Originally Posted By gadzuux I used to think that I was pretty much unshockable, but not lately. I'm surfin' the cable news channels looking for commentary on the libby thing, and there's mark fuhrman staring back at me, pontificating about the wrestler that killed his family. How did this happen? Isn't fuhrman still the poster boy for corrupt and racist cops? Isn't he still so completely disreputable that no one in their right mind would be publicly associated with him? Let alone a news organization? This comes from the same people who think oliver north is a hero and "a great american". It's topsy-turvy day.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Isn't fuhrman still the poster boy for corrupt and racist cops?" I guaran-frickin-tee you he is in Los Angeles. Fuhrman, Clark and Darden are the three mainly responsible for O.J. Simpson walking free today. I know of some cops, active and retired, who would love a chance to be one on one in a room with the piece of crap.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Don't be surprised, Gadzuux. Fox has long let Geraldo have his own show. As you know, I am conservative but, with the exception of "Special Report", I seldoom watch Fox. I don't have a clue why they use wierd people such as Fuhrman as interviewees.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^ likely ratings -- one group watches because they like him and another watches because they are ticked he is on the air anywhere, and want to see what outrageous things he may say.... either way they win.... the viewing audience may lose in the quality of the news reporting, but shock value seems to count for a lot more today.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'd like to see what fuhrman has to say about libby's guilty verdict for perjuring himself in court - an area of expertise for him.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... one group watches because they like him << Exactly. Let's trade in stereotypes for a moment. Fox's demographic leans heavy to the good ol' boy red state hick. They admire fuhrman and share his values. And as I mentioned above, now is a fine time to bring up oli north, who perjured himself before congress in an effort to cover-up a secret war run exclusively from the executive branch. The unspoken message is that people who knowingly lie to cover-up political crimes of the highest order are to be elevated to opinion-maker status. Fox will be giving scooter libby his own show any day now.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>> ... one group watches because they like him << Exactly. Let's trade in stereotypes for a moment. -------------------------- no different than those who like Michael Moore / Al Franken / Sean Hannity / Ann Coulter or listen to Rosie O'Donell babble on --- or Rush Limbaugh and his spiels -- being 'out there' one way or another sells today.... the only losers are the general public
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Being a moderate in stance gets you on local cable access TV it seems... the networks are giving us what sells -- again not my choice but my opinion seems to matter little to those making the choices
Originally Posted By friendofdd I think North has had his own weekly show on Fox for a good period of time.
Originally Posted By DAR Yeah North's show was called War Stories. It was terrible it paid tribute the the soldiers of WWI, WWII, the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. We certainly couldn't have that clogging up the airways.
Originally Posted By gadzuux He brought some measure of disgrace on the US military by circumventing the constitution, congress, and the will of the american people to engage in war in central america. And then he lied about it. He might not be the guy to pay tribute to the US armed forces.
Originally Posted By DAR He is a joke no doubt about it. But I'm not going to knock the intent of his show.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But I'm not going to knock the intent of his show." If it was to somehow infer that North had something in common with soldiers from that era, I'd knock it all day.
Originally Posted By jonvn North was not a good person to host that show. He is someone who disgraced his uniform, and therefore was an inappropriate choice to host the show. This should be pretty obvious.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Why do you say that directing the US gov't to fund terrorism is a disgrace? What a strange set of values you have.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <no different than those who like Michael Moore / Al Franken / Sean Hannity / Ann Coulter or listen to Rosie O'Donell babble on --- or Rush Limbaugh and his spiels -- being 'out there' one way or another sells today....> I know what you're saying about being "out there" selling, vbdad, but I do think Fuhrman IS different. Say what you will about those other folks you named on either side; none of them are racists, lied on the stand, or let a killer walk free. Gadzuux is right. Too many Americans DO share Fuhrman's deplorable values, and Fox News knows this, and caters to them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Why do you say that directing the US gov't to fund terrorism is a disgrace? " Um...because it was in direct violation of the law of the land that he swore to uphold when he became a soldier.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ///Fuhrman, Clark and Darden are the three mainly responsible for O.J. Simpson walking free today./// No way jonny, I don't care who prosecuted simpson or tried to get him jailed long term, the deck was stacked against a conviction. I don't care who prosecuted those 4 cop pigs with night sticks taking batting practice on king, the deck was stacked against a conviction in Simi Valley also. I like mark f because he tells it like it is now and is a good man.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 A good man??? Wow. And Simpson could easily have been convicted based on the evidence. Fuhrman provided the necessary "shadow of a doubt." And I hope you're not saying that Simpson was always going to walk because the jury was largely black. Who do you think sent all the black prisoners we have today to prison? In many cases, largely black juries, drawn from the same communities as the perpretrators. It happens dozens of times a day in this country, yet I can't tell you how many white people I heard at the time blithely say that Simpson got off simply because he had a largely black jury. Simpson had what most of those black defendants didn't have: tons of money, the best defense team money could buy, and a demonstrably racist cop that gave the jury all the reasonable doubt they needed.
Originally Posted By ClintFlint2 ////In many cases, largely black juries, drawn from the same communities as the perpretrators. It happens dozens of times a day in this country//// yes, and studies indicate(no, I can't back that up at this time nor do I feel like doin it either) that african american juries are inclined to be tough on their own kind. But not the simpson case. You see, the black community distrusts police and for good reason too, especailly in the host area of LA, Cincinatti and the Boston area(There are other locales but those come to mind the quickest). So this jury comprised mostly of minority races where the mode is black GOOD LUCK trying to convict another black, a well known one at that, especailly in the wake of the discusting King incident. Hey ///what's good for the goose is good for the gander/// or ///what comes around goes around///. For years the criminal system has shafted african americans and now it was high time to reverse it and with the world watching show that black people can shaft the criminal system too. It had to happen that way because there is a braking point to everything. I keep hearing about that ///dream team/// defense simpson had but that had nothing to do with the outcome. Cousin Vinny could have defended simpson and he still would have walked one way or another.
