Video: Mary Katharine Ham defends barely legal porn on O’Reilly

posted at 10:00 pm on June 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

Defends it legally, that is, not morally. She also puts in a good word for Will Ferrell’s latest baby slapstick but tweaks Rosie for posting photos of her daughter. Apparently, it was a very special “young girls in jeopardy” episode tonight of the “Factor.”

Exit question: Isn’t MK taking the same basic position here on porn that Rudy takes — and takes heat for — on abortion?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Q: Why would Rosie, a celebrity, put pictures of her child on her blog.

A: Her bodyguards are well armed.

Canadian Infidel on June 27, 2007 at 10:07 PM

Oh yeah – new makup artist. Nice.

Oh, was there an issue they were talking about?

Editor on June 27, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Mary Katharine Ham defends barely legal porn on O’Reilly

Well, what’s she supposed to say, when “barely legal” is, by definition, legal? She doesn’t think it’s a good idea (any more than I do) for those girls–or the sleazebag photographer–to be doing that. But whether or not they’re mature enough or smart enough to make those decisions, they are legal adults. Now if you could prove some kind of fraud on his part it would be different.

ReubenJCogburn on June 27, 2007 at 10:13 PM

MKH knows how to rank things on the importance scale. Her last line says it all.

If only I was on her radar.

Jim-Rose on June 27, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Rosie’s kid: I think Rosie is playing a moral-equivalency game here. Recall the outrage over these videos that CJ posted here and here?
I think Rosie is dressing her kids up to say – see ‘normal’ people would let their kids dress up like ‘warriors’. Whether that equivalence is for a political statement, or whether it’s just for her only mental gymnastics in an attempt to reconcile the death cult mentality, I don’t know, but I don’t think this is a ‘desire for attention’ issue. It’s an attempt to portray moral equivalence.

Spirit of 1776 on June 27, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Not quite humping robots, but titillating never the less.

Ferrel is pure comedy.

Rosie is pure insanity.

Kini on June 27, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Rudy? Who cares. Just how lucky are the few graced by a seemingly blessed life’s good fortune, who interacts with this lovely young lady on a daily basis.

Miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming?

Griz on June 27, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Bruce Willis, Dennis Miller, and MKH all in one show; aren’t there FCC regulations about putting that much awesomeness into one hour?

frankj on June 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM

Bill O and MKH… 2 intelligent people having a thoughtful, interesting conversation about the issues of the day. We need more of this and less of all the @#!$ that fills our airwaves.

imshocked on June 27, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Oh, was there an issue they were talking about?

There was talking?

All I can say is that the hottest girl in the segment wasn’t in the pictures of the amateurs…

apostle26 on June 27, 2007 at 10:24 PM

MKH is so hot! She has that sweet girl next door smile and demeanor. Hot! I’m sorry, what was the question?

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 10:25 PM

And then to hear her talking about porn…I may need a cold shower.

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Exit question: Isn’t MK taking the same basic position here on porn that Rudy takes — and takes heat for — on abortion?

I always thought that the difference between abortion and, say, drinking, was whether your right infringes on someone else’s rights.

Legally, I don’t think you’re violating anyone’s rights by privately viewing pornography. I do think it’s morally wrong, but legal.

However, an unborn child has a right to life, and thus an abortion infringes on that child’s rights.

Serious exit question: Gay marriage? I do believe it’s morally and legally wrong, but using my above logic, a case could possibly be made for its legality. However, I don’t think it should be legal.

Not-so-serious exit question: Smoking bans… Does your smoking infringe on my right to not smoke?

HYTEAndy on June 27, 2007 at 10:28 PM

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 10:25 PM

I do find MKH quite attractive, in more ways than one. If I was older (I’m 19), and lived near her, I’d date her.

HYTEAndy on June 27, 2007 at 10:29 PM

I don’t understand the first issue. So a guy has a website with legal models posing nude?

What is not to like about that?

jihadwatcher on June 27, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Exit question:

A human being killed against his/her will vs. a human humiliated because they got wasted and took their clothes off.

That is quite a big difference IMO. I don’t understand the comparison between them.

F15Mech on June 27, 2007 at 10:35 PM

Don’t tell me “Mr. Falafel” O’Reilly is against it? Anyone else notice his, ummm, “fascination” with porn over the years?

RW Wacko on June 27, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Exit question: Isn’t MK taking the same basic position here on porn that Rudy takes — and takes heat for — on abortion?

Is MKH donating to pro-porn organizations?

frankj on June 27, 2007 at 10:41 PM

A human being killed against his/her will vs. a human humiliated because they got wasted and took their clothes off.

That is quite a big difference IMO. I don’t understand the comparison between them.

F15Mech on June 27, 2007 at 10:35 PM

Allah is ignoring the central conceit of opposition to abortion. Fetus’ are people being killed against their will. That’s why he’s confused in his comparison.

It’s an easy mistake to make though. Rudy’s position is morally horrifying. Fetus’ are people, killing them is wrong, women should be able to choose to murder their babies because we believe in freedom in America.

It’s hard for anyone to recognize what Rudy is advocating and still find him appealing, but people who believe a fetus isn’t a person easily glide over the fact that Rudy stipulates they are people and move right on to his support for their position.

The Apologist on June 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

The Apologist on June 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Isn’t it also interesting how the murderer Cutts can be charged for killing an unborn fetus? If it’s not a person, then how, exactly, can he be charged for killing a person? When does the fetus stop being a fetus and finally become human? I’d like some explanation as to how, exactly, the birth canal magically transforms a mass of cells (e.g.: the fetus) into a human being. Never heard one.

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:04 PM

I feel I can’t really comment further on that topless site without further research.

SouthernDem on June 27, 2007 at 11:07 PM

O’Reilly added another weekly Republican to his show? How many asses can this man kiss in a single hour? What’s that make now? Gingrich, Morris, Miller, Ham, Malkin, etc…. God, Fox is getting more pathetic by the day.

“AND COMING UP NEXT ON HANNITY & COLMES, THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S DARK PAST, THE BOOKS SHE DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE… THIS PROGRAM BROUGHT TO YOU BY-ROGER AILES, FORMER REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT-THIS IS FAIR AND BALANCED FOX NEWS”

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Yes, so unlike the balance we can observe on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc…

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM

Yes, so unlike the balance we can observe on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc…

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM

Wait, isn’t there a liberal talk show host that O’Reilly (who’s not even close to being a conservative) pimpslaps in the ratings every night? Apparently, given the choice, Americans prefer to watch FOX. And the Stalinists just can’t allow that to happen.

ReubenJCogburn on June 27, 2007 at 11:20 PM

If it’s not a person, then how, exactly, can he be charged for killing a person?

He’s not being charged with the killing of a person. He’s being charged with the killing of a fetus.

Blake on June 27, 2007 at 11:22 PM

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Those types of charges never made sense to me.

If a woman wants to keep a baby (or does not get the chance to kill it) before she is murdered then the baby becomes a life worth standing up for legally.

If another women wants to get rid of some “viable tissue mass” That has the exact same gestation period then she is free to do so.

F15Mech on June 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

If the girl is 18 and knows what she’s getting into I think it is and should remain legal. That’s the type of thing community shame should handle. It’s too bad shame isn’t as popular as it once was.

If these girls weren’t fully aware of what they’re getting into, e.g. were fed drinks or misled as MK suggested, the pornographer should be prosecuted. If there is no law against it there should be. It’s called rape if you get a woman drunk and sleep with her if she’s too intoxicated. How is this not the same thing?

FireDrake on June 27, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Cheap, insulting yet marvelous!

Drtuddle on June 27, 2007 at 11:26 PM

ReubenJCogburn on June 27, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Why yes, there is. But as long as it fits your personal ideology (read: Fragility) then it’s “fair and balanced”. But FOX? I mean, come on. We all know they’re the enemy. (total sarc)

Seriously, FOX does present a different point of view than, literally, all other news organizations. It’s probably more balancing than balanced. I think even Roger Ailes said that once. Still, they present a point of view that you absolutely will not get from the MSM which is overwhelmingly liberal and biased.

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:26 PM

F15Mech on June 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Yeah it never made sense to me either. I get the semantics – just can’t find the logic.

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:28 PM

If it’s not a person, then how, exactly, can he be charged for killing a person?

He’s not being charged with the killing of a person. He’s being charged with the killing of a fetus.

Blake on June 27, 2007 at 11:22 PM

So explain to me how a women is not charged with “the killing of a fetus” when she commits the same act at “health clinic”

F15Mech on June 27, 2007 at 11:28 PM

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:28 PM

Don’t worry someone will explain it by saying something like “its her body”…..

F15Mech on June 27, 2007 at 11:31 PM

He’s not being charged with the killing of a person. He’s being charged with the killing of a fetus.

Then why is he being charged with two counts of the same crime? Why was Scott Petersen convicted of two counts of the same crime?

murder:
1.killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Pablo on June 27, 2007 at 11:34 PM

He’s being charged with the killing of a fetus.
Blake on June 27, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Then what did he kill? To assume he killed something would suggest that it was living or somehow viable. If an unborn child is not really a human, but simply a fetus which can be disposed of, then why is he being charged with a homicide (a term used to describe the murder of a person)?

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:36 PM

F15Mech on June 27, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Pablo on June 27, 2007 at 11:34 PM

As long as I’ve been asking, you’ll never find any logic to this argument. It’s an assumed constitutional right that the unborn are somehow not actually human beings. The reason it defies logic, is because the argument itself is not based on logical principals. A right to choose is not a “right” at all.

thedecider on June 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM

I respect Bill’s decision to have anyone younger than 40 on the show given his trouble with teenagers.

Nonfactor on June 27, 2007 at 11:58 PM

Why yes, there is. But as long as it fits your personal ideology (read: Fragility) then it’s “fair and balanced”. But FOX? I mean, come on. We all know they’re the enemy. (total sarc)

Dumb argument, considering I don’t recall saying anything about Olbermann. And this statement can easily be reversed to apply to you and other conservatives who claim Fox is fair and balanced. Conservatives who whine about alleged “liberal bias” and then go around parroting laughable one-liners like “Fox News is SOOO fair and balanced!” have no leg to stand on. You’re complete hypocrites. If you embrace blatant Republican propaganda and then scream and whine about instances of liberal bias, all you’re basically angry about is the fact that the media isn’t biased in favor of you.

Wait, isn’t there a liberal talk show host that O’Reilly (who’s not even close to being a conservative)

Ok, O’Reilly isn’t a conservative? Right. Who does he attack every night on air? Conservatives? Republicans? No, liberals and Democrats. What are his positions?

1.) Pro-life
2.) Pro-Iraq War
3.) Pro-abstinence only
4.) Pro-Alito/Roberts
5.) Anti-Affirmative Action
6.) Pro-School Vouchers
7.) Pro-Government intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair
8.) Opposes gay marriage
9.) Opposes gays in the military

If this guy isn’t a “conservative”, it’s obvious your standard of measurement for a conservative registers somewhere between the American Militia and the Neo-Nazi National Alliance. He’s a partian Republican, and anyone who denies it has no right to whine about anyone else in the press. Bill O’Reilly claiming that he’s an independent because he criticizes Republicans for not being conservative enough is as pathetic as Al Franken claiming, “I’m not a liberal Democrat! I criticized Bill Clinton for free trade and welfare reform! See, I critize Democrats too!”

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM

can easily be reversed to apply to you…
Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Nice try, but why don’t you actually read my entire comment. Yeah, the part where I say FOX is more “balancing than balanced”. I noticed you overlooked that part in your rush to condemn my point of view, and true enough, you didn’t say anything about Olbermann in your original argument, but you should have. In fact, all you did was slam FOX in a very one-sided argument without taking other news organizations into account. This is what we call a “tell”. It’s something you use as a “point” against one side, without accounting for the bigger picture (e.g. all media – including the liberal media you likely favor). As for Bill, his views are largely traditional conservative but he has, on occasion, espoused some liberal viewpoints as well. I don’t presume to know where he really falls as he is a pundit who has an audience to serve (which, judging by his ratings, he serves quite well).

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM

THIS PROGRAM BROUGHT TO YOU BY-ROGER AILES, FORMER REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT-THIS IS FAIR AND BALANCED FOX NEWS”

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Oddly enough, when I learn that someone is a Democrat, I presume that they have no understanding of logical reasoning, the scientific method, or real-world application of laws (beyond conceptual theory).

My presumption is rarely incorrect.

Conversely, when I hear someone is a republican, I tend to assume that they are either “reasonable or even handed, OR religious. (Sometimes both)

——-

as for the MKH story, I have no problem with Porn/pornographers so long as they don’t involve people underage, under the influence, or under pressure (ie: coercive).

For most individuals, posing for porn is a terrible decision with grave concequences. For some, it is a legitimate and fun career.

I admit, I GENERALLY don’t like people under 27-28 posing as most young adults don’t really know who they are yet, or what they want in life. And when someone decides to do porn, that’s a decision that will follow them for the rest of their life.

In a way, porn star psychology can be similar to that of combat soldiers.

I have met soldiers who developed PTSD simply because they were exposed to a combat zone and had to fire a weapon. (and don’t even know if they even hit anything/anyone.)

And I’ve met and other soldiers (snipers especially) who have legitimately killed dozens of men, and really don’t have any problems psychologically with what they did. (Killing individual targets)

For some it’s fun, for others it’s just a job, and for some its the worst mistake they could have ever made.

such is life.

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM

By the way…glass houses and all that to you:

You’re complete hypocrites. If you embrace blatant Republican propaganda and then scream and whine about instances of liberal bias, all you’re basically angry about is the fact that the media isn’t biased in favor of you.

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

thedecider,

There is one thing “magical” about the birth canal in the eyes of the Courts, and that is the passage in the Constitution that states that anyone born in the US is a citizen. That sets the latest point at which a baby/fetus can be protected, since before birth (however the courts define it) it is not a citizen. But once it is born it must be given the full protections of a juvenile citizen. Please note that I am only pointing out the limit, not that I believe that is where it should be.

The whole abortion argument is so contentious I think because it strikes at the very heart of the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives, specifically Personal Responsibility. To liberalsm personal responsibility is anathema and must be opposed at every point. Conservatives see personal responsibility as a virtue to be embraced and taught. Abortion as birth control is all about dodging one’s responsibilities for their own actions. That’s why it is so important to liberals. That it is genetically and biologically a separate human being, the crux of the anti-abortion argument, is utterly irrelevant to them.

Remember that a liberal is someone who hopes to achieve Aldous Huxley’ “Brave New World” by going through George Orwell’s “1984.” A conservative is someone who hopes to avoid both.

Lancer on June 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM

This might very well be the most ignorant post I’ve seen on HotAir to date.

Nonfactor on June 28, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM

It must be hard to see through all the spittle on your monitor.

ReubenJCogburn on June 28, 2007 at 12:12 AM

I don’t want to get ahead of myself here. But has anybody mentioned that Mary Katherine Ham just might be hawt?

No? Oh, maybe it’s just me.

birkel on June 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM

In fact, all you did was slam FOX in a very one-sided argument without taking other news organizations into account.

That’s exactly right, you know why? Because it doesn’t MATTER whether the rest of the media is biased. No matter how biased they are, that doesn’t change anything about Fox. The bias of CNN has no bearing on the bias of Fox, which has no bearing on the bias of the NYT, which has no bearing on the bias of ABC. In terms of political bias, everything exists in its own vacuum. Either they are biased, or they aren’t. It is IRRELEVANT whether other new organizations are biased. Which basically means you’re using the “they do it, so we can too” argument. which is only rational if you QUIT BITCHING about the other side. Which you aren’t.

As for Bill, his views are largely traditional conservative but he has, on occasion, espoused some liberal viewpoints as well.

You couldn’t name more than a single “liberal” point of view he has. And it doesn’t even matter. No one is ENTIRELY this or ENTIRELY that. I’m against gun control, but I’m liberal on most other issues. Being “not liberal” on one issue doesn’t mean I’m an independent. If he’s 90% conservative and 10% liberal, then he’s a conservative.

Oddly enough, when I learn that someone is a Democrat, I presume that they have no understanding of logical reasoning, the scientific method, or real-world application of laws (beyond conceptual theory).

My presumption is rarely incorrect.

Conversely, when I hear someone is a republican, I tend to assume that they are either “reasonable or even handed, OR religious. (Sometimes both)

You’re not too bright, are you? Ever heard of the phrase “Non sequitur”? You can mumble these thoughts out loud all you want, all it shows is your inability to wage an actual argument and your juvenile reliance on “hurr liberals are this, hurr conservatives are that”. Grow up or stay out of the debate, kid.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Lancer on June 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Wow! Just, wow! You articulate the debate very well.

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 12:17 AM

which is only rational if you QUIT BITCHING about the other side. Which you aren’t.
Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:15 AM

I’m only finding one “bitch” in this debate and it seems to be you. Incredible, really. You started this argument TYPING IN ALL CAPS about Fox news (drawing no comparisons and distinguishing no differences between Fox and other news organizations) and have continued this strange tirade drawing conclusions I never made after I challenged your original one-sided debate. Now that your argument has evolved (having been challenged) it seems it doesn’t matter that the rest of the media is biased. How does this tie in to your original argument? Really, why don’t you re-read what you said:

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Pay attention to your remarks in ALL CAPS, and note that your argument is entirely about Fox news, and entirely one-sided. Then witness how your point seems to evolve as you are challenged and perhaps you’ll finally get why your comments seem so ridiculous.

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Allah – seems my comment to Fragility is stuck in the filter.

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Pay attention to your remarks in ALL CAPS, and note that your argument is entirely about Fox news, and entirely one-sided.

One-sided? Since when am I obliged to discuss every other major cable/network channel in a discussion about Fox News. Of course my argument is one-sided, because I was talking about Fox, because this thread is about a video clip on the FOX NEWS CHANNEL. Did Allah include a clip from CNN? If he did, let me know. I was the one who started the debate with my sarcastic mocking of how Fox News is framing Carl Berstein’s book and other anti-Clinton books (and yes, that’s exactly how they’re framing it during commercial breaks, “SEE THE BOOK THE EVIL CLINTON CAMP IS TRYING TO SUPPRESS!”). I mocked Fox News. I don’t have some kind of duty to make a point about CNN and MSNBC next.

When News Busters starts editing all of its stories to include “And in other news, Fox brought on 30 Republicans today and 6 Democrats, 4 of which coincidentally haven’t voted for a Democrat in 30 years…” when attacking the rest of the media, I’ll follow suit.

It isn’t a one-sided argument because I wasn’t talking about “the media”. I was talking about “Fox News”.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM

You’re not too bright, are you? Ever heard of the phrase “Non sequitur”? You can mumble these thoughts out loud all you want, all it shows is your inability to wage an actual argument and your juvenile reliance on “hurr liberals are this, hurr conservatives are that”. Grow up or stay out of the debate, kid.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Hmmm, lets test your theory.

non se·qui·tur: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.

No, your use of the term “Non sequitur” was incorrect.

I stated a premise, which I then followed up by stating that in application, the premise generally held up.

Now, I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense of the word. A man of reason, if you will. I can accept any argument based on logic and reasoning.

(Notably by opinion on gay marriage was changed from anti, to pro a year ago due to a carefully reasoned argument.)

Now I do find it humorous that you choose to call my short post juvenile when you speak about:

How many asses can this man kiss in a single hour?
Fragility

yes, quite droll.

You see, based on your post I figured that we were working by the informal standard of “Speak your mind”

Rather than the higher standard of “Make your case.”

Now, the people you list: Gingrich, Morris, Miller, Ham, Malkin, all seem to have in common the fact that they consider the concequences of legislation beyond the most superficial level.

Having read many of their writings, I have seen all of them to be men and women of reason who if truly convinced that they are incorrect, are willing to change their opinion on an issue.

They also happen to be republicans.

Now, that is not to say that my previously mentioned premise is always correct. Indeed, my wording:

My presumption is rarely incorrect.

Allows for the fact that I have met Democrats who I dismissed, only to learn that they are either reasonable individuals, or have a diffrent philosophy.

(KP, Bob Beckel, Joe Lieberman, and various others.)

so based upon the evidence you cite, and the evidence I cite, I believe my premise to be supported (As the premise is based on how I percieve individuals.)

As for saying

You’re not too bright, are you?

Well, I feel torn between laughing at that or responding with some line like: “a man can not see the the brightness of the light if his eyes are closed.”

or perhaps saying something more cryptic like: “For me, the trees have become trees again.”

Perhaps I’ll do all three.

heh heh heh.

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 12:48 AM

You’re not too bright, are you?

…You can mumble these thoughts out loud all you want, all it shows is your inability to wage an actual argument and your juvenile reliance on “hurr liberals are this, hurr conservatives are that”. Grow up or stay out of the debate, kid.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Pot meet kettle

F15Mech on June 28, 2007 at 12:53 AM

It isn’t a one-sided argument because I wasn’t talking about “the media”. I was talking about “Fox News”.
Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Thank you, Mr/Ms Obvious (sorry, I don’t know your gender). You weren’t talking about “the media”, just Fox news. Yes, I get that. Then I made the point that other news organizations are biased. Then you commented that it doesn’t matter, then, blah, blah, blah. The crux of all your points are that Fox is not balanced. Yeah, I get that and even agreed (something you would have known had you actually read my comments).

As for your question:

Since when am I obliged to discuss every other major cable/network channel in a discussion about Fox News.

You should expect that such an opinion will be challenged on a conservative blog. You should be obliged to acknowledge that all news organizations have biases. Something you omitted from your original post regarding Fox News (an organization you obviously despise, but that conservatives appreciate). Your latest argument seems to reflect an opinion that you are above being challenged on your obvious left-leaning opinions. Surely you understood the political leanings of most bloggers here when you signed up, and knew your liberal opinions would be challenged. I’m quite easy compared to most commentors you’ll face on this blog. Start growing that thick skin now ’cause you’ll need it if you expect to be around very long.

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 1:00 AM

This might very well be the most ignorant post I’ve seen on HotAir to date.

Nonfactor on June 28, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Really?

How do you mean?

If I am mistaken in some way, I would like to learn how so that I may continue to improve myself.

I would hate to be considered an ignoramus.

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Jones Zemkophill

I’ve never seen a more empty and pathetic post on this blog as that. And yes, non-sequitur was an appropriate phrase to use, because you quoted my sarcastic rephrasing of Fox News spinning anti-Clinton books and tagged a paragraph that had nothing to do with it, that in no way rebutted it or even referenced it.

So yes, the phrase “it does not follow”, applies. It does not follow. You didn’t offer a rebuttal. You simply started babbling, “Republicans are logical-thinking and reasonable, Democrats aren’t.” Get over yourself, honestly.

Your attempt at presenting yourself in a sophisticated schtick falls to pieces when you’re surrounded by a sea of tools babbling about “nutroots” “hate america first” “libtards”, etc…

Your latest argument seems to reflect an opinion that you are above being challenged on your obvious left-leaning opinions.

No it doesn’t, how you inferred that from the quoted sentence is pretty interesting.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Can you say Michael Jackson?

Bill you’re a freaking jerk get your head out of Bushes a hole on illegal emigrants. Bill was your family related to one of the United States Traitors during the Mexican American war? I’m Irish and my ancestors put the bullets in the heads of the Irish Traitor.

American8298 on June 28, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Okay, whatever. What would clear this up?

1. Admit your original post was entirely about FOX news and no other news organization.

2. Recognize that by commenting only on FOX news – in your original post – and not the others (as your more evolved posts referenced which indicate your personal bias against FOX – a conservative leaning news organization by my personal admission) and not, necessarily the MSM overall in light of your comment:

Because it doesn’t MATTER whether the rest of the media is biased.

is nothing short of hypocrisy.

If you can admit or agree to these two things, I’m satisfied.

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 1:22 AM

Dear FOX News:

Why do you make so many of your Washington, DC-based guests sit in front of that pathetic earth-toned faux lawyers’ office set?

This is the best that the most powerful frickin’ name in news can do? I’ve seen sets in high school productions of “Our Town” with better production values…

ScottMcC on June 28, 2007 at 1:24 AM

I’ve never seen a more empty and pathetic post on this blog as that. And yes, non-sequitur was an appropriate phrase to use, because you quoted my sarcastic rephrasing of Fox News spinning anti-Clinton books and tagged a paragraph that had nothing to do with it, that in no way rebutted it or even referenced it.

So yes, the phrase “it does not follow”, applies. It does not follow. You didn’t offer a rebuttal. You simply started babbling, “Republicans are logical-thinking and reasonable, Democrats aren’t.” Get over yourself, honestly.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Actually, you misquote me. (Rather suprising since you have the option of cutting and pasting.)

Oddly enough, when I learn that someone is a Democrat, I presume that they have no understanding of logical reasoning, the scientific method, or real-world application of laws (beyond conceptual theory).

My presumption is rarely incorrect.

Conversely, when I hear someone is a republican, I tend to assume that they are either “reasonable or even handed, OR religious. (Sometimes both)

“Republicans are logical-thinking and reasonable, Democrats aren’t.”

Indeed, I know many republicans that are “Religious” and are neither logical nor reasonable.

Secondly, My post wasn’t tended as a Rebuttal per se, but rather a personal statement on the issue raised by your sarcastic remark.

I make no allusions to universal reliability of my stated premise, only that I have accepted that premise as an axiom as it applies to my own perception and observation.

However, your above post refrencing “brightness” and implying that I am a juvenile is somewhat telling as to your style of argument.

Now I have nothing against a visceral reaction to a post. indeed, that is why I enjoy blogs.

But it is somewhat hypocritical to berate me for stating my opinion, and then make a completely rude and unfounded post.

As I said, I’m not making some universal argument, simply stating my perception.

Yet for some reason, you decry me stating my perception but then go on to state yours.

In this argument, you would be the gentle-person in the veitable “Glass house”.

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 1:25 AM

American8298 on June 28, 2007 at 1:15 AM

anyone taking bets on who is a troll.

put me down for a Benjamin.

F15Mech on June 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

knuckle heads….. less jawing about FNC and more adulation for the near perfect MKH.

5foot2 on June 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

1. Admit your original post was entirely about FOX news and no other news organization.

I’ve said that like five times.

is nothing short of hypocrisy.

No it isn’t. It’s only hypocrisy if I actually believe the rest of the media is biased, and in terms of CNN and MSNBC, I don’t. Your argument is also pretty self-defeating, because what you’re basically saying is that every conservative blogger on the internet who ever posts something along the lines of “NYT REVEALS ITS BIAS” is a hypocritical tool unless they add a disclaimer pointing out Fox News’ conservative bias.

That simply makes no sense. Admit it, you’ve brought this debate full circle into a circlejerk into the wording of the original post, because you want to talk about “liberal bias”, after I took a shot at Fox. I’m not obliged to comply.

Bill you’re a freaking jerk get your head out of Bushes a hole on illegal emigrants. Bill was your family related to one of the United States Traitors during the Mexican American war? I’m Irish and my ancestors put the bullets in the heads of the Irish Traitor

Are you drunk or something? And yes, I get the reference to the Saint Patrick’s Batallion, but it looks like you typed that after hitting the bottle.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Secondly, My post wasn’t tended as a Rebuttal per se, but rather a personal statement on the issue raised by your sarcastic remark.

Right, in other words, you lose the argument because you’re admitting that your reply had nothing to do with my post, you basically just started babbling random thoughts.

Hence, it does not follow.

veitable

Trying too hard to sound slick there buddy, you missed the “r”.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:32 AM

5foot2 on June 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

On this, surely we all agree!

Spirit of 1776 on June 28, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Right, in other words, you lose the argument because you’re admitting that your reply had nothing to do with my post, you basically just started babbling random thoughts.

Hence, it does not follow.

No, the correct use of the term: non-sequitur would be “winning” an argument when there wasn’t an argument to be won.

Trying too hard to sound slick there buddy, you missed the “r”.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:32 AM

As for the spelling error I missed, you may feel free to claim a victory for proofreaders everywhere on your behalf.

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 1:39 AM

Images of naked breasts is not pornography.

Aitch on June 28, 2007 at 1:42 AM

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:30 AM

In fact, you are obliged to defend your comments. You can’t, because you’ve lost the argument.

“…because you want to talk about “liberal bias”, after I took a shot at Fox. I’m not obliged to comply.

Yes you are. You lost this debate because you can’t reconcile your orginal argument against your evolved argument. As for liberal bias, there’s plenty of it.

This really says it all, doesn’t it:

It’s only hypocrisy if I actually believe the rest of the media is biased, and in terms of CNN and MSNBC, I don’t.

In case you haven’t been following closely, even the mighty BBC has conceded to the fact that the vast majority of their journalists are, in fact, liberal. I can’t really believe you are actually defending MSNBC. Have you really watched a single episode of Keith Olberman’s show? What about Hardball? To say that network has no bias really shows your complete ignorance on the subject.

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 1:43 AM

F15Mech on June 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Bet who are we betting on?
I’m not a troll as you think I am. I just have some very strong patriotic feeling about our country the United States of America.

American8298 on June 28, 2007 at 1:48 AM

And by the way, isn’t it irrelevant that they’re biased?

The bias of CNN has no bearing on the bias of Fox, which has no bearing on the bias of the NYT, which has no bearing on the bias of ABC. In terms of political bias, everything exists in its own vacuum. Either they are biased, or they aren’t. It is IRRELEVANT whether other new organizations are biased.
Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:15 AM

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Trying too hard to sound slick there buddy, you missed the “r”.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:32 AM

You know…

I did notice that you did not address the matter of hypocracy inherent in your outrage at my post of personal perception when you then stated your own personal perception.

Really, it is somewhat funny that you seem to demand an unreasonable standard of evidence from the casual forum-user while violating your own standard.

the “Do as I say not as I do” rule eh?

(then there’s the fact that you clearly did not read my post, but rather you had a visceral reaction to my statement of perception of Democrats and proceeded to be outraged.)

For future refrence, if you do want to abide by a debating standard, the proper argument against me would have been to either:

A: go for a tie: by simply stating that you have met Democrats that use “logical reason”

or

B: go for the win: by actually citing the names of such democrats and how they have acted logically.

by responding to a post of personal perception with insults, you do change the focus of an argument, but you do not win it.

(Indeed, to prove me wrong based on the method by which I made my statement, you would have to prove that I do not percieve things as I stated my perception to be, and that would be impossible under the circumstances.)

So in the future:

1. Read posts and understand them before taking offense and arguing.
2. Do not be rude. In the end rudeness doesn’t win arguments, and only inflames rhetoric.

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 1:59 AM

And in case anyone missed it, here are the hypocrisy statements of the day by Fragility:

The bias of CNN has no bearing on the bias of Fox, which has no bearing on the bias of the NYT, which has no bearing on the bias of ABC. In terms of political bias, everything exists in its own vacuum. Either they are biased, or they aren’t. It is IRRELEVANT whether other new organizations are biased.
Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 12:15 AM

No it isn’t. It’s only hypocrisy if I actually believe the rest of the media is biased, and in terms of CNN and MSNBC, I don’t.
Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 1:30 AM

thedecider on June 28, 2007 at 2:00 AM

And by the way, isn’t it irrelevant that they’re biased?

You obviously don’t understand that quote. It’s not irrelevant that any agency is biased, in a general sense. What I was saying is that the fact that one organization is biased or not, does not determine whether another is biased.

Thusly, Fox News is a Republican whine factory in all circumstances.

1.) If CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, etc…. are all Democratic propaganda outlets, Fox News is STILL biased.
2.) If CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, etc…. are libertarian propaganda outlets, Fox News is STILL biased.
3.) If “………” are propagand outlets for the Green Party, Fox News is STILL biased.

Understand? The bias of one news channel does not justify or change the bias of another. Even if the entire media (other than Fox) had a liberal bias, if Fox News is pumping out Republican talking points, then Fox News is biased. It’s not fair simply because it’s different. If it’s biased, it’s biased.

In case you haven’t been following closely, even the mighty BBC has conceded to the fact that the vast majority of their journalists are, in fact, liberal. I can’t really believe you are actually defending MSNBC. Have you really watched a single episode of Keith Olberman’s show? What about Hardball? To say that network has no bias really shows your complete ignorance on the subject.

1.) Yup, have occasionally tuned in.
2.) Hardball? Do you actually ever listen to Chris Matthews kiss up to Rudy Guiliani and trash Clinton?
3.) Ever heard of Tucker Carlson? You know, the conservative with a show on MSNBC? How about Joe Scarborough, the former GOP congressmen who brings on unhinged lunatics like William Donahue on a nightly basis to rave and rant about how “The Jews in Hollywood are trying to destroy Christianity”. And of course Glenn Beck has his own political program at CNN where he mouths off, brings on only Republicans, and basically just uses the program to dish out RNC talking points. And then there’s Lou Dobbs, whose main political issue – illegal immigration – is where he’s as conservative as you can get.

So, no, I don’t think the media is biased. And the main reason I don’t think the media is biased is because the media deliberately slants the partisanship in favor of Republicans. A perfect example is the Washington Post, who offers REAL conservatives and REAL Republicans on its editorial pages. Charles Krauthammer, the founder of Neoconservatism, and of course, George Will. These are columnists that conservatives actually LIKE, and quote, and enjoy reading.

Have you ever met a liberal or a Democrat who quoted from a jackass like David Broder? Mr. I’m-more-moderate-than-all-of-you? The guy is a dead-center-centrist. Not center-left. Not left-leaning. Dead center. And the Post claims that he’s a “liberal”, while he spends most of his time attacking Democrats to prove his “centrist” credentials. And then you’ve got a sniveling little weasel like Richard Cohen who pulls the exact same trick.

This is how the media works. Moderate-to-conservative Democrats are presented as “liberals”, against partisan Republicans.

So, no, the media is not liberal. There are no liberal pundits or talking heads on CNN with their own show. And MSNBC only has one, two at most, equaling its Republicans.

Fox News, of course, has TEN Republican shows.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Fox News, of course, has TEN Republican shows.

Fragility on June 28, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Just out of Curiosity (As I don’t really watch much Fox News), Which ten do you consider Republican?

Jones Zemkophill on June 28, 2007 at 2:23 AM

I can only think of top secret can’t say but I can say it’s 1/5 of 10

American8298 on June 28, 2007 at 2:27 AM

WOW!!! My head is spinning after spending twenty minutes reading the heated exchanges on this thread!

Bottom line: Fox News is right-of-center. The rest of television media is left-of-center. (Also most newspapers, periodicals, etc.)

The debate on this thread has broken down to semantics, which nobody in there right mind gives a hoot about.

I think we can all agree on one thing: MKH is smokin’!

RedCrow on June 28, 2007 at 2:53 AM

Has anything good come out of MySpace? In my opinion, most, if not all, porn is coercive. It’s difficult to believe anyone who has a healthy sense of self would choose this as a career.

On the other hand, if all these young women see in the media are Britney’s, Beyonce’s, J-Lo’s, etc. who have naught to say but are barely clothed, why wouldn’t they copy it? It’s cool to them apparently, even if it is a warped version of sexy/sensual/etc. If their parents aren’t around to teach them values and, more importantly, show them by their actions, well, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. If the only attention women can get these days is being told whether or not they are “hawt,” crap like this will never go away.

We need better role models, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Well-spoken, intelligent, beautiful, fully clothed, modest. Since I live in Denmark, I don’t know MKH but she seems a better role model than the above mentioned singers.

yggdrasil on June 28, 2007 at 3:19 AM

You’re complete hypocrites. If you embrace blatant Republican propaganda and then scream and whine about instances of liberal bias, all you’re basically angry about is the fact that the media isn’t biased in favor of you.

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Of course…! We’re not happy because the media isn’t biased in favor of the TRUTH…, or US. However you choose to word it. Same difference. :)

Rugged Individual on June 28, 2007 at 3:55 AM

Bravo Fragility.

Nonfactor on June 28, 2007 at 5:03 AM

Wow, we just saw a preview of the “fairness doctrine” right here in person. If you came in late it breaks down to… the left wants to control the media so it’s only biased their way never ours or “all the news we see fit to tell you”.

Maybe they’ll model our upcoming version of it on Chavez’s outstanding work in Venezuela.

Buzzy on June 28, 2007 at 5:14 AM

uh, they’re 18…legal adults. They are no more naïve than the responsible, young men and women who we fully trust with the security of our nation and who fight and die on the frontlines of wars.

Unless they’re retarded I think they’re capable of making their own decisions on how they want to run their life regardless of our feelings towards which trade they choose to ply.

Alden Pyle on June 28, 2007 at 7:55 AM

Guys, Fox does not have a conservative bent. Fox IS middle road. These attacks by the MSM are designed to keep the perception of middle road skewed to the left. The more crazy lefties they trot out, and the more we trash people like Ann Colter, the more that perception is cemented. The middle is always defined by the equal distance between the extremes. When the left paints, and we accept, that regular logical thinking is the extreme right, the center shifts dramatically to the left.

The left accepts Rosie as viable.
We reject Ann as not viable and accept that we are right leaning.

Ergo, the middle position between Rosie and us is….Hillary! And that is why the MSM THINK they are the center and support liberal causes. Shifting the perceived center has been the lefts greatest accomplishment.

csdeven on June 28, 2007 at 8:26 AM

I do find MKH quite attractive, in more ways than one. If I was older (I’m 19), and lived near her, I’d date her. HYTEAndy

Hey Kid…go join the Army and then, maybe, after oh 8 years or so, you’ll have a chance!

MKH, that pursed lip pout thingie you’ve got going is a killer!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 28, 2007 at 8:59 AM

BOR is getting upset about this? I remember his hour long show on Fox a few years ago that had 15 minutes of what he claimed was indignance about sex issues, yet the entire set was nothing but scanitilly clad women in compromising positions.

I’m not buying it, BOR.

Sensei Ern on June 28, 2007 at 9:07 AM

“AND COMING UP NEXT ON HANNITY & COLMES, THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S DARK PAST, THE BOOKS SHE DOESN’T WANT YOU TO SEE… THIS PROGRAM BROUGHT TO YOU BY-ROGER AILES, FORMER REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT-THIS IS FAIR AND BALANCED FOX NEWS”

Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Cool. What time?

naliaka on June 28, 2007 at 9:27 AM

So explain to me how a women is not charged with “the killing of a fetus” when she commits the same act at “health clinic”.

Because these type of statutes contain language exempting abortion.

Then why is he being charged with two counts of the same crime? Why was Scott Petersen convicted of two counts of the same crime?

Not the exact same crime in that both Ohio and California statutes say death of another or the unlawful killing of a fetus.

murder: 1.killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

And the conditions specifically covered in the statutes being used to charge Cutts/Peterson are the killing of a human being/another or the unlawful killing of a fetus/termination of a pregnancy.

Then what did he kill? To assume he killed something would suggest that it was living or somehow viable. If an unborn child is not really a human, but simply a fetus which can be disposed of, then why is he being charged with a homicide (a term used to describe the murder of a person)?

One doesn’t assume — one specifically looks at the language of the statutes. Under Ohio law he is being charged with aggravated murder which is defined, among other things, as the unlawful termination of a pregnancy with prior calculation and design.

Blake on June 28, 2007 at 9:44 AM

THIS PROGRAM BROUGHT TO YOU BY-ROGER AILES, FORMER REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT-THIS IS FAIR AND BALANCED FOX NEWS”
Fragility on June 27, 2007 at 11:08 PM

You promise that it’ll be a wildly different perspective than former White House Spokesman, George Stephanopolos hired by ABC despite no previous broadcast experience, would be doing on the same subject? The guy who used to be the mouthpiece for the Clinton Administration?

naliaka on June 28, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Fragility and Nonfactor -

I’m hardly a conservative, though I lean very right on certain issues. Now that we’ve established my frame of reference, you guys are out of it, specifically regarding:

So, no, I don’t think the media is biased. And the main reason I don’t think the media is biased is because the media deliberately slants the partisanship in favor of Republicans.

Study after study demonstrates that the majority of mainstream media outlets and professionals tilt at least left-center. (I could link about 6 more)

So, while you can pull out specific data points all day long (certain columnists, certain pubs, editorial pages or networks), it remains that you are not contextually nor comprehensively analyzing the media landscape anything like, say, political scientists conducting and authoring research.

Just because the “liberal media bias!” complaint is overdone by righties doesn’t mean that the paradigm which inspires it doesn’t exist, nor that it’s really the opposite, as you claim.

And agreed that Fox news leans right (though center-right overall, far right on some shows, and downright populist and trashy on others), but so what? It’s a format in the marketplace of ideas, it’s not THREATENING THE REPUBLIC. Fox, talk radio, etc are a natural market reaction and it’s not a bad thing to have someone other than Walter Cronkite offering up news as a media grand priest.

And finally, anyone who writes this:

Charles Krauthammer, the founder of Neoconservatism

Is so oddly uninformed that it gets very hard to take anything seriously. To wit:

In a 1999 Time magazine article, Krauthammer wrote:

“ The essence of foreign policy is deciding which son of a bitch to support and which to oppose — in 1941, Hitler or Stalin; in 1972, Brezhnev or Mao; in 1979, Somoza or Ortega. One has to choose. A blanket anti-son of a bitch policy, like a blanket anti-ethnic cleansing policy, is soothing, satisfying and empty. It is not a policy at all but righteous self-delusion.[12]

I like many of Krauthammer’s columns, but not that one, which not only classifies him as “not the founder of neoconservatism,” but comes close to classifying him as “the opposite of the founder of neoconservatism.”

Especially considering neoconservatism – a position contingent upon advocacy of muscular, interventionist American foreign policy centered around national interest as well as humanitarian goals – emerged in the late 60′s and early 70′s among liberal academics, I believe.

Just because a columnist supports the Iraq war or various Bush Admin policies, that does not classify that person as a neocon. Learn your terms.

BillINDC on June 28, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 28, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Actually, when I’m done with college, I would love to enlist in a branch of the military. My parents wouldn’t like that, because they want me to become a dentist and work with my dad (also dentist).

But I think it’d be an honor to serve. Part-time Air Force reserve, maybe? That’s a good compromise I think they’d accept.

HYTEAndy on June 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM

O’Reilly taking the moral high ground on porn – when not so long ago he was whispering sweet filthy, vibrating nothings to his co-workers.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/outfoxed/mackris_complaint.pdf

Double standards at Fox?? Nah! Can’t be… It is a joke of an organisation – as are the presenters on it, and the ‘guest pundits’ invited to comment on issues they have no real expertise in. Talking heads for the hard of thinking.

eminuu on June 28, 2007 at 11:58 AM

It’s funny how all the leftards wet themselves whenever they hear the words Fox News. Hey eminuu — go change your pants!

Blake on June 28, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Porn and Mary Kat.

I’ll be in the cold shower…

Mazztek on June 28, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Images of naked breasts is not pornography.

Aitch on June 28, 2007 at 1:42 AM

Perhaps not. But then, on the other hand, the photographs do not exactly demostrate a “penchant for modesty” either, n’est-ce pas? And BTW, I don’t buy the “I never dreamed THOSE photos would end up on the internet” argument. Any woman that makes such a statement is simply revealing how little that she truly understands about men, donchathink? If a woman is stupid enough to get drunk and/or expose herself to a lowlife photographer, methinks that she pretty much gets what she had coming to her (and maybe more). MKH is correct when she says that THOSE kind of photos can haunt a woman for the rest of her life.

CyberCipher on June 28, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Exit Question:

Meh, I think your analogy fails based on the differences in topics; but I’m thinking Abortion should be left to the states (and adult “free speech, free expression” whatever) isn’t a good comparison.

Serious exit question: Gay marriage? I do believe it’s morally and legally wrong, but using my above logic, a case could possibly be made for its legality. However, I don’t think it should be legal.

Not-so-serious exit question: Smoking bans… Does your smoking infringe on my right to not smoke?

HYTEAndy on June 27, 2007 at 10:28 PM

Serious question: Unserious answer… I was against Gay Marriage until it was explained to me that it wasn’t compulsory.

More seriously, I don’t care if gay people get married. I don’t have enough gay friends that I’d have to go to too many more weddings (a few), and it certainly won’t affect me personally.

I dislike the Government being involved and meddling in what is (at it’s base) a religious event coupled with a legal partnership agreement. Do you really want the Government deciding you can or can’t get married to? Are your politicians that socially adept?

Not-so-serious exit question: Serious answer. It’s situational.

As a private citizen, landowner, business owner, etc. you should have every right to limit, restrict, or ban smoking on your property. Smoking should not be done in public (or Government owned) property in enclosed areas, or near children; for health reasons.

On the other side of the coin, you should have every right to allow smoking on private (or business) property with signs just as clear that smoking is allowed. Smoking and non-smoking bars, restaurants, etc. is just good business (on both sides).

If you believe going non-smoking won’t hurt any bar’s business; then being one of few (possibly the only) non-smoking bar in town should be a huge draw… but oddly the anti-smokers would rather have the Government destroy this obviously profitable market niche they’ve located.

At which point you have to suspect that they have no faith in that belief. Like Colorado, the smoking ban was assured not to harm businesses, but wouldn’t be applied in Casinos to avoid damaging tourism… Either slot machines avoid 2nd hand smoke health issues, or you’ve knowingly lied in your statement that businesses won’t be hurt.

In any case, the ban was overreaching. Affecting public property (especially enclosed areas, children’s parks, etc.) is reasonable; forcibly limiting a business owner’s choice is not reasonable; so long as customers have a good idea going in whether smoking is (or is not) allowed.

Pre-emptive defense: I’m sure some are going to claim their asthma, allergies, etc. make smoking bans a good idea in all cases; so please also explain why a ban on any presence of peanuts, seafood, wheat gluten, or any other potential allergens should be handled differently…

Just my opinion, so of course I think I’m right.

gekkobear on June 28, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Exit question: Isn’t MK taking the same basic position here on porn that Rudy takes — and takes heat for — on abortion?

Slight problem with this idea: Rudy talks about maintaining taxed funding for abortion. That is to say, he would allow my and your tax dollars to pay for abortion. No one is talking about using tax dollars to make porn. At least I hope not. I figure abortion’s still worse…probably why I can’t, as a pro-lifer, support Rudy’s campaign while he talks about using tax dollars to kill potential human beings with a dremel and shop-vac.

Spc Steve on June 28, 2007 at 3:30 PM

gekkobear on June 28, 2007 at 2:39 PM

I have mixed feelings about the smoking issue. However, while my logic can be used to make a case for the legality of gay marriage, your logic could be used to make the case for abortion.

After all, it’s her body, right? She owns it, right? So, she has the right to do with it as she pleases, right?

Again, I don’t think that’s what your saying, but you see the dilemma I’m in with the whole gay marriage and individual rights issue.

However, I’ve thought of a retort to back up my viewpoint on rights. And I’ll answer it with a question: Do you have the right to allow murder to take place on your property? Answer: No, because you’re infringing on that person’s right to life. A person’s right to life is inherent and inalienable, a gift from our Creator.

All in all, a nice discussion.

HYTEAndy on June 28, 2007 at 4:34 PM

So with the Supreme Court ruling today and the Amnesty deal going down in flames…which idiot celebrity do you think O’Reilly will put on tonight that will give him a chance to run some T & A shots at the same time? I am done with FOX News! I watch Lou Dobbs and get all the news I need for the day.

sabbott on June 28, 2007 at 5:41 PM