Fourth of a series. Find parts one, two and three here. And don’t miss this report, either.
Martha Coakley declares that terrorists are “gone from Afghanistan” and has no idea the Taliban are either terrorists or our sworn enemies.
No one ever accused Martha Coakley of having any foreign-policy experience. After all, as a career lawyer, prosecutor, state attorney general and lifelong Democrat party hack, the “Massachusette” can’t rationally be expected to be as up on the nuances of the “war on terror” as, say, Joe Biden.
Still, her remarks during her one debate with Scott Brown on January 11 should trouble anyone who hopes that a potential successor to the warm body currently occupying the deceased Lion of the Senate’s seat would have, shall we say, a greater grasp of the geo-political situation.
First, in her own words, her foreign-policy credentials:
I have a sister who lives overseas and she’s been in England and now lives in the Middle East. I’ve spent a lot of time on my own traveling, ‘cause I’m interested in it. Less so as attorney general, and my responsibilities don’t take me overseas.
Unbelievable? See for yourself:
Remember when the media had a great collective chortle over Sarah Palin’s alleged remark that she “could see Russia from my house,” even though those words belonged to Palin avatar Tina Fey? The press had a field day distorting Palin’s quote, as if she bumptiously blurted out the first thing that came into her silly head. In fact, Palin’s remark came in reply to a question from a snooty, supercilious Charles Gibson:
Q: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks does the proximity of the state give you?
A: They’re our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
Unfamiliar with the First Rule of Hostile Journalism — that every question is a potential “gotcha” – Palin fell into the rookie trap of trying to be conversational with a snake and wound up halfway into the boa constrictor before she knew what hit her.
So, on the theory that turnabout is fair play (to the Democrats, it never is, but so what?) let’s take a look at Ms. Coakley’s baffling answer to a perfectly reasonable question from David “Conventional Wisdom” Gergen during the debate. Asked about her views on Afghanistan, she said this:
I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think we should plan an exit strategy, yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believe the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that goal. They’re gone, they’re not there anymore, they are in apparently Yemen and Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is.
Unfortunately for Martha’s learning curve, the Taliban had earlier provided a response, had she bothered to notice it:
Almost needless to say, the U.S. is actively fighting the Taliban and that “terrorists” have been killing U.S. Troops, CIA, members, and NATO troops on a daily basis in Afghanistan for the last several years. That’s why it’s called a “theater of war.”
Ironically, on the same day she said this, she could have read this AP story:
Six NATO service members, including three Americans, were killed Monday in Afghanistan, making it the deadliest day for the international force in more than two months.
The violence underscored warnings that casualties will increase as more foreign troops stream into the country and step up the fighting against the Taliban.
Not to worry, though: given her defeatist foreign-policy ideas, if Coakley is elected, she may soon be able to see terrorists at Logan Airport. Just ask the people of Detroit how that almost worked out.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
173 Comments
"Not to worry, though: given her defeatist foreign-policy ideas, if Coakley is elected, she may soon be able to see terrorists at Logan Airport. Just ask the people of Detroit how that almost worked out."
Wonderful point.
Martha is the gift that keeps on giving. Your article cites the Avatar, Tina Fey; perhaps Martha Coakley ought join Saturday Night Live, or since she likes to travel, she could join the Peace Corp, and become Bill Clintons Personal Aide de Camp in Haiti……………..
I wonder if she would think to take a blue dress?
We get one step closer to survival if Brown beats Coakley
We have survived for over two hundred years. Granted, the pouser has done more in twelve months to destroy US than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ combined. But the great thing about America, is that we will always have HOPE. Not the false hope and promises of a fradulent imposter, but the Hope of a better tomorrow. I believe that after Tuesday, we will once again get a glimpse through the fog; a glimpse at that "Shining City on the Hill."…………………….
HOW? Is the MSM not making comparisons to Sarah Palin. Not that I think there are any but, with all the gaffs this woman makes? She is Joe Biden in a skirt.
Actually, she makes Joe Biden appear intelligent.
The Lamestream Media keeps insisting that we agree with them that conservative women like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ann Coulter et al, are simpletons and moonbats, YET we have this twit and many of the Democrat delegation – GUESS WHAT? Sounding like moonbats and simpletons.
Double standard? You bet.
Hey, "Bubba" Clinton travels "free and easy", ya know? I can see Clinton at the hotel front desk in Haiti right now.
Clinton, flashing a $20 –
"Hey fella, you parlee` vous and Englese? Where can a guy find some action around here, ya know (wink wink)?"
Cowboy Logic
Thank you for the hope, I falter and feel much as does, GoodDaddy, on occasion, we do need to support each other at those times.
In all seriousness, and sincerity, so do I.
Without believing in US, and something better, the alternative is bleak. We can never surrender, we can never give up.
Don't worry Joe Biden and Harry Reid will be there to tell her how to vote. And she will.
Cowboy Logic
Remember the Alamo!
I think we're at the point where we need a headline about something ol' Martha isn't clueless on. A "man bites dog" kind of story.
Where is the cohesive link to journalism in this blog post? The brief mention of the notorious Couric interview? The two-word jab at David Gergen? Here's a gentle reminder, Gary: If I wanted a shallow analysis of a Senate race debate, I would head over to the website of a mainstream media outlet. How about we write about journalism for a journalism site? How's that for a concept?
Almost as stupid as suggesting there were "terrorists" there to begin with rather than sheppards who don't like a foreign occupying force. They are more like the Founding Fathers than the legacy here in the US of TV watchers who will give in easily when deprived of their tv dinners and easy chairs. Most of what I hear about the Afghans is properly rooted in RESENTMENT. Resentment for a simple life. Resentment for a family life where men are the proper head instead of some ball-breaking feminist.
Write about journalism? Dude. Git over yourself. Write about journalism?
Do you wish to clarify yourself?
"Show bus'ness kids makin' movies of themselves
You know they don't give a *uck about anybody else"
PTek…who is stopping you from being the next great patriot?
Showbiz Kids!
PTek. "How about we write about journalism for a journalism site? How's that for a concept?"
God dang. And I thought that we'd never find a new industry to bring us out of the 21st century. Thank god for journalism. Folks. Sport media and political media have peaked. Save your cash.
Paid media is toast.
I am amazed how this woman came to be the Democrat candidate.
This woman is so utterly pathetic that I would be embarrassed if I were a democrat. But then, they have no shame.
While not what most people would consider a 'politician' – Coakley is the stereotypical dumbocrat hack that votes as she's told to vote by party big wigs.
She has no clue about the world around her because it's simply not necessary for her to do her "job" .
Honestly , can't you easily picture Martha looking to pelosi or reid every time an Up or Down vote is needed on something? She hasn't a clue what any particular vote is about – but simply votes as she's told. That's how the majority of democrat politicians " do their job" .
They work for the 'party' , the American people don't factor in for them. AND NOW THEY WILL PAY.
I've been rather glum and "cranky" for the last 361 days, (ever since Obambi's swearing in as CinC), however, on watching Coakley's vid. and hearing her answer to her foreign-policy experience, I actually started to LMAO.
My God…call her sister!
That's like saying she watched a lot of the "Travel Channel" on the Tee Vee.
If this creature wins the election on Tue., we are soooo screwed.
It could still happen folks, never forget that Dhimms lie, cheat and steal to get their agenda passed.
"The end justifies the means" has always been their motto.
Not Over.
Look on the bright side.
There are only 1099 days left until the Dahli Bama packs up the show and heads back to Kenya.
I hear ya Cowboy…but do you think you, or I, or the country for that matter, can survive this assault on us for that long?
No, really.
Not Over.
I'm sure the good people of Massachusetts can read, and that CNBC and CNN are not the only news they watch…If they have heard ANY of this nonsense, about the Taliban not being in Afghanistan, and see all the really rotten stuff her campaign has come up with (UPS truck!), they will either not vote or vote for Brown…what amazes me is, the fact that Obama is going to bat for her anyway, even after the whole world knows what a total idiot she is…Biy, is this going to look bad on him if she loses..? I hope Brown wins by a landslide!!
"Moonbat." I like that word!
Though, for some reason to me a moonbat conjures up this image of a fluffy bat flying on the moon. Which is hard. Because there's no air to fly in. Not to mention how does the bat breath? I wonder where it originated from?
Anyway, yes, quite right. The double standard is so blatant it is laughable. I love how arrogant they are. So arrogant they can't see how irrelevant they've become.
The trouble is finding a suitable headline. Near as I can tell she only makes one gaff to the next.
Remember Fort Hood…………
If you are envious of the life of Afghans, perhaps you should relocate to their oasis. Word is that most of their sheep and goats are properly stump trained.
Most likely because the Lion wasn't going anywhere, so they didn't groom anyone.
this poor example of a democrat politician sites another example of how puppets are manipulated by a few. one obvious puppet is now in the whitehouse – the so-called president.
The next step is to focus attention on Yemen, our need to support our partner there convince everyone that Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan for Yemen, declare victory and desert the Afghans.
Its actually already started.
"…if Coakley is elected, she may soon be able to see terrorists at Logan Airport."
Um, the 9/11 flights all originated at Logan, so you might want to add an, "again" there.
[...] Coakley Clueless on Afghanistan, Seeks ‘Exit Strategy’ [...]
I doubt Obeezlebama's taxpayer funded campaign trip to Mass. is as much in support of Martha Clueless, as it is to show his support for SEIU and Acorn. He probably has a "stash" packed away on AF 1 in anticipation of "sharing the wealth" (ie., further rewarding his masters with our money).
Let's pray enough folks in the Bay State vote with a real sense of Patriotism and elect Scott Brown. He may not be perfect, but he is much the lesser of two evils. GO SCOTT
Trying for some comic relief? Why don't you go live the simple life it would better fit your intellect. I understand the adore troll there, in-fact they collect troll heads.
The problem is not so much the terrorists there. The problem is that the terrorists that trained under Taliban rule came here on 9/11. Interesting that you are sufficiently in favor of the simple life where "men are the proper head" not to have even a teeny tiny concern that girls seeking to learn to read have acid thrown in their faces – perhaps you feel this will prevent them from being "some ball-breaking feminist" like the ones who pushed you around and gave rise to your comments. Personally I do not "envy" such an existence for my children.
That took some doing.
Showbiz Kids!
PTek. "How about we write about journalism for a journalism site? How's that for a concept?"
God dang. And I thought that we'd never find a new industry to bring us out of the 21st century. Thank god for journalism. Folks. Sport media and political media have peaked. Save your cash.
Paid media is toast.
Remember, when you return to the old ways, to eat with your right hand and wipe your arse with your left!
Don't be so mean to Martha. She is just looking to be he heir apparent to Barbara Boxer in the Senate. If she loses this race she can always run for the House and apprentice under Maxine Waters.
Or Charles Rangel. Or Jesse Jr. Or…
Citizens of (thank DrEdu!) Massaschusetts – BRING a CAMERA or VIDEO CAMERA to the polls tuesday. SEIU et al WILL BE INTIMIDATING VOTERS,
If you are obviously NOT union or a "person of color" voter these Democrat(SS) wiil be after YOU! If you're a senior citizen ask a family member to go with you to vote. These criminal unions are getting HUGE tax advantages and are STEALING your Medicare BENEFITS.
You PAID for those benefits, don't let a UNION THUG STEAL THEM!
This is for ALL the socialist marbles. Unions STAND to benefit BIG from this "Healthcare Sham" and this criminal administration.
It's "quid pro quo" now Clarese, "quid pro quo". I'd LOVE to hear the phone calls between Obama and SEIU
I think this woman is an idiot so there's no reason to spin the story. I thought BJ was about credibility in journalism.
The video clearly shows the interviewer prefacing her question with a statement that Coakley has said she doesn't have foreign policy experience. The interviewer then asks if it's going to be a learning curve and if she's traveled abroad, what she's learned, etc.
Coakley was answering the question that was asked and never credited having a sister who lives over-seas as foreign policy experience. I don't know if she answered the question about what she has learned from her travels because the video was cut.
This twisting and spin is exactly the journalistic game-playing I'm fed up with. Coakley is a terrible candidate and there's plenty to criticize so stick to the facts.
I would expect a brilliant person such as yourself to have their own journalism web site and not be wasting his valuable talents being a troll. Could you direct us to it?
Your mothers calling, now run along home and play with your video games.
Seeing as how you abandoned our previous debate, I'm assuming you are reverting to the infantile mockery due to your lack of mental capacity for anything that doesn't involve accusing someone of name-calling or mis-linking intellectualism with elitism (Oh, wait. The latter accusation is a trademark of the indecorously brainless HiPlainsDrifter. Don't worry. You'll eventually conform, too.)
Editor and Publisher and the Columbia Journalism Review are fair starting points for websites that objectively dissect the news industry. Of course, the equity of discourse is not exactly Big Journalism's specialty, but I at least expect blog posts that have foundations of significance in the topic of journalism.
If your next response includes a reference to my mommy or video games (both of which I hold very dear in this embryonic existence of mine), then you are only verifying your repetitive deficiency to address the issues I propose and instead blather like the close-minded simpleton you are. Yes, that was name-calling. And… go!
"Almost as stupid as suggesting there were "terrorists" there to begin with rather than sheppards who don't like a foreign occupying force."
Only to those with no comprehension of history.
Tell me, knave, were the Barbary Pirates we faced while trying to prevent attacks upon our shipping on the open sea all poor goat herds who took up arms against a nonexistent occupation of their territory? Were the Ikhwan of Arabia reacting to a nonexistant Western occupation when they torched Baghdad and Damascus in the 19th century? Were the Cosmopolitan Ottoman Turks reacting against Western aggression every single time in their existance?
Fools such as yourself think history began in 1961. It. DIDN'T.
" They are more like the Founding Fathers than the legacy here in the US of TV watchers who will give in easily when deprived of their tv dinners and easy chairs."
Perhaps physically (after all, I do believe many here would not be able to forsake the comfort of their homes to fight and die for freedom, like you yourself, knave), but CERTAINLY not ideologically.
"Most of what I hear about the Afghans is properly rooted in RESENTMENT."
Ah, but we have already established that what you hear rarely has any connection to the truth.
" Resentment for a simple life. Resentment for a family life where men are the proper head instead of some ball-breaking feminist."
And, this justifies chopping hands off for reading… HOW? And even then, that "simple life" is not incompatible with being fed up with the rampant gangsterism of the Taliban.
" I guess I should have said "envy." Be honest. Clear your conscience."
I have, knave. Now, will you either learn history, bugger off, or die?
Actually, they gave their reasons. You must be in denial. Or just ignorant.
I'm curious, didn't US shipping also come under attack by the Christian British – like, say, during the war of 1812?
From what I can tell people like YOU think history began in 1979.
"And, this justifies chopping hands off for reading…" Oh, please. What propaganda.
Oh, they gave their reasons/ That doesn't mean they were justified,. How would you have liked it if ISRAEL was harboring those who committed 9/11?
"I'm curious, didn't US shipping also come under attack by the Christian British – like, say, during the war of 1812?"
No, even before that. The Brits more or less continuously raided our shipping from Independence to 1816. But that hardly excuses the actions of the Barbary pirates, now does it?
"From what I can tell people like YOU think history began in 1979."
Incorrect, in case you missed my points regarding the Turkish invasions of Europe from 1400-1730, the original expansion of Muslim power after the founding (North Africa was once Byzantine, you know), the Turkish Jihad in WWI, and not a few other things (including the attacks of the Sumatran pirates upon "infidel" shipping during the early-mid 19th century, that even led us to dispatch a fleet to punish them).
"Oh , please. What propaganda"
Have you ever looked at what passes for the Saudi or Iranian penal code, knave? Is that just propaganda to you? How about some of the videos available that shows those punishments being carried out? Are those all staged?
Idiot.
He would love it because he is an anti semitic. That is why his comments are so pro jihad.
Dems are great at starting Wars…………………and letting Repub Admins get out, or finish them.
And they made fun of Palin?………………..She has, had more experience than Obama, but the Communist Media( All that's left, except Fox), have done everything but draw and quarter her, her baby, and her daughter……..even saying her Downs Syndrom child was not hers!!..Good Lord!.
Why don't they focus on getting BHO to produce ORIGINAL BIRTH RECORDS?
They can't, he was born in Africa( ask his Grandmiother, she was there when he was)………..
Not likely even an American citizen……………if he is, PROVE IT.
The only thing about the Afghanis that I resent is that they willingly harbored people who, for no reason other than blind prejudice, decided to bomb the hell out of my country.
You never made it out of grammar school, did you……………..or were you just "passed" from grade to grade, without learning even the most rudimentary history lesson?
The female members of our FFs weren't forbidden from learning how to read and write, could and did work, and most assuredly were one of many wives.
Some of our FFs were extremely cosmopolitan, lived in what was then considered to be "large" cities, and hardly led a "simple" life.
OTOH, more than 1/2 of the Afghanni males are totally illiterate, most have never seen a flush toilet, and all are tribal……….in a stoneage kind of way.
I would sugest that She mirrors the Democrat party of today, She fits the Pelosi, Reid and Obamas mold of the modern Democrat..
i prefer my female dimwit candidates to feminine and sexy, like palin, not butch and lesbianic like chokely…
I never advocated that a Columbia journalism education was superior. In fact, it is well-known within news communities that graduate j-school is extraneous and overall unnecessary unless your undergraduate major is in something starkly different. But that doesn't mean that a publication the school issues is just as invalid as the education it provides.
I continue to visit this site because it is more destructive than constructive and deserves to be exploited for that reason, even if I'm the only person to affirm so. Journalism doesn't need frenzied partisan hacks hoping to avenge a conservative media culture. It needs journalists hoping to avenge media culture. Does political bias play an unavoidable role in journalism? Yes, but simply pointing fingers will not progress the revival of journalism. Every single blogger on this site is currently running in place, kicking up a cloud of dirt that obscures any pragmatic approach to fixing a broken institution.
Regardless, my original comment asserted that this specific posting was more wholly than partially unrelated to journalism. I would be gratified if anybody could enumerate the non-implied points of Hewson's article that focus on highlighting the pratfalls of the media and how they can be prevented or at least averted.
Hey Gary –
Coakleys sister is in the middle east? And Coakley has visited her? Any idea what her sister is doing there? Who she is? Where she is? What Coakley did when she visited her?
It might be worth checking into. . .
??? You are just jealous that no one want to post your statements.
It makes sense to me. Almost every Dem I can think of fits the profile.
Just what kind of an idiot do you take me and most of the posters here for?
LOL…don't bother to answer that, it's obvious what you think of us , this site, and yourself. The funny thing is, that you , who hold yourself so far above us and this site, is that you are the idiot and your posts prove that. How so, you might ask………………
YOU'VE MISUSED THE WORD "EXPLOITED" !
THE PAPERS ARE FILLED TO THE BRIM WITH PARTISAN HACKS, YES, BUT OF THE FAR LEFTY/FELLOW TRAVELER/MARXIST KIND…………..i.e. THE NEW YORK TIMES THE BOSTON GLOBE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE L.A. TIMES; TO NAME BUT A VERY FEW ! And that is WHY this site was put up…………..to counteract that.
It's rather pathetic that your abject lack of knowledge about broadsheets ( the forerunners of newspapers, in case you never learned about that ) and newspapers is appalling! All newspapers, from even colonial times, had strong political bias. people bought the papers with whose positions they agreed with; sometimes buying those they disagreed with, to set what that side was saying.
It is only the past 1/2 century, that newspapers somehow convinced some, that their reportage wasn't biased…………………but it was and the people who swallowed that, were/are gullible.
PEOPLE DON'T CHANGE, ONLY TECHNOLOGY CHANGES !
Nobody here is here to school you, nor is it our responsibility to educate you, even though that education is what you most need, not to act as though the tread headers are our own and stand up for what someone else wrote.
Your arrogant , pompous, presumptive attitude is uncalled for, as are your impugnations of posters.
There are two primary definitions of the verb "exploit": one means "to take advantage of" and the other means "to capitalize on." I was obviously (well, not so obvious for yourself) utilizing the latter definition. If you want to play that game, I can dismember your posts for the incoherent strings of thought they are. I would rather focus on the argument, if one truly does exist.
Also, when did I deny the existence of political bias of newspapers? Let's try to use exact quotes this time.
So you claim that this site's purpose is to purge the media of leftist journos. I suppose I have misinterpreted the mission of Big Journalism in that case; if this site is genuinely concerned about the current state of the news industry and advancement of a timeless public necessity, then it would not devote posts such as the one to denouncing undesirable politicians. But maybe I'm wrong — maybe this site is, as you say, intended to "counteract" liberal thought in journalism. In all honesty, that would be my gross misinterpretation and I will concede that you, sir, are the unerring party.
However, that doesn't change the principle: The process of rescuing journalism will not be accelerated by hollering at each other across the aisle.
Oh la, such pretension and superciliousness; sirrah.
Should you continue in this vein, I shall match you point for point and best you; though it surely shall engender great ennui amongst the others here and reduce this and other threads you may choose to participate on, to become little more than dry, dusty, shards of opaque repartee, between two voluble adversaries jousting with superfluous verbiage.
You have absolutely misconstrued the purpose and intent of this site; it is what I stated it to be. That you are incapable of deciphering this, on your own, should not only shame you, but make you question your own supposed perspicacity; I fear.
That's more like it! I knew you had it in you. It looks like this is settled as long as you acknowledge two items:
1.) This site's primary purpose is to examine media events with a conservative viewpoint and scrutinize journalists who the contributors believe propagate an overwhelmingly liberal bias.
2.) This site is not concerned with repairing journalism — it is only intended to identify and demonize the perceived hosts of leftist partiality in my first point.
I think we can both agree on these points and move on.
The best of the best old journalists never went to college, let alone J school!
The worst of the worst of today's "journalists" ( for the past 35+ years ) have come out of places like the Journalism school at Colombia.
Since you don't approve of this site, why come here?
RCKMOM Obama doesn’t need any help looking bad look at his ratings I’m sure Brown is hoping he will come in fact he warned him to stay away and Obama idiot that he is fell for it the ones whom think they are smarter than everyone else are always the easiest to fool simply because they think they can’t be fooled conservatives need to keep fighting fire with fire and run these liberals out of office by beating them at their own game. We have a bunch of hippie radicals in office now I used to be a hippie then I grew up the country we live in is the greatest on the planet let’s all join together and fight so the next generations can live the American dream.
You truly are dense !
Let me clear a few things up for you……………………………………………………..
First of all, you had no idea that I "had it in me" to reply to you in kind, and/or best you. My reply most probably set you on your ear.
Secondly, you don't run this site and you most assuredly are in no position to pat me on the head and then treat me as though I am not only your brightest student, in a class of dimbulbs, which only makes me a brightish dimbulb, but to set any rules for me.
My reply was obnoxious, but written that way to show you up, which I did and handily, you euphuistic jerk.
There's no need to use grandiloquent verbiage. I might, once in a while, slip and use a $50 word, but I do actually use these words every day, both in speaking and writing letters. OTOH, your post was phony ! Nobody, not even William F. Buckley, ever uses so many SAT type vocabulary words; especially not whilst posting to a forum.
Now run along and attempt to figure out why it was that you were so abjectly stupid, that it was impossible for you to figure out what this site is all about. That should keep you busy for a month or so.
Why are you avoiding my straightforward questions? Every time I pose a legitimate inquiry, you impulsively attack my rhetoric. On that note, don't worry about how I write. Just worry about what I'm saying.
So let me clear a few things up for you.
I never assumed that you didn't "have it in you" to compose that comment. We can all use a thesaurus. My condescension is a result of your inability to respond to clear-cut questions, not your inclination for obnoxiously bolded words and ellipses that fill the screen. You are clearly running out of steam, so I'll repeat my previous statements. Don't bother responding unless you have a concrete confirmation of your agreement or disagreement, and explanation why you adopt said stance.
"It looks like this is settled as long as you acknowledge two items:
1.) This site's primary purpose is to examine media events with a conservative viewpoint and scrutinize journalists who the contributors believe propagate an overwhelmingly liberal bias.
2.) This site is not concerned with repairing journalism — it is only intended to identify and demonize the perceived hosts of leftist partiality in my first point."
I don't even own a thesaurus and have no need for one, as my vocabulary was better than most adults, when I was five and has only grown since those long ago days.
I couldn't care less about your ridiculous two points; they're superfluous to the thread's topic, which is the ONLY thing of importance, or rather, should be.
You've ignored the topic completely, from the beginning, hijacked the thread for your own purposes, and are a boorish poster, no matter your vocabulary.
I played with you, toyed with you, which was a just a bit of fun at your expense. Now, I'm bored with that, your silly queries, specious "rules", and you.
You inability to figure out, all on your ownsome, what this site was about, suggests that you are also incapable of any serious thought about much of anything.
Oh and calm down with the incessant ego stroking. Try to contain the narcissistic erection for two seconds while you answer my questions.
You only wish that your reply set me "on my ear" and that I had "no idea" that you "had it in you." That would be convenient for you because then you could accuse me of prematurely labeling you as ignorant and uncultured. You would like that. And you didn't show anybody up, regardless of the sycophants who may flood this thread later tell you.
"You euphuistic jerk." Good one. I'm shaking in my boots. You're going to have to repel me with cogent arguments and not petty name-calling.
My ego needs no stroking, I am the farthest thing from a narcissist you'll ever run into, and Breitbart's many sites don't tend to have people doing high fives, back slappings, or any other such things, by "friends" of posters.
Oh I got to you, I did; elsewise you wouldn't have replied as you have done.
Are you at all capable of posting a reply that in some way or other pertains to the actual thread topic, or is it far beyond your ken?
Come on, give it a try and perhaps someone just might reply to it with a cogent post.
Stop flattering yourself. Call your parents and have them describe your astounding intellect as a young blood to you. I don't want to hear about it.
And to say that I hijacked the thread is a wholly illogical, especially when R_Swift asked me to name credible industry publications, I obliged, and you needlessly chimed in. All you need to do is scroll up the page for evidence of this. It's not that difficult. You're a blatant hypocrite for deeming my points "superfluous" when you derailed any related discussion of the post's original topic by denouncing the viability of modern journalism schools. Honestly, how can you write such an uninformed comment without simply scrolling up and reviewing what has been said? You are back to square one.
Replied as I have done? You called me a "euphuistic jerk" first, pal.
My original response to this post was that this story has no apparent link to journalism and is just a self-created opportunity for the writer to criticize Coakley (which is fine, but being a journalism-related site, is wholly irrelevant to the dominant topic).
If you've read the thread from beginning to end, then please inform me at which I "hijacked" the topic? And don't even think about responding with your typical "I don't need to tell you"-arrogance. You have made an assertion. Now support it.
Oh good God, man………………
That wasn't on topic, but rather a critique of the author of the piece.
There are five Brietbart sites; three of which have "BIG" in the title. Go read them and then try to figure out why you don't get it at all and why you are the ne plus ultra of a joke.
If you year for just straight news…..try Breitbart News and Breitbart T.V. or some other sites.
How is a critique of the author not on topic? I was clearly addressing the failure of the post's content to relate to journalism. I'm not here for straight news. I know the purpose of the sites, regardless of what you may think to augment your frequent proclamations that I'm the laughingstock. My initial contention was direct and pragmatic: How does the attack of Coakley relate to journalism? Please explain to me why this is an irrational question.
I suppose we must disregard this upon the discovery of our conflicting views on what "hijacking" and "off topic" are.
Your very first post began the hijack, with "where is the journalisn in this blog post…………………………"
And FYI…………….this is a forum, it isn't a "blog", the threads are begum with articles, not "blog posts", and it is patently obvious that you came here with a huge chip on your shoulder and massive beams in both eyes, looking for trouble. You got "trouble" and can't handle it.
Now that I have more than proved my point, have the decency to just leave off the specious replies.
Even other commentators have recognized this.
Chidog: "I think this woman is an idiot so there's no reason to spin the story. I thought BJ was about credibility in journalism. [...]
This twisting and spin is exactly the journalistic game-playing I'm fed up with."
The author is going out of his way to assail a Senate candidates whose flaws, as stated in this article, have no direct link to the topics of accountability in journalism or increased responsibility among media figures.
This is a blog, my friend, and we are currently in the comments section of a blog. I can direct you to a forum if you wish.
No, you admitted that you did NOT understand the purpose of this site, after I hit you over the head with it several times and in several different ways. I refer you back to your smarmy reply to my rather funny post, written in your style.
Nobody comes here to critique the articles; nobody but you; that is. It is unwarranted, uncalled for, and a patently ridiculous thing to do!
I know that it is ill bred to laugh at a moron, but yes you are a laughingstock of your own making; a full blown Dickensian one, at that.
Let the damned thing drop already and save any sliver of a thread of dignity that might still remain.
HORSEFEATHERS !
And it is often possible to find one person who will agree, even slightly, with another poster, when the majority don't; here or anywhere else.
You don't post to other sites, do you ?
I am not your "friend" and no, this isn't a "blog"; it's a forum.
Wrong again. Read. I told you what I thought the site was about and added that "maybe I'm wrong" as a device to preface my next point. I then asked you to tell me what you thought the site was about (using those two points you dimissed as superfluous") because we were clearly dueling with conflicting interpretations. I never "admitted" that I did not know the purpose this site.
Haha. It's a forum in the most traditional sense of the term, if that's what you're trying to say.
This is a forum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FUDforum.jpg
This is a blog. http://www.bigjournalism.com
Just because this site has multiple contributors does not disqualify it as a blog. A blog is a website on which users or a group of users produce an ongoing narrative.
You did, but have it your way………………..just be done with it !
Frankly, I don't give a damn, except that you're wasting bandwidth and disrupting/hijacking this thread.
I refused to acquiesce to and/or discuss your set pieces. You don't make the rules around here and I don't have to submit to your positions; especially since you had no idea what the bloody hell this site was about, from your first post.
We aren't "dueling"; another word misused by you. Pity that……………………….
Other Breitbart sites? No. I have no reason to do so. I know that their content will conflict with my personal ideologies. But, as someone who has worked closely with journalism, I was particularly troubled by the misdirection of this site. It's devastating to see that Big Journalism is more concerned with shifting the viewpoint than actually addressing nonpartisan, objective, and practical methods of reforming the news industry.
New to the net, are you?
Anyone who uses Wiki as the sine qa non of authorities, has a problem.
Do you now post to other sites and if so, which ones, if I may be so bold as to ask.
And we aren't "jousting," either. Interpret the sarcasm and reference to your previous comment when it is presented to you.
It's an image hosted on Wikipedia, which is completely different than a public article from the source. Come on. You grasped at straws on that one.
Oooooooooooooh, youv'e "worked closely with journalism" have you? That isn't even correct usage of that word !
I's ask if you are a type setter, but that job was longago done away with, at newspapers.
Brietbart's sites conflict with your personal ideologies, do they?
How would I have ever known that, had you not said so? /s
Go back to DU, MoveOn, HuffPo, or whatever far lefty site/s you are a habituee of.
Ah and neither have you a rapier wit.
No, we aren't jousting, which I doubt you could handle; literally nor figuratively.
Neither are we wrestling, boxing, and I won't play ball with you either.
Grasping at straws is your mietre; not mine.
You fascist, right-wing tea-bagging, homophobic woman hating bigots would not recognize a great lady if she bit you on the backside! Marcia Coakley will whip Brownie's backside in a big way! ; – )
This has turned into a I know you are but what am I conversation. Don’t respond to ptek and he’ll only be using his fine vocabulary with himself.
I've read the thread from the beginning………..I was here.
You truly are too funny for words andx getting mire so, with each post.
My parents are dead, but I need no validation from them or anyone to know my worth or my flaws; especially not you, old knickers in a twist.
And they say Sarah Palin was mentlly (gray matter) challenged about nastional and world affairs.
[...] [...]
Yes, I have "worked closely with journalism," which is the most diluted way I could describe it to you because you seem to be offended by words that mean something and can only communicate with someone who speaks in colloquialisms. I stand by the wording. Your attempts to dismiss my grasp of the English language are pathetically clueless, especially from someone who seems to be running their face across the keyboard and hoping that cohesive responses are formed. "I's," "longago," and "youv'e" are only the tip of the iceberg for your inadequacy to respond with anything other than feeble attacks on how I write.
Neither you nor your last-ditch reverting to petty claims ("You hijacked the thread! You misused that word! You still misused that word!") will regain any credibility or dignity you had entering this conversation. You are a blathering imbecile who has not once yet responded to any of my undoubtedly fair inquiries about how this site is destructive to the progression of journalism. Instead, you have desperately defaulted to picking apart my writing, accusing me of not knowing the "mission" of Big Journalism, and generally replying with debilitated sarcasm that characterizes you as just another agitated lackey to this site's conservative echo chamber. But this is not about politics as much you want it to be. It's about the author going out of their way (yes, I'm repeating myself, so pay attention) to bash a Senate candidate on a website that is devoted to discussing journalism from a conservative standpoint. Tell me how that adds up and I'll show you a commentator on here who isn't joyously scrolling down each page, thumbing up every comment that features some type of childish rearrangement of Obama's name.
I will concede that I could probably not handle jousting in the literal sense. You have got me. You really have. Now turn around and smile yourself in the mirror.
You must be logged in to post a comment.