By their cockroachiness ye shall know them: O'Reilly, Andrew SULLIVAN, Ed HENRY

[UTUSN]

Last edited Thu Nov 3, 2016, 11:02 PM - Edit history (2)

This evening, these three have run out of the cracks to hail the coming DRUMPF victory. After all, they are uniquely qualified to judge based on their records:

* O'LOOFAH - his own sexual harassment; deep *DEEP* 1950s White male repression and DeNile; court statements of emotional and physical abuse and sexual harassment; dim concept of The Law, suing to curtail Free Speech; an insular bubble of cultural parochialism. So anyway, this dimbulb was saying again that CLINTON was missing on winning for not appearing on his circus, although he was Bigley to say it isn't personal on her part this time since she hasn't been on any show for the past who-many days, weeks, months or something.

* Andrew SULLIVAN - on Tweety said that what Tweety does NOT know is that DRUMPF is "on track" to win. This would be the same dude who supported Shrub, before and through Iraq, until whatever that epiphany it was that changed him around. Funny how all of us lowly proles here without any special, sophisticated intelligence gathering resources, much less epiphanies, could see through Shrub from the first nano second that his running became a reality.

* Then there's this Ed HENRY - whose appearance on O'LOOFAH was a surprise. Had never paid much attention to him at all, just had dismissed him as a run of the mill wingnut non-reporter until he entertained with being run off the air for fooling-around. Suddenly (to me), here he was again, sucking the oxygen of Saint COMEY's investigations.

********ON EDIT, DUer "madaboutharry" 's thread from GD-2016: ********QUOTE*******

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512580004
Why is Andrew Sullivan saying Trump is going to win?
He is on Hardball and telling Chris Matthews Trump is going to win because racist white people are afraid of brown people.

The polls seem to look good for Hillary, maybe he wants to make sure Hillary voters go to vote.

*********UNQUOTE******

********QUOTE*******

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/293360-exclusive-ed-henry-returning-to-fox-news-in-reduced-role
[font size=5][FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]August 25[/FONT], 2016, 03:52 pm
Exclusive: Ed Henry returning to Fox News[/font]

By Joe Concha

The Hill hears that Henry will return to the network this Monday. The 45-year-old will do general assignment reporting and will no longer be the network's chief White House correspondent.

Henry — who is married with two children — was sidelined by Fox management after In Touch magazine revealed an affair with Natalia Lima, a Las Vegas hostess. Lima shared revealing text messages between Henry and her with the publication.

The Hill learned that Fox’s plan for Henry does not include any reporting on the presidential campaign or any political reporting in general.

Henry — formerly of CNN, from 2004 to 2011 — most recently covered Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. That role has since been filled by Fox News veteran Jennifer Griffin.

”He took the summer off to work out some issues,” an insider tells The Hill.

********UNQUOTE********

[NastyWomen]

1. How

Do you watch that shit show without breaking your tv? Seriously I am in awe of your intestinal fortitude. I can't do it.

[Rex]

2. There are people that will troll Free Republic, we have our own group

that listens to that bullshit and then uses it to fuck with republican brains.

Me, I gave up cable 10 years ago. TV lost me a long time ago when they got mega lazy and started repeating the same shit a few times a day on the same channel.

[NastyWomen]

6. I was thinking

Maybe people just like to torture themselves. Not me...you know some guys pay hookers to stand on their privates and I think I would choose that over fox and oreilly or that melon head hannity.

[longship]

3. Probably there are no bricks at hand.

Just my speculation.

That and no clicker nearby might do it.

Who knows? Maybe there's a clicker with a mute button.

[NastyWomen]

4. LULZ

Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way.

[UTUSN]

5. I grew up where a Libertarian newspaper chain had a monopoly, so learned to parse propaganda

RULE 1: "Hold your friends close, your enemies closer." RULE 2: It's better to KNOW than not to know; NOT head-in-sand; NOT living in a bubble because that helps the enemy (see the Romain ROLLAND story, below).

It's said that the Faux Propaganda Network tells their zombies what they want to hear. I don't listen to hardly any of the wingnut universe, can take some but totally not others- can only take LIMBOsevic and HANNITY in doses of minutes while in the car; O'LOOFAH; and Faux News Sunday. This is because the watchable ones are a game to tick off all their rhetorical tricks and spins. The dull and drab purely laundry list wingnut ideologues are just annoyingly boring.

Likewise, I do NOT enjoy hearing my own Leftie laundry-listers telling me what I already know and agree with. I'm glad they're around, but I don't need convincing.

For years I immersed in Tweety and LIMBOsevic. Until 2012, Morning Scabs/Mika, but then tuned out until recently for, again, SMALL doses. CanNOT take Meet the Press, not with traitorous RUSSERT, not with D. GREGORY, and certainly not with Chuck TOAD.

*******Romain ROLLAND story:

I'll have to Google for the name of the story. This French writer's story was of a very refined and cultured professor who, when the Nazis started taking power, was repulsed by the coming barbarity and thuggism, and his reaction was to seal himself off in his (manor/property), sealed off with his books, music, art - living in his closed world of beauty so as not to deal with the barbarity. So the barbarity took over. I forget how the professor ended up. I'll Google.

[NastyWomen]

7. Kudos

I'm being dead serious here. I wish I had that ability. I don't. I see/hear the lies and bullshit and I lose it. Can't figure how those rwnjs can be so easily misled and there is no changing them so I get frustrated. I just have to avoid them.