How to be a partisan pundit hack

[IllustriousPotentate]

Step 1: Develop an ideology.
You have two choices--far left or far right. Sorry, no middle ground.

Step 2: Create a life story.
It doesn't matter if you've done it or not, what's important is that no one will fact check you on this. If they do, you should dismiss it publicly as an assault on one's family, rather than the issues.

Step 3: Develop a following.
Remember, your thoughts, opinion, and ego are more important than anyone else's. To prove it, you need to muster an army of moronic sheep that will follow, and more importantly, recite your thoughts, opinion, and ego to everyone that has the audacity to not watch/listen to you. A good way to develop a following is on local talk radio or tabloid/raunchy talk TV shows.

Step 4: It's all about you.
You should have your own TV and/or radio show, with your name as top billing.
Remember the show is all about you, your thoughts, your opinions, your ego. If it's not, you either need to take it somewhere that understands your importance, or else you're not cut out for the job.

Step 5: Preach the gospel.
Remember, your thoughts, opinion, and ego are more important than anyone else's. Spread it over the airwaves. If people disagree, they are wrong, hate America, hate our troops, hate our children, and kick puppies.

Step 6: Get your ego stroked.
You have two methods of doing this.

6a: Bring on guests and callers that agree with everything you say and think you're a Great American.
Guests, especially the bigger their egos, boost your ego to its climax. If you bring on pre-screened and vetted callers, go through them as quick as possible without really paying attention. The more you get on, the more you can show people agree with your ideas, thoughts, and ego.

6b. Bring on guests and callers that disagree with everything you say, or at least the subject at hand. Regardless of how often they agree with you, they should be treated as if they always disagree. After all, the subject at hand is the most important one, because you chose it; therefore, if they disagree with you on it, they must completely disagree with you.

Be sure to practice safe ego stroking when using this method, though, it can be unsafe. Some tips:

> Authors on book tours are usually suffering from jet-lag and are thus too nauseous to put up much of a fight.
> Yell. It shows confidence.
> If a point gets raised, or a guest won't let you interrupt, cut their mike. Use this time to mischaracterize everything they have said. For more orgasmic fun, put them back on and force them to defend your mischaracterization. If they don't, point out that they don't agree with what they just said, and thus don't know what they think.
>Make stuff up. Your guest doesn't have fact-checkers at his disposal to prove you wrong.
>WARNING! Under no circumstances should you debate another partisan pundit hack! By doing so, the above strategies no longer apply, due to ego overload. Carbon dioxide emissions and ego-swelling may reach dangerous levels!

7. Profit. Write a book, and by that I mean have a team of ghostwriters go through recent episodes of your show and encapsulate your rants into chapters. So what if they've already heard it? Your followers will lap it up. Want even more money? Write a novel, with a thinly veiled you as main character/hero. To keep readers interested and boost sales, be sure to graphically include acts that are "destroying America's morality." Remember, it's okay for your fictional characters to engage in these acts, because you, the author, are pro-morality.

[LightandDark]

I'm pretty sure this doesn't count as debate material.

[tony4moroney]

True

But I'll add to this.

Sean Hannity, O'Reilley and Fox's unfair and unbalanced crew were analyzed to bring you this descriptor.

[Korriken]

i smell a personal attack on bill o'reilly. did he hurt your little feelings? did he say something you didn't agree with? aww, come here I'll give you a hug and make it all better!

seriously, if this was a joke thread, it lacks humor.

[Memorize]

At 7/23/07 02:45 PM, Korriken wrote: i smell a personal attack on bill o'reilly. did he hurt your little feelings? did he say something you didn't agree with? aww, come here I'll give you a hug and make it all better!

No.

It all hurt this guy's feelings:

At 7/23/07 10:53 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

Sean Hannity, O'Reilley and Fox's unfair and unbalanced crew were analyzed to bring you this descriptor.

Someone wants the fairness doctrine installed!

[tony4moroney]

At 7/23/07 02:45 PM, Korriken wrote: i smell a personal attack on bill o'reilly. did he hurt your little feelings? did he say something you didn't agree with? aww, come here I'll give you a hug and make it all better!

seriously, if this was a joke thread, it lacks humor.

You smell a personal attack. I made it very clear he is a pundit that fits the above descriptor
He's a partisan hack that craps out his opinions as though they're irrefutable fact, smears guests (many of which are experts on the subjects) as though they're quacks and sub-intelligible despite evidently lacking a knowledge in their field of expertise. His arguments are an appeal to emotion rather then substantiative evidence.

[Memorize]

At 7/23/07 02:50 PM, tony4moroney wrote: He's a partisan hack that craps out his opinions as though they're irrefutable fact, smears guests (many of which are experts on the subjects) as though they're quacks and sub-intelligible despite evidently lacking a knowledge in their field of expertise. His arguments are an appeal to emotion rather then substantiative evidence.

Oh.

I need an example of that.

With whom did he disagree with while having a "lacking a knowledge in their field of expertise"?

By that I assume you mean the anti-war activists who protest the war by BLOCKING supplies to be shipped to the troops that would help them... live.

Clearly he has no knowledge of their expertise.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/23/07 02:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/23/07 02:50 PM, tony4moroney wrote: He's a partisan hack that craps out his opinions as though they're irrefutable fact, smears guests (many of which are experts on the subjects) as though they're quacks and sub-intelligible despite evidently lacking a knowledge in their field of expertise. His arguments are an appeal to emotion rather then substantiative evidence.

Oh.

I need an example of that.

With whom did he disagree with while having a "lacking a knowledge in their field of expertise"?

By that I assume you mean the anti-war activists who protest the war by BLOCKING supplies to be shipped to the troops that would help them... live.

Clearly he has no knowledge of their expertise.

I was wondering why you spewed up misconstrued sound bites like a Fox-Fan. The fact that you can even defend him is testament to how ignorant you are.

Here's from a group that ahve recorded a multitude of his lies, now enlighten yourself kid.

Here's from a media watchdog that's recorded several of his misconstrued facts and blatant lies

Here he is trying attack the NY Times credibility with another blatant lie

Here's one of several admissions that fox is a biased conservative media channel. Though I thought that'd be obvious. And the fact that you form your entire opinion around Fox is tragically sad, kid.

[Memorize]

At 7/23/07 03:46 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Though I thought that'd be obvious. And the fact that you form your entire opinion around Fox is tragically sad, kid.

Haha, you... you actually cited a site called oreilly-sucks.com?

LOLZ!!!!

You also cited from another that states "radical right wing agenda".

And who the fuck opens up news with: "Sound the klaxons! Corporate Message breakdown at Fox News! This is not a drill. Repeat: This is not a drill. Assume battle stations! Fire in the hole! A-woo-ga! A-woo-ga!"

All you did was slap on a search in google and went with the first anti-fox sites you could muster up. I could do the same thing with 9/11 conspiracy sites.

You need to do some better research. These sites have less credibility than wikipedia!

[dySWN]

At 7/23/07 10:53 AM, tony4moroney wrote: True

But I'll add to this.

Sean Hannity, O'Reilley and Fox's unfair and unbalanced crew were analyzed to bring you this descriptor.

Lol! The kettle is calling the pot black!

[tony4moroney]

I don't record my t.v and document all my links so that I can present them in a forum debate.

Hey about instead of discrediting that initial site you prove one thing in it wrong. Its documented transcripts and observed the mountain of contradictions and fallacies in there.

If you insist on not going through that first site then what about Slate, why overlook that dumbshit? Fair.org which is an unbiased analysis of news? Exactly thats what I thought. They're credible sources and more reputable then your fat head.

And then afterwards hey about you present me evidence that O'Reilly isn't a hack.

[tony4moroney]

That was addressed at Memorize btw

[Korriken]

the burden of proof lies on he who makes the claim, you claim O'reilly is a hack, then post of a bunch of anti fox websites. I could say gay people are evil, then use www.godhatesfags.com as my proof, but that wouldn't mean shit, because the website is biased and therefore, unreliable.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/24/07 11:11 PM, Korriken wrote: the burden of proof lies on he who makes the claim, you claim O'reilly is a hack, then post of a bunch of anti fox websites. I could say gay people are evil, then use www.godhatesfags.com as my proof, but that wouldn't mean shit, because the website is biased and therefore, unreliable.

I seriously don't know why but every time I go on this site my comp lags when I write?

Godhatesfags.com doesn't give any proof they're evil, he just banters and quotes the bible. The anti-fox site had O'Reilly transcripts and corrected fallacies he made.

Also, to clarify myself for the last time. There was one Anti-Fox website.
The other two were just an analysis of their fallacies.