Comments on: Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives? Horowitz vs. Frum, Round Three – by Jamie Glazov

By: imgood

imgood — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:46:12 +0000

Now you're projecting, Mr. Bubba. The mere fact that you do not consider it necessary to read articles or books upon which you comment is not a sufficient basis for you to accuse others of similar intellectual dishonesty. Shame, shame!

By: bubba4

bubba4 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:39:41 +0000

Its a media watchdog…they have a mission statement…it's about exposing “conservative” misinformation.

I don't think you have ever read it, or you wouldn't have said what you said….everything is backed up there by audio, video, transcripts….sorry

By: imgood

imgood — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:23:45 +0000

Clearly you do not
spend as much time reading the posts on Media Matters as you claim. It is a thoroughly partisan organisation, less devoted to advocacy than to discrediting the occasional protests of patriots concerning where the left is taking America.

By: NewsReal Vs. David Frum « NewsReal Blog

NewsReal Vs. David Frum « NewsReal Blog — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:57:22 +0000

[...] 10/2/2009 at FrontPage, Frum Vs. Horowitz Round 3: Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives [...]

By: bubba4

bubba4 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:15:50 +0000

I'm at a disadvantage here. I can't put all the things I don't like into one big group, so we should stick to individual examples. To back up your Rush defense your citing CBS from 2004? That's a whole other post, thread, and issue.

"As to Media Matters, one of its M.O.s is to broadcast a snippet of a quote that ignores its context and distorts the speaker's meaning."

By broadcast you mean post to their website? They are a website after all.

"It would be comparable to a conservative speaker declaring in a forty minute speech the following line, "After a decade of erratic Weimar fiscal policy, many citizens of Germany thought Hitler was good," and then excerpting the three words "Hitler was good" to prove that the speaker, like all true conservatives (wink wink) supported Hitler."

This just isn't true. There isn't an item on their website that isn't backed up by transcript, context, audio, or video. If people can't take responsibility for what they say, then they shouldn't speak with authority.

MM is like a robot. They have commentaries, but you will find more links in one editorial on MM then in all the articles on FPM combined. If you see videos cut into a montage, then those videos have already been covered fully and you can go back and look at the full clip.

"Then the leftist sickos at Media Matters disseminate the cut to their favorite liberal media network or blog. Led by the girly boy David Schlock, Media Matters lies fanatically (still denying Soros as a source of funding) and distorts the speech of patriots to serve its goal, as radicals say, of "radical social transformation," i.e. socialism."

"as radicals say"? Dude, you are doing what you are accusing Media Matters of.
And you are on FPM, run by Horowitz's "Freedom Center". Where you do think he gets his money? If you count any foundation that has anything to do with any other foundation or trust that Soros has something to do with, then Soros funds the entire world. Same with Scaife and "conservatives". It doesn't tell us anything about what is "true". In any case, you have to do some pretty amazing backflips to make Soros the funder of MM.

Rush imparticular is listened to everyday by MM. I sometimes listen to Rush for a few minutes in the morning on my way to the office. You don't have distort...he says crazy shit all the time.

By: imgood

imgood — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:48:57 +0000

Hey Bubba 4, Of course, commentators attack Rush for “alleged comments,” or to be more accurate, comments he never made. He was chastised by a variety of liberal commentators and public figures for aserting–among other things–that “slavery had its merits,” among other fabrications. Subsequently, several of the commentators retracted the assertion, after its publication had served the left's purpose. The reality is that the left frequently misquotes, or more perniciously, fabricates comments, statements, and documents relating to conservatives; for example, the forged document intended to discredit Bush during the 2004 re-election campaign (which Dan Rather pursued with gusto, and which helped shorten his career at CBS). There are many others.
As to Media Matters, one of its M.O.s is to broadcast a snippet of a quote that ignores its context and distorts the speaker's meaning. It would be comparable to a conservative speaker declaring in a forty minute speech the following line, “After a decade of erratic Weimar fiscal policy, many citizens of Germany thought Hitler was good,” and then excerpting the three words “Hitler was good” to prove that the speaker, like all true conservatives (wink wink) supported Hitler. Then the leftist sickos at Media Matters disseminate the cut to their favorite liberal media network or blog. Led by the girly boy David Schlock, Media Matters lies fanatically (still denying Soros as a source of funding) and distorts the speech of patriots to serve its goal, as radicals say, of “radical social transformation,” i.e. socialism.

By: bubba4

bubba4 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:18:29 +0000

People don't attack Rush for “alleged” comments…they critique his actual comments.

Media Matters is not a News site…it is a media watchdog…so it is a reliable site for what they track…which is “conservative” misinformation. You can disagree with their editorials, but they always include clips, transcripts, links, and everything. So, are you saying they manipulate their clips or lie about the content? There is no evidence for that.

I don't have much time for reading atm, but when I do squeeze in a book, it's not going to be Ann Coulter.

By: imgood

imgood — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:14:25 +0000

Good day, Mr. Bubba4! My stomach is strong today, so I thought I would look to see what issues you're fulminating about today. I note your comment that no one need “attack Rush for alleged comments.” But if that is true, why does so much of your liberal cohort do exactly that? In fact, the lefties frequently fabricate comments to try to discredit Rush.
Your endorsement of Media Matters as a reliable source of information is entirely consistent with your preference for reading left-wing blogs to learn the content of books rather than actually reading the books.

By: David Frum Careens Off The Deep End (NewsReal blog) – by David Horowitz | FrontPage Magazine

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:26:57 +0000

[...] note: See the recent Frontpage debate between David Horowitz and David Frum here. Categories: FrontPage Tags: Print This Post blog comments powered by Disqus var [...]

By: bubba4

bubba4 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:49:06 +0000

Media Matters is a media watdog website that focuses exclusively on “conservative” misinformation. Actually if you want to get a handle on something Rush says or said and you want to read/hear it in context…I think MM has a pretty extensive archive of offensive and stupid things he's said. You don't have to listen to his entire three hour program everyday to have an opinion about Rush.

The Daily Kos is a blogger?

No one has to attack Rush for alleged comments…his real, documented, in context comments provide plenty of fodder.

By: Terry Krepel Accidentally Confesses That Media Matters Smeared Glenn Beck « NewsReal Blog

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:31:55 +0000

[...] obviously hasn’t read very many of the writings we’ve done on Beck. Nor has he read the debate between David Frum and Horowitz. Criticism of Beck is necessary and important, particularly from conservative quarters. Beck [...]

By: imgood

imgood — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:53:15 +0000

I think your analysis is right on…and I like the literary reference. Frum is the type of “conservative” who fears being viewed negatively by his academic buddies, most of whom happen to be situated on the left. He is genuinely embarrassed by “regular” Americans, in whose lives such atavistic (from Frum's perspective) phenomena as faith and patriotism are central. Thus his deep distaste for former-Governor Palin. Like most secular academic types, he is more attracted to words than deeds, especially when someone says those words in a way calculated to appeal to academics–thus his positive view, until recently at least, of Obama, a demagogue in the worst sense of the word, and a would-be dictator if ever I have seen one in America.
Frum thinks that conservatives can avoid getting their hands dirty and should combat the left by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Horowitz, a red-diaper baby and, for the first theity five or so years of his life, a man of the left, understands better than most who these people are and what animates them.
Ultimately, Frum is an irrelevancy and non-entity in such debates; Horowitz is a vital organ at the center of our opposition.