ObsessiveLibby

[willquestion]

LiberalViewer is obessed? What about you sir? It appears you are majorily obsessed with LiberalViewer ! At least with LiberalViewer, he's taking the times to make GOOD critizing videos about people who millions watch. You're making HORRIBLE videos about a man only thousands watch.

[marklross2]

No - Mine is a dedication to preserving debate. Libby Viewer is so hopelessly biased it would be CRIMINAL to let his myopic ravings go unchallenged...Your opinion of the production quality of my videos is irrelevent...

[itazuketower]

A another good viv...

keep it up...

After spending a week with with air force JTAC and TECP and saw what there job is...

LIBY FUCK YOU, YOU KNOW NOTHING LIBY...

AND CNN LIKEs OBAMA... so your a ass liby...

[aver4e]

RedPandaBoy, obviously it is difficult for the author of the video to handle complex concepts. Don't argue with one-dimensional people, who see everything in black and white.

[marklross2]

Hey coward - did you mean to address "the author" or just make a comment to express your insult in the hopes of not actually having to engage in actual discourse?

[aver4e]

The second one. As anyone (almost) can see from my comment, I don't want to engage in any kind of discourses with simple minded people.

[marklross2]

And yet you just addressed RedPandaBoy....look - here's how it goes EVERY TIME:

LibbyViewer: 2+2=5 and therefore 5 < 6

Me: um - wrong. You made a false statement.

RedPanzeeBoy: nuh uh! 5 IS less than 6!! You fail to see the truth!

See how it works? You're just getting into this too late to see the pattern...

[RedPandaBoy]

Actually, it's more like you accusing of the liberal viewer of doing bad mathematics, but he's really doing social studies. You're just applying the wrong rules to the issue.

Like how you thought the main issue was two indictments... instead of the obvious lie trying to link Obama to Blogo.

[RedPandaBoy]

Every video there's someone who raise the obvious objection that.... it's wrong.  For now I'm taking that up.

I also want to see how he twist the issue while ignoring the obvious bias of Fox News.

[marklross2]

Every video YOU say there is something wrong...

[RedPandaBoy]

eh.. i've only been with you for a few months, so I haven't seen all of your videos. But that little 'exaggeration' is forgivable :).

But i'm not the only one. But feel glad you don't care what other people think and limit the communication with wasting our time and disagreeing ;p

[marklross2]

I didn't say you were the only one...

[RedPandaBoy]

well, you dind't make your point clear when you said

"Every video YOU say there is something wrong... "

Meaning it might just be my opinion... But more people critize your videos as wrong than those who say it's right.

So instead of sayign "me" let's say most commentor.

[marklross2]

Oh - my point wasn't clear? More people criticize videos period. Far fewer take the time to say that they agree. Most are interested in expressing criticism - like you...Finally, of those who criticize - more people are wrong about the criticisms of my videos...

[RedPandaBoy]

strange, when looking at the liberal viewer and Keith Olbermann videos, most people agree and rank it with high marks.

Though it's cute you want to say they're wrong, but sadly you can't prove it, because you and your videos are highly opinionated. All talk but no real significant substance.

You want to say Fox news isn't bias and it's all just simple mistakes... while ignoring the mistake that they connected Obama to Blogo, where that connection is made up.

[marklross2]

I'm not ignoring the Obama-Blogo "mistake." If they drew that connection, that was a purposeful action. My video addresses the substantive fact that it was an honest mistake to use the term "indicted" when describing Blogo. Even Rachel Maddow made the same mistake. But in LV's neurotic little mind - it is all part of the Fox News conspiracy...Once again - you have created your own take on one of my videos, and continued to attribute it to me. Why don't you make your own vids?

[RedPandaBoy]

that's the sad thing about your current response... "If they drew that connection" .. but the Liberal Viewer already proved it.

And what about the fact the liberal viewer said that the indictment mistake was a forgivable .. where as the mistake of linking Obama to Blogo and trying to smear Obama was not so forgivable.

Did you thought you could be objective while ignoring half the video?

For your final question, you want me to make a video on how you're wrong?

[marklross2]

The sad thing is you take LV's words for truth instead of reality. O'reilly merely stated fact when he said that both Richardson and Blogo had supported Obama. That is a fact. LV said that was an attempt to "connect" Blogo and Obama, and now YOU parrot his INACCURATE accusation. O'reilly said since the "dems won big" it has been scandal. That does not specifically draw a connection between Blogo and Obama. Again, LV made that conclusion, and you parrot it.

[marklross2]

There was no linking and no smearing - only statement of facts that LV doesn't agree with, so he calls them smears. Meanwhile YOU IGNORE the FACT that Fox news did not IGNORE scandals in the Bush admin. and LV LIED about that. But you won't ever admit that. Are you in love with LV? You are so dedicated to his defense, even to the extent of denying the truth...Don't bother with making a vid. You obviously don't have an original idea of your own.

it would just be an LV spin off...

[RedPandaBoy]

no linking, no smear? watch?v=rm4XEmhoPIM

and watch?v=AlvqEjKCUq4

For fox news not covering or criticizing the bush administration, they failed to report on the KBR gang rape case, black water, and the lost of money and arms in iraq.

You want to say they mention facts.. but what purpose was there in mentioning they both support obama.. it's call indirect suggestion.

[RedPandaBoy]

actually you do raise a point. It's arguable rather that was an attempt to suggest a connect Obama to Blago, or just an unneeded comment. Maybe you should have started you video with "that" instead of your petty name calling.

[marklross2]

My "name calling" is not petty. It is accurate labeling. You and LV are so wrong and so over the top obsessed about Fox that you have lost touch with reality...All the stories you said Fox did not report, I found IN SECONDS by searching the Fox News website so fuck you...

[RedPandaBoy]

Yeah, a big old man like you need to call people name.. Though the liberal viewer means the cable news, not the website.

But my point remains, make your case with facts and make it clear. Though it's funny you meantion one of the cases.. Fox News reported that Bush's justice department refused to look into the rape case.. and criticized the administration? I looked and saw none.

[marklross2]

Everything at the website was also covered on the channel in one way or another. I'm not going to try to find footage. I won't dedicate that much of my time to prove what I already know to be true to a stubborn self deluder like you. Your case is not a case. I have made my case with facts you refuse to acknowledge.

[aver4e]

That's an admirable task, RedPandaBoy, that requires a nerve of steel. Good luck!

[RedPandaBoy]

Not really, making side comments to say you're wrong is quite easy. Though he does have 'one' point... though sadly his petty accusation of LV drowns it out.

[marklross2]

Anyone who would admire RPB must be as delusional as he...

[marklross2]

I don't care to defend Fox about any Blogo connection. That is not the point of LV's video. he may have mentioned it as an after thought toward the end, but I had stopped paying attention by then. I find it virtually impossible to follow his twisted logic - hey! just like you!

[RedPandaBoy]

this reminds me of another time, when you fail to address what the liberal viewer considered as his main point.

watch?v=J5jbQNyz_yA&watch_resp­onse

The only time he responded to you, and you fail to address the issue. You want to pick on the trivial.. such as the unjust indictment, and ignore the important fact that fox news lied about Obama's administration, a factual error that could be done on purpose.

[RedPandaBoy]

And I guess this says more..

Your response was "Yes, it was coincidence that fox news' factural error favor rep and disfavor dem" while ignoring the error that disfavor democrats.

You don't care about fox's attempt to connect Blogo to Obama... Fair enough, then you don't really care about the proving your point, which makes your response, pointless.

[RedPandaBoy]

wasn't the base point of the liberal's viewer video that Bill O'reilly tried to link Blogovich to Obama.. Where as he found the mistake forgivable?

There are 50 or so scandals that Fox News ignore.. while the other news network pay attention to. You used their coverage of McClallan as 'proof' .. but Fox news considered that a 'left wing' conspiracy... not a Bush scandal. Fox news ignores McClallan and claim it's all false...

[marklross2]

No - his point was that the word "indicted" was used prematurely. I watch Fox - I know they have covered and criticized the Bush administration. I found the Mclellan vid that had been posted by another user pointing out that even O'reilly conceded the point that Bush trumped up pre Iraq war intelligence. I don't care what you think you know about Fox news coverage. I know what I know is right...

[RedPandaBoy]

If that was his point, then his final question would reflect that. The mistake fox news made was just a starting point to lead into the liberal viewer pointing out how they fabricated a link between Blogo and Obama.

For the interview between McClallen.. you do realize that through most of it, O'reilly been dictating that the left is using him. That's not really criticism.

[marklross2]

Once again, you are tiresome in your nit picking...I am addressing the point that LV tries to exploit by saying that Fox is somehow purposefully making the mistake of using the word "indictment" to describe Bogo's situation. I don't care what you think LV meant. I don't care what you think you have proved. LV has pointed out a COMMON mistake that OTHER news sources also made, yet he singles out Fox as though there is some organized conspiracy. He is obsessed - and so are you...

[RedPandaBoy]

you fail to address the fact that O'Reilly linked Blogo with Obama. Was that a common mistake?

in the video, LV said that claiming the person was indicted was forgivable, but O'reilly's smear of Obama was not.. So he wasn't exploiting anything in regard to a mistaken indictment.

[marklross2]

I did not fail to address that pint. I did not because the first and main point of LV's vid is that Blogo was not given his right to the presumption of innocence. I am not going to let you hijack this as usual, and make irt about something YOU think it is rather than what it REALLY is. This is about LV claiming that Fox used the term "indictment" unfairly. It's in the fucking title of his video or can't you read. I smartly show two other examples of the term being used by other media sources.

[RedPandaBoy]

You're confusing the first point with the main point. The title questioned if fox news unjustly claim that Blogo was indited. But the other half was about linking Obama to the scandle.

I could argue that there are two separate point.. but you ignored it. I'm figuring because you can't defend fox unjustly linking Obama to Blogo when there's no connection.