Larry Johnson asked:

Shocked anyone?

I'm just simply speechless and lost for words. . .

I'd hold out for the Rita Cosby show if I were you.

wink ... wink

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Rupert Murdoch banned me from Fox because I had the temerity to say on the Hannity and Colmes show (Novmber 2002) that an invasion of Iraq would be a diversion in the war on terrorism.  I'll take any of the Faux News guys on.  Been there, done that.  

Oooo ... Atten'Hut!

It's time for everyone to pop-tall, button your pieholes and stand at attention and shiver. The Sarge just entered the Foxhole.

I wonder how often this sort of thing goes on.  It amounts to censorship, and it's disgusting that the news outlets allow it.  It also goes a long way in explaining why our discourse has become so warped and one note.  

"why don't you take your tough talk to the Fox news channel , and the Sean Hannity show. Or are you too much of a I think the term is "Girly Man". "

Sarge, I think the operative term here is "assume".  You made an ass out of "u" and "me".  I haven't giggled that hard since the last time I got buttstroked with a pugil stick while trying to do an overhead slash.

But seriously, unless you're a dour little troll and can't laugh about taking a cream pie to the face, you should start a grassroots campaign in whatever part of the blogosphere you call home to get Fox to invite Larry and BB on together.

I don't like the phrase "girly man". It was inappropriate and sexist for Arnold to use it at the Republican Convention. I don't think anyone should use it, even in an attempt to be humorous.

Why liberals are laughed at, Exhibit 1042.

Just a wee bit of trivia.

L. Brent Bozell is William Buckley's brother-in-law.  He was (probably still is)  married to Buckley's sister.

Why I don't really want to jump into the sexist language fray and on to "liberals, that is why you fail" (said as Yoda) argument...the way I always counter such language is to say things such as...."Oh, but you give Brent Bozell too much credit for being brave calling him a "girly"....he's nothing but a lily livered shrill conservative."

Bozell has been 'there' from the beginning.  Just two short exerpts from Rick Perlstein's essential 'Before the Storm':

(Bozell, writing in the National Review in 1958) A conservative electorate has to be created,  out of that vast, uncommitted middle - the great majority of the American people who, though today they vote for Democratic or Modern Republican candidates, are not ideologically wedded to their programs or, for that matter, to any program.  The problem is to reach them and to organize them

Read between those lines.  Of course he wasn't wrong, but his statement has the definite ring of demogoguery, of insurgency.  There're a huge bunch of rubes who don't know what they want, and are ripe for the picking; we can stir them up and get power.

Another colorful antecdote about the 'energetic red-headed Yalie from Omaha':

[Bozell was hired as ghostwriter for a 100 page book on Americanism 'by' Goldwater]...but then the ghostwriter promptly went missing for the next three weeks. (He was sojourning in Spain, where he had begun a romance with Catholic monarchism).

Yes, that's the delightful Generalissimo Franco he's talking about.  These are your hardcore 'movement' conservatives, folks, then and now: defending Joe McCarthy (Bozell worked in McCarthy's office), calling people who would disagree or even argue rationally with you 'unpatriotic', 'traitor', etc. - same stuff, different day.  And Brent isn't the only one still around from those thrilling years.

Buckley has managed to draw a certain amount of grace and respectability to himself, especially in his old age.  Bozell, on the other hand, is just a grouchy old crank who really needed a good spanking about 40-50 years ago and never got one. Of course he would never debate someone like Mr Johnson, or even go on after or before him.  He's a liar and propagandist who's mission is to shut down debate, not participate in it.  And I'm sure that the kind of person who would have a 'romance' with Catholic monarchism is far too sensitive to handle being challenged - or especially ridiculed - very well.

Why liberals are laughed at, Exhibit 1042.

May I add, also why despised? The P.C. police has done so much harm to liberal causes since the 80's. Reminds me of a thread on another site long ago that had complaints about the use of "master/slave" as a techie hardware term. Reeedickulus!

And come to think of it, this proud feminist sees absolutely nothing offensive about the "etymology" of 'girly men,' and nothing anti-feminist. If anything, it's anti-males who lack enough of certain hormones. It's popularity comes from the old "Hans and Frans" bodybuilder skit on Saturday Night Live, which in itself mocked muscle bound anabolic steroid fed dumbkopfs. "Girly man" addresses the whole hormones thing. Tlees2, if you don't believe that hormones have something to do with how people act, you should probably be hanging with the "Intelligent Design" crew. I'm proud of being a "estrogen-dense" being (generalizing for effect)....along with that comes less upper body strength, yah girlieness. If I don't want to be "girly," I'd get me some of those drugs that the female Soviet atheletes used to take to give them

Mho, your choice of 'sexist terminology' to attack harms feminism, marks it as an irrational religion like most other religions. As if women and men are not different. We all know they are.(Meanwhile, you've just taken several two steps back from the return to a matriarchal world. :-))

Note to Larry:

You do seem to have a style that ticks off the P.C. police. Keep it up! I enjoy it. I'm tired of liberal weenies who are afraid to use powerful metaphors. I've never once seen you cross the line into frat-boy tastelessness with that kind of stuff; if you do, I'll be there bitching too....that's where I draw the line... :-)

Right on.  Leave it to a woman to capture the essence.

Best

LJ

You're lucky you didn't have to share the stage with him.  He's known to literally foam at the mouth, and you might have had him drool on you if he leaped at you on set the way Paul Waldman reported happened to him this past summer.

The guy is living proof that being a far right lunatic is genetic, being the son of the late L. Brent Bozell II, who was a founder of the National Review and was kicked out by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1966 for being too looney for the NR, because he was such a conservative Catholic he advocated rebellion against Pope John XXIII over Vatican-II.  In fact, I thinkg Bozell #2 was one of those with Mel Gibson's looney-tooney old man to found the "Tridentine Catholic Church," the guys who are as determined to maintain 16th century Torquemada Catholicism as the fundamentalist Mohammedan loonies are to maintain 7th Century Mohammedanism.

When Arnold used the phrase "girly men" he meant it as an insult. He was saying that men should act in a traditionally "tough" way that has caused so many of the problems we have in the world today. I think aAnold is a moron for phrasing things that way. That insensitivity to gender issues is part and parcel of all the other problems we have in society today. To be concerned about sexism is not to say one is not concerned with all of these other important issues.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Rupert Murdoch banned me from Fox because I had the temerity to say on the Hannity and Colmes show (Novmber 2002) that an invasion of Iraq would be a diversion in the war on terrorism.  I'll take any of the Faux News guys on.

I don't know, I just think it's strange that you of all people would be "banned" from the network. There are plenty of Democrats and anti-Bush people on there all of the time. I just don't see a reason to ban you. A hundred other people had to have gone on Fox news programs since the start of the war and said the same thing, so it just doesn't make sense. I don't know you or Rupert Murdoch, but I do know that saying the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror will not get you banned from any news program I'vce ever scene.

How else to explain the success of the myth of the liberal media, the liberal academy, the liberal government.  We already know the news media is not liberal, but generally staffed by an upper-middle intellectual elite who couldn't care less about the working class and the virtues of New Deal liberalism.

Ok, the media is not liberal? Name three reporters who you can be relativly sure voted for George Bush?

 Are you kidding?  Have you watched Fox lately?  There is no debate whatsoever on Fox. Their definition of debate is to out shout, talk over, ignore and laugh off any real intelligent discussion. All one needs to confirm that is to look at the loony bin of morning show hosts they have every morning.  They are all a disgrace to media.


I don't know you or Rupert Murdoch, but I do know that saying the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror will not get you banned from any news program I'vce ever scene.

Wallace,

You are a complete moron.  I was under contract to FOX, for one year, starting January 2002.  I was paid a fixed fee each week for a year.  After the Hannity and Colmes appearance I was not used on any program except the O'Reilly Factor.  And even he stopped.  I was told by a senior Fox executive that Murdoch had ordered his minions not use me after said appearance.  What you believe is irrelevant.  This is what happened to me.

Thanks humancapital.  That does make sense.  The current menace looks way too young, now that you mention it.

"Macho man" describes a certain male mentality. Thanks for informing me that males and females are not identical. Duh! When Arnold and Zell went into their sick little routines at the Republican Convention they were trying to play "macho men" and claim that men who didn't agree with them were "girly men". I think it was intended as a sexual orientation put down. You probably not surprised to find that in addition to being opposed to sexism, I'm opposed to homophobia.

A bit of digression, but not very far off topic. The arguements that "Valerie Plame wasn't covert.  She hadn't lived overseas for 5 years and you can't 'serve' overseas unless you live there.  She wasn't an agent.   She didn't work for a front business that employed other agents so outing her name wouldn't affect other agents."  and so on ad nauseum ignore an important fact.

The CIA referred the matter to Justice.  I figure they wouldn't have done that if Plame did not meet the criteria for being a covert agent.

This is a feature I think is often overlooked in the heat of battle.

Ah... Poor pitiful tough skinned battle hardened Sarge.

Why can't there be one opposing view, anywhere on this site without you poping up and showing your ass?

Krautheimer, Will, & Goldberg. However, it's the ownership, such as Mrdoch, not the reporters and commentators, who have the real clout.

All three are self-identified conservative commentators, not reporters.  Try again.

Apparently, Mr. Bozell is a coward.  He told MSNBC he would not appear if I was on the show, even if they scheduled me before or after him.  He couldn't handle a man-to-man debate.  Typical conservative coward.  I think the term is "Girly Man".  Tough talker when he is alone but unable to handle an informed debate.

Typical conservative coward?  Sounds kind of like Howard Dean refusing to appear on the same set with Ken Mehlman couple of weeks ago.  Plenty of feathers to go around

That's why I mentioned the word commentators. I have no idea how many reporters are conservative or liberal. One way to assure more pro-Bush reporters would be to hire more poorly-informed reporters. No doubt they'd all be pro-Bush.

FWIW, SFCWallace, in case you were wondering, I gave you a "0"0" rating for whining about your ratings. Well that and getting your facts re: Larry Johnson and his relationship with Fox completely wrong. Maybe you ought to try asking questions first next time.

The reason for his action is perfectly clear, You're not made of straw Larry.

COLORADO BOB

Fox executive that Murdoch had ordered his minions not use me after said appearance.  What you believe is irrelevant.
Dude, all I am saying is that there are still alot of Democrats appearing on Fox News all of the time opposing the war. Why were you of all people singled out and banned. Having never heard of you before, you're certainly no high profile expert on the subject. You just one in a long line of disgruntled former Clinonites who hate Bush. Certainly not a status that should lead to banishment, well unless it's a conspiracy and Robert Reich, James Carville, Susan Estridge and Ellis Hennican are all really right wing ringers who are paid by Haliburton to fool us about Democrats opinions (they all seem to be able to get booked on prime time FNC shows). But hey, what do I know, I'm just one of those morons who think America is good and the terrorist are bad.

I gave you a "0"0" rating for whining about your ratings. Well that and getting your facts re: Larry Johnson and his relationship with Fox completely wrong.

First off, I don't whine, I simply point out the hypocracy you display by trying to silence the opposition every chance you get. As for Mr. Johnson's claims of banishment, I still think they are simply the self important rantings of another disgruntled Clinton leftover who happens to hate Bush. You can "say" I'm wrong, but you have no more proof that he was "Banned by Murdoch" than I don't. I haven't actually checked (I don't know if I can) but I'd bet if you went back and checked you "zero" ratings you'd be hard pressed to find one that contradicts what I've just pointed out.

Talk about your self important rantings . . .

(But I still gave you an Okay rating -- at least you tried to be topical) 

Let me take this apart piece by piece, I don't want to be misunderstood or acused of lying here.

SFCWallace, just where was it that I tried to "silence" anyone? Are you seriously trying to claim that giving a post a low rating is tantamount to censorship?

Censorship, no, however on this site a low rating moves your comment down the ladder burying it at the bottom, a low enough rating and your comment enters the "hidden" realm. Or in essence is silenced.

As far as whether Mr. Johnson is banned from Fox or not, it seems to me that he ought to be an expert on that. If you're going to accuse him of lying then you ought to at least do a little research. Is it possible that you're a little too "self important" to do that, or is it just laziness on your part? In either case, making an accusation like that without any supporting evidence is very simply a smear job.

It would be nice if you could convince some of your friends here to give the same benefit of the doubt to the President and the soldiers, but I know that's asking way to much. At least I admit I don't know the truth and give some examples of mainstream anti-war liberals who appear on FNC nightly, which makes me question his claim.

FWIW, your previous post was the only one I've ever rated below a "3". I rarely give those out however. Most of the ratings I do give are either 4's or 5's. You see, I don't normally spend a lot of time trying to figure out how bad a bad post is- it just seems like a waste of time to me. OTOH, recognizing a really good point does seem worthwhile. I guess its just the Liberal in me.

Actually you rated another one of mine on this same thread a "1" which I believe is below a "3" which makes you incorrect, because I don't believe this mistake to be intentional, I won't accuse you of being a liar. I guess it's just the Conservative in me.

In other words SFCWallace, wrong again.

In other words, falsely accused again.

First things first. You are right. I rated you low twice, not once. My mistake.

However, I still stand by my statement that you "stand alone" in the low ratings I gave you. You deserved them too, first for trying to tell Larry Johnson his own business (deserving of a "1"), and second for complaining, no, whining, about the low rating you got for making a foolish comment in the first post (deserving a "0"). I will apply that rating again in the future as I see fit.

Censorship, no, however on this site a low rating moves your comment down the ladder burying it at the bottom, a low enough rating and your comment enters the "hidden" realm. Or in essence is silenced.

I see.
Even so, I stand by my ratings. It isn't my concern whether posts stay or go. Thats a rule of the site.

It would be nice if you could convince some of your friends here to give the same benefit of the doubt to the President and the soldiers, but I know that's asking way to much. At least I admit I don't know the truth and give some examples of mainstream anti-war liberals who appear on FNC nightly, which makes me question his claim.

I don't know what you're talking about as for as "the soldiers" are concerned. As far as the President is concerned, I'd be delighted to see him deposed under oath. He had a chance to do just that with the 9/11 Commission, and he ducked out of it. Given that, I don't wonder that people question his veracity. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on whether he lied to take us into war or whether he simply didn't know what the hell he was talking about. With any luck we may see more accountability after the next round of Congressional elections.

Actually you rated another one of mine on this same thread a "1" which I believe is below a "3" which makes you incorrect, because I don't believe this mistake to be intentional, I won't accuse you of being a liar. I guess it's just the Conservative in me.

Noted and acknowledged above.

In other words, falsely accused again.

In other words, whining again.

Given that this is essentially a Liberal blog, the fact that you even have free reign to post here is necessary and sufficient evidence that you aren't being "silenced". Do you suppose in your wildest dreams that I could go on Free Republic or some other Conservative blog and post whatever I wanted? I most certainly can't, but even if I could do that do you suppose that I might not be warmly recieved? Lets further imagine that Free Republic set aside their "Conservatives-only" policy and I posted there; wouldn't it be just a bit foolish of me to complain that the Right-Wing bloggers there aren't being fair to me?

Don't like being rated here SFCWallace? Take your TS card to the Chaplain and get it punched.

So if I agree that Dean was also a wimp, you'll concede that Bozell was? And that it's a bad thing for Fox to let guests choose their opponents?

Why would he lie about that?  BTW, you might want to check out mediamatters. There's a very funny O'Reilly-Coulter exchange about her being banned from CNN.

When more than 50% of the citizens of the United States say that they think Bush is dishonest, who could say that only  "wacko's" don't like him personally?  When more than half of us say that we believe that he lied to us to take us to war; squandering our young people's lives, our fortune; our standing in the world -- who could say that despite all this, gee whiz, we really kinda love the guy?

It would be nice of you to link to the poll you cite that supposedly states "more than 50% of the citizens of the United States say that they think Bush is dishonest" I won't hold my breath because it doesn't exist, it's just another thing "well informed Liberals who don't watch too much TV" just say because they like the way it sounds. And since you can't find the first poll, you'll never find one that claims "When more than half of us say that we believe that he lied to us to take us to war; squandering our young people's lives, our fortune; our standing in the world" well, unless you took it on this site, but then it would be 98.7%

His point is that Murdoch would ban him because he is interested in conveying an editorial opinion and does not want effective nay-saying voices on his air.  ("Murcoch" is  a funny typo, btw.)

Re CNN, first,  they're decidedly rightward biased at this point. Second, nobody else says the stuff Ann Coulter says. Didn't you  notice  O'Reilly's surprise when she called liberals "Nazi blockwatchers"?  She's completely over the top.  It's weird to see her with O'Reilly (and his" leftwing smear sites" who he won't name) because he seems to be losing it himself. Did you see his enemies list?

SFC Wallace, are you on active duty? Let's see your how big your huevos are in 2008. Let's see if you will still be using rank and last name to talk about the next Democratic Commander in Chief, HOOAH?

I actually just retired in July. This is my first election cycle since I've been old enough to vote where I've been allowed to "participate" beyond the authorized "standard yard sign and 1 bumper sticker" rules imposed by AR 600-20 (that's the regulation that governs conduct of soldiers and their participation in political activities). So I am actually looking forward to next year. I'm already volunteering for Ralph Reed's Lt Govenor campaign here in Georgia (here come the zero's and 1's). However, during the Clinton years, I managed to hold my tounge nicely, all I did was proudly put out my 'Bush Quayle' and 'Dole Kemp' signs and vote evey chance I got. So my huevos have remaind basically the same size for the entire time (well there was that week after I had double hernia surgery that led to some serious discoloration and swelling but other that that...)

Effective speakers are not that common, and many of the people who appear on Fox simply can't handle the pressure. 

So you're actually saying that Robert Reich, James Carville, Susan Estridge and Ellis Hennican are all incapable of debating a conservative on the issues? Someone needs to tell them cuz they're making some big money doing just that. 

You don't seem to think it is fair of me to comment on your churlish sarcastic laced statements? You don't think it's fair for others to use your very own style of ten-cent tactics to rebuke you? Get a firm firm grip on those huevos of yours Sarge and stick a sock in it.

The differance is that I actually address the subject of the comment, what you do (if done by me) meets the definition of "Troll." However, since the only people with the ability to rate a comment below a 1 on this site, how do I put it politely, not-consevitive, attacks on me are never downrated to "troll" status, I can take it my self, it just kind of breaks up the flow of the conversation. You're kind of like the drunk guy at the party that talks a little too loud and stands a little too close and the rest of the crowd kind of dissapates when ever you walk up to join the convesation... I'm sure you know what I mean.

OK SFC (Southern Fried Chicken?) Wallace

I am busy, so I just looked up one site, and I especially looked for one that you would consider friendly.  How about the Wall Street Journal?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8561443

I will admit to some hyperbole on my part; rather than MORE than 50% it was actually 49% for the 'not liking' part, but the 'not believing' part, only 47% expressed any confidence in what comes out of Dubya's mouth.

I don't have time to look for more, but my point is, and was that to say that you have to be a liberal "wacko" if you don't kinda love Bush despite his little problems, does not reflect accurately on those who really cannot stand this lying SOB.

I know you don't agree with my last two words, but I actually don't think that makes you a right-wing wacko.  I completely disagree with you, and I wonder what you may think Bush is getting for you, but I don't see you as a wacko.