The part where Hoy spotted quotation marks matking an excerpt from a column, and called them "scare quotes"? That was awesome. It's just too bad that the naive Hoy didn't notice all the places Thomas Frank also sneaked in commas. Everybody knows "comma" begins with the same four letters as "communist agenda."But these were Hoy's three most brilliant observations:"...the people who want journalists fired who don’t agree with their politics is the left, not the right.""How does the paper check up on a reporter’s politics? From my experience, the ones that are political will have evidence of that on their desks; look for the Obama “Hope” pictures and the Bush as chimp montages for a clue.""It always comes back to Iraq. I’ve noted before that the press was as skeptical as it could’ve been about Iraq. ...there is plenty of evidence that Hussein believed he had WMDs too."Exactly, Matt Hoy. So true. After all, if you could only fisk either the run-up to the Iraq invasion, or a guy who's insufficiently enraged about ACORN... there's only one logical choice.
Exactly, Matt Hoy. So true. After all, if you could only fisk either the run-up to the Iraq invasion, or a guy who's insufficiently enraged about ACORN... there's only one logical choice.Interesting strawman, gee either fisk something from 8 years ago, or something current, what an idea.Here's another, every time you type a moronic comment on a website, your not outside feeding starving children. So basically kids are dying because of your comments.
There's a small detail you didn't notice, John. Matt Hoy says that he is totally satisfied with the media's level of skepticism about Iraq... IN DECEMBER OF 2009. Not eight years ago, this week. Hoy isn't bugged at all, EVEN IN HINDSIGHT, by the holes in the Iraq rhetoric. But he's hopping mad about ACORN, and is certain that the Borat Jr. hooker videotape hasn't undergone proper scrutiny.Fisk something from 8 years ago? Please. Even if Matt Hoy HAD a time machine, he would only use it to go back and congratulate himself on having been so right.
Matt Hoy says that he is totally satisfied with the media's level of skepticism about Iraq... IN DECEMBER OF 2009.Are you saying that in December 2009 the media is NOT showing enough skepticism about Iraq? At this point, the government can't claim the sky is blue about Iraq without media skepticism. What could they do to be more skeptical in December 2009?How many children did you kill in order to reply to that comment? You are just a sick puppy.
Okay, Johnny... let's try it... again... nice... and slow......Matt Hoy: "The press was as skeptical as it could’ve been about Iraq."A baffling chronology, I know, so I'll break it down for you. Matt Hoy (the 2009 version) says that he STILL thinks the press (the 2002-03 version) was the very most skeptical it could possibly have been at the time (2002-2003), even as he (Matt Hoy, V.2009) reflects back on it all (from 2009).It's called retrospect, hindsight, upon further review, afterthought, reexamination, Monday morning quaterbacking. See how different verb tenses can work in conjunction? Example: You are about to pretend that you did not understand, so that you can leave some future obtuse reply to what you've read.And this is why Hoy is a goofus (in 2009). It would be one thing for him to say that the media mustn't miss out on another huge story of lies (ACORN), as it previously bungled Iraq. It's a ridiculous comparison, but at least the logic would have been steady. But Matt Hoy doesn't say that. He says that the media DIDN'T miss on Iraq. He says the media did the best possible job. Hoy declares the lack of blanket coverage that's been given to the ACORN videotape to be a more egregious failure NOW than the media's analysis of the Iraq War buildup was THEN. That was, is, and will always be moronic. (But at least it totally covers us on verb tense confusion.)
Interesting. So basically, because you believe the press didn't show enough interest in a topic 8 years ago and Hoy does, then Hoy shouldn't complain that the press isn't showing interest in another topic now, because your artificial standard hasn't been met for Hoy reevaluating what he still believes to be true.Hmmmm. I'm not sure how to say this. Do you have any arguments that don't rely on your subjective insanity?
XXXXX--#1: Either fisk something old or something current? You offer a false choice.XXXXX--#2: What do you mean, the media isn't skeptical of Iraq right now, in December 2009? They're very skeptical now, at this point!#3: Oh, well, it's subjective, so you're crazy. We'll just skip right past where you were loudly wrong, is that it? Very Hoy-like.You've brilliantly dissected the situation, and in only three tries. Hoy's assessment and mine do differ. Who told you the secret?Naturally, Hoy (and you) are entitled to your opinions. Who'd want 'em?
Oooh, lookie here. John and Matt Hoy had the right perspective all along!Rep. Steve King (R-IA):"It's thousands of times bigger than Watergate because Watergate was only a little break-in by a couple of guys. By the time we pull ACORN out by its roots America's going to understand just how big this is... (ACORN is) the largest corruption crisis in the history of America."Hurry, media! You're blowing it, just like you (didn't) blow it six years ago!
Post a Comment