobin, Michael Tomasky ? and founder Ezra Klein | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment


Credit where it's due...


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 27, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > I did not state anything as fact.  Are you going to lie, also?
> ...



Then why are you popping off about backing up statements of fact, if you already know that I didn't make such a statement?



> I did say if you want anything to be taken as factual, you need to back it up with facts (ie links, video, etc).



When I do, I will.  Do you just like to hear yourself type?



> Looks like you are the one being dishonest.



Where?  Point it out or fuck off.



> I am done with this discussion as i am here only for the debates, not back and forth grade school bickering. If you feel the need for the last word, go for it.



Oh, you'll be back.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 27, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Your vanity is amusing.
> ...


Her avatar is kinda hot, at least.

Btw, where did she run off to?  I'm not done bitch-slapping her yet.


----------

