digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

FOX Pundit Wishes for Obama Assassination, Laughs!

huffingtonpost.com — Liz Trotter on Fox wishes that Obama was assassinated and gleefully laughs. We always feared that Hillary's comments would inspire some wacko out there, but not one in the plain view of the nation. Shouldn't this be investigated in some way, by someone? After all, it sounds like encouraging a violent act, which is not covered by free speech.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ctphantomband, on 05/26/2008, -66/+13Glad to see this finally on Huffpo. Ahhh the dangerous ramifications of an "inartful" comment
    • badqat, on 05/26/2008, -13/+8Yes, because the fact that it's on the Huff and Puff Post makes it more important, even though it's #1 on the "Top in All Topics" right now.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/26/2008, -21/+13badqat the fact that it's on huffington posts ensures that it is BS and someone fishing for ANYTHING to complain about.

      How many times have liberals openly wished and voiced that it would be great that Bush were assasinated?! Too many to count, any of those on huffington post? Hell no, why? Because it doesnt serve their interests - this clip does.
      • badqat, on 05/26/2008, -9/+1I guess I should have used the /sarcasm tag? :)
      • rspeed, on 05/26/2008, -1/+12Can you provide a video clip of someone on a TV news show making a joke or comment encouraging the assassination of George W Bush?
      • fuse13, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4"liberals"? hahaha. did you even realise how pointless your argument was when you made it? what rspeed said is a good enough response.
    • OrbitalFX, on 05/26/2008, -3/+18I have to believe that Liz Trotter knows the difference between Obama and Osama. You don't have the resume she does and flub a simple, yet important fact about a candidate for the Democratic Nomination. She's not even that good of an actress. She goes from a very straight and fluent conversation to a total train wreck over the last name of someone who is running for the Office of The President of the United States.

      Am I losing my mind here?

      I would like to see a video of her similar to that of Bill O'Reilly, while she's talking about Obama off the air.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/26/2008, -0/+6Not only was it outrageous, it was scripted.
  • grlykool, on 05/26/2008, -31/+304Inartful, I think this is probably illegal, Fox needs to be fined, Trotta needs to be fired and investigated. OH and Rove (who works for McCain) needs to explain why he is one this network. Hearings need to be held about how close the administration and Fox are. Their sponsors need to be boycotted.
    • ctphantomband, on 05/26/2008, -14/+47The Secret Service has been notified...repeatedly, thank goodness, and according to reports they are taking it seriously.
      • mabs0, on 05/26/2008, -7/+41Any sources on that? Just curious. I hope they are taking it darn serious.
    • Matt2k, on 05/26/2008, -33/+21Good job, camarade. We can't have these sort of slipups. Indeed, we need more laws against this sort of thing. And expedited trials. And we should savagely beat anyone involved.

      • moolaismyfriend, on 05/26/2008, -26/+7Go away you anti-american scum
        • supermanred, on 05/26/2008, -2/+18No, he's pretty much nailed current day "America (United States Of)" right on the head.

          To complain about the state of your country is your right in a free country. It isn't anti-Americanism.
      • nycmac247, on 05/26/2008, -37/+9the next step is thought crime. (?)
        sticks and stones...or do you think that maybe this idiot (the woman) should be _jailed_?

        ps ***** ***** ***** SPIC COON DYKE LIMEY BEANER GUIDO
        • bitcloud, on 05/26/2008, -0/+22just because it's LEGAL, doesn't mean she (like you) isn't a complete and utter ***** toolbelt deserving of the contempt of the entire nation...
        • nycmac247, on 05/26/2008, -2/+4bitcloud

          - please reread the post I was responding to; Matt was making a great point that there are people here that actually would want the woman JAILED for talking that way (and they would also imply worse while doing so). I agree that she is a complete fool (I will even say "pig") but - and maybe this is what you're saying???- the best way to deal with her is through fairly logical ridicule and scorn, not a crusade against her like some would have. Make sense?
        • RussellDovey, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Out of curiosity, what's a "beaner" when it's at a racist home? I don't know that one.
        • bitcloud, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1fair call nycmac... I hereby relinquish you of all scorn :)
      • jabberwolf, on 05/26/2008, -18/+2COMRAD ??

        Can we say socialist loser?!?!!!!!
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -1/+7Matt2k, you nailed the neocon sentiment exactly.

        It is funny how they react to having the tables turned on them.
        • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -1/+6It's funny how they cannot write a sentence without attempting to be clever by way of inserting a trite and unimaginative name-calling in the tradition of all that is first-grade.
      • tumatakuru, on 05/26/2008, -2/+1You Americans must be really embarrassed ...... again
    • petrodollar, on 05/26/2008, -5/+30Probably not illegal unless you could convince a finder of fact that her words constituted an incitement to imminent lawless action.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

      But it is certainly appalling and tasteless. I've never participated in a boycott before but I am no longer buying a damn thing from any company that advertises on Fox News.
      • theducks, on 05/26/2008, -2/+32Free speech has a different standard when it comes to threatening to kill the President, see 18 U.S.C. 871 (a) and Watts v. United States ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ... )


        • bownasterm, on 05/26/2008, -26/+2obama is not the president dumbass
        • bitcloud, on 05/26/2008, -2/+28no.. bush is "president dumbass"...
        • theducks, on 05/26/2008, -1/+14@ bownasterm: correct, not yet he isn't, but if you assume the comments about a wish for him to be assassinated were made looking to the future, to a time when he could be president, it could be argued that such a law would apply to someone who is not currently the president

          @ bitcloud : lol
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -3/+7So, theducks, would that be prima facie instead of ex post facto? ;)

          The fact is, she had her "macaca" moment. I think she said it as a joke in extreme poor taste, but a joke none-the-less. She should definitely apologize.
        • petrodollar, on 05/26/2008, -4/+2Did you actually read the case you posted?

          "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was ‘a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President.’ Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise...The case is remanded with instructions that it be returned to the District Court for entry of a judgment of acquittal."

          The court says that the statute is only valid because it contains an intent requirement; i.e. it punishes the intent to kill the president, not simply the words “if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want in my sights is L. B. J.”
        • p0s3r, on 05/26/2008, -13/+5http://digg.com/movies/Death_of_a_President_Bush_A ...

          I don't see calls for arrest in that thread. Strange that a 2 hour movie about the assassination of a sitting President doesn't stir any digg-rage, but a 3 second off-the-cuff joke by a Fox pundit does.

          Funny that.
        • SaladCactusKing, on 05/26/2008, -10/+1p0s3r's right. You're all ***** hypocrites, and this is from an Obama voter.
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5[crickets chirping]
        • empraptor, on 05/26/2008, -0/+6No one calling for arrest for "Death of a President" may have to do with the fact that it was made by a British guy.
        • petrodollar, on 05/26/2008, -1/+6"I don't see calls for arrest in that thread"

          I only see a three or four posts out of hundreds in this thread calling for her arrest, you dumbass. The vast majority of people here aren't suggesting that this woman should be locked up, merely that she should be kicked off the air and/or apologize for joking about assasinating a presidential candidate.
        • theducks, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4@ petrodollar : Yes, I did read the case. It does spell out the situation though - you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, and if you're going to say "I wish the president was dead", you better not even slightly mean it.
        • petrodollar, on 05/26/2008, -3/+1"if you're going to say "I wish the president was dead", you better not even slightly mean it."

          No, saying "I wish the president was dead" is fine. Saying "I'm going to shoot the president" is problematic if there's circumstantial evidence to suggest that you mean it. But then this is no different from saying "I'm going to go rob a bank" or "I'm taking these flight lessons because I'm planning to fly a plane into the world trade center." In both of those examples, it's the intent to commit the crime that's being punished, not the speech. The speech is merely taken as evidence of the intent.

          In the case you posted, the speech was not interpreted to constitute evidence of intent to actually kill the president, even though the guy said "if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want in my sights is L. B. J."

          The Brandeburg "incitement to imminent lawless action" test is still the standard for assesing whether speech is protected under the first amendment. If you rounded up a bunch of right wingers, handed them assault rifles, and told them to go assasinate the president, you'd probably be guilty of a crime. If you merely walked down the street telling random passers by that you think someone ought to shoot the president, you'd probably be investigated, but unless that investigation turned up evidence that tended to suggest you were taking actualy steps toward fulfilling that goal, you would likely not be arrested.
    • Savagebeef, on 05/26/2008, -13/+15I agree that the comment was very tasteless. However I feel that many here are over-reacting. Imagine if an anchor had made a similar comment about bush. I doubt that any of you would be writing to sponsors to boycott the network.
      • sugarazor, on 05/26/2008, -3/+32Maybe not anybody here, but the right-wing media would explode with furious anger and would see to it that person be fired. Sean Hannity would then come on the air and demand they be prosecuted for treason.
        • OswaldKenobi, on 05/26/2008, -5/+12My guess is that many of those on digg who have flat out called for Bush's assassination are the same people complaining about Liz Trotter. I agree with anyone who says that the comment was tasteless and heavily partisan, but this forced outrage is absolutely ridiculous.

          Comparing Obama to bin Laden goes well beyond the mudslinging that one normally sees in a presidential race. I would recommend that FOX News and all other news channels outright refuse to give Liz Trotter any more airtime.
        • cathpah, on 05/26/2008, -0/+25I hate bush as much as the next guy, but I think discussig a desire to kill the president or a presidential nominee on national TV is just too far...no matter which party the person is involved with.

          Talking about something like that with your buddies in the privacy of your own home is your call...but stating something like that on national TV is just *****.
        • p0s3r, on 05/26/2008, -7/+2What about a movie about it? Is that too far?
        • r00tus3r, on 05/26/2008, -1/+11Oswald, diggers != broadcasters. They aren't held to the same standard. Diggers may have called for, or wished for bush to be shot, (which is still wrong mind you), but that's not the same as someone working for a network doing it on the air. I hope you can see the difference between the two.
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -7/+3I'm a fan of Fox News overall (particularly of Bill O'Reilly, notsomuch of Sean Hannity)

          I agree with you if the roles were reversed that Sean Hannity would be all over this. Of all the people of FNC, I probably dislike him the most.

          However, I don't think you can generalize. Of course, I don't know who you include in "right-wing media", but I think Bill O would be more reasonable about it.
        • sugarazor, on 05/26/2008, -2/+11r00tus pretty much made my point. Yeah, some ***** with internet anonymity may call for Bush to be killed, but they wouldn't say anything like that in public, let alone on television. This is a journalist saying she wishes we could murder a man that could potentially be the next president.

          This isn't Eminem saying "I'd rather see the president dead," this isn't some douchebag on a message board, this isn't even Hillary Clinton's gaffe - it's the former NY Bureau Chief of The Washington Times, she's taught journalism classes in colleges, she is (was) a legitimate journalist. It's disturbing.
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -3/+2sugarazor,

          So, it wouldn't be disturbing if it was Hilary Clinton saying it? Because you essentially equated her to "some douchebag on a message board"

          Just wondering
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -0/+7tkstock, O'Reilly would be more reasonable about it???

          Oh really?

          Were you making a funny, there?

          Bill O'Reilly, the most unbalanced on the fair and balanced network:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

        • sugarazor, on 05/26/2008, -0/+8tkstock, I was saying that Hillary's RFK gaffe wasn't nearly as bad as this.

          If Hillary said this, of course it would be a much bigger issue.
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -3/+2PhilLesh

          That's hilarious! Wow, he must've been having a bad day!! LOL (That, or the teleprompter operator was an idiot!!)

          You think Bill O'Reilly is less balanced than Sean Hannity? Then it's obvious to me you've never watched. (At least, you've never watched anything you haven't seen on HuffPo or DailyKOS.)
        • masterspeaks, on 05/26/2008, -0/+6I personally wouldn't want Bush to be assassinated because the only thing worse than a Bush presidency would be Cheney sitting as a President for ANY amount of time, much less 238 days 20 hours and 11 minutes.
      • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -1/+8Yeah, but they'd already be in some detainment facility "indefinitely".
      • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5tkstock: O'Reilly is less stable than Sybil on crack.
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -6/+1Ah, but he's more stable than the left half of the people here on Digg (who are coincidentally probably on crack)
        • benecere, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1Ah. tkstock, but we're so much prettier.
      • Dazer, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2Perhaps, but keep in mind that Bush has, at least to some observers, broken international law, as well as being one of the men responsible for a war that has killed thousands. I'd rather someone joke about killing an evil man than a man who will potentially revitalise politics and diplomacy around the world.
        • GJBlizzard, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the insight, Oh Righteous One.
        • GJBlizzard, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Well here's an idea, lets NOT joke about killing ANYONE.

          Unless you believe in God or some sort of moral hierarchy, calling someone "evil" is subjective and will differ from person to person.
        • Dazer, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1GJ, I absolutely agree with you. No one should joke about killing anyone. I was merely replying to the post made above. But as you said, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
      • GJBlizzard, on 05/26/2008, -3/+1http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/

        An offhand remark? They made and entire movie about assassinating Bush. There was no uproar over that.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/26/2008, -20/+4Rove works for Mccain and some crazy bitch that's got on there, and now Mccain should be investigated?

      Yep lies and BS by liberal trying to reach for ANYTHING. Sad, and of course, stemming from huffington, how embarrassing for your friends and parents if they knew who you were or where you go information from!
      • solidcube, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4Well, there are laws against media involvement and bias in politics. Also the "equal time" rule, which seems to have gone by the wayside years ago...

        You, sir, are an idiot.
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3"there are laws against media involvement and bias in politics"

          There are? Can you point those out to me? Please provide a link, a code section, etc. supporting this.

          I agree about the equal time rule going by the wayside long ago.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -2/+1There are laws against media involvement and bias in politics?

          Really?

          What laws?

          Ever heard of editorializing? Ever heard of freedom of the press? I think it goes something like:

          "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

          Shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. (sorry, I'm a strict constructionist)

          A free press has every right to be involved in politics. That is the whole point of a free press.

          Would you rather they only report on how many times Britney and Paris have exposed their crotches to the papparazzi?
        • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -2/+1A constructionist, or do you mean constitutionalist?
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Read Antonin Scalia's findings, writings and works.

          I am a constructionist.
        • tkstock, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Actually, you can be both. A strict constructionist constitutionalist would believe in a strict, literal interpretation of the constitution.
    • SkittlesUSA, on 05/26/2008, -12/+7grlykool,

      You have already dugg and commented on the duplicate article on the front page now. I know you hate FOX news, but it is no excuse to help get duplicate articles on the front page. So childish.
    • themastersb, on 05/26/2008, -4/+6Of all the people that aren't being wiretapped that should be I bet she isn't.
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -33/+4Why do you liberals watch so much Fox and then complain about it? Go watch the liberal media and STFU.
      • solidcube, on 05/26/2008, -0/+16What liberal media? 5 corporations own almost all media outlets in the US. Their boards of directors are the farthest thing from liberal.

        Fox is quite literally fascist, from the definition of fascism as war corporatism. By that definition, I have to imagine that you're fascist too.

        MOLON LABE!
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -0/+11I think it is actually 6 corporations, unless I missed a recent merger ;)

          NBC is owned by GE, the largest military contractor in the US, if not the world. They build reactors for nuclear submarines, engines for military transport and fighter jets, and a wide assortment of parts and components for just about every major system the military employs.
      • azpat, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5I thought Fox News was "fair and balanced". If that's really the case then they should be the first news choice of every one, regardless of how they lean. Liberals would be expected to watch Fox News, as they're the fair ones. If they then saw something that wasn't fair, like say, a Fox News personality wishing that "we" would kill Obama, well then they might be outraged. And any other fair and balanced person would be as well.

        Arguing that if people don't want to hear people on tv wish openly about killing Obama then they shouldn't watch the "fair and balanced" channel is just about the dumbest comment I've read on digg, and there have been some really dumb things on digg.

        That would be like getting upset at people who turned on The Weather Channel and heard, hypothetically, an anchor saying "Let's hope there's another earthquake in China that kills the rest of them" or "Let's hope there's another tornado in the midwest to kill the rest" or whatever. When the people who saw the hypothetical statement became upset, some idiot like you said to them "why are you life loving people watching the weather channel anyway". That would make no sense. Unless it was actually the "Bad Weather Channel" and it only pretended to be a fair and balanced weather channel.

        Since that's the only way such a comment comes close to making sense, we can conclude that your comment is proof that everyone knows Fox news isn't fair nor balanced. Yet even conceding your point, that Fox News is a biased bastion of hatred, arguing that people who would be offended by such an offensive remark are at fault for having watched the station that aired the remark is nothing short of ludicrous.

        What your saying is basically "If you don't like jokes about assassinating Obama, don't watch Fox news". As if it's a matter of taste rather than decency.

        Is your moral compass that wrecked? Are you really trying to shift fault from the person who said such things to the people who heard her say them?

        • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -5/+1Dude, you need to work on your approach, your message, and your logic.

          I'm not sure that anyone can digg you up or down because everything you wrote makes very little sense.

          Go here, for starters:

          http://www.iqtest.com/

          Then, get back to us.
        • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -2/+1I think I get Phil's challenge with understanding "Fair = liberals watching Faux." Makes no sense since the hook of the slogan is to capture conservatives. Works well from what I've heard.

          Since Phil might have been derailed by the above I'm assuming he didn't ponder the moral compass stuff that most faux viewers live by. I'd say that they'd never want a black man running for the POTUS to see the office but might not advocate his having any issues with getting there besides a lack of votes. Until I saw this video. The truth can hurt sometimes...
    • MakinBacon, on 05/26/2008, -1/+29Fox (and probably Trotta as an individual) should be fined. This is one of the things I, as a Canadian, find so appallingly absurd about America and specifically the FCC. They fine a network for showing a tit - or not bleeping a swear word - but someone on a national news program incites the assassination of an innocent human life... laughs about it... and nothing is done!
    • whodathunk, on 05/26/2008, -1/+11People have been yanked off the air for less...
      • uberpsycho, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2I wonder what would've happened if she called Obama a nappy headed ho...
    • engalicorn, on 05/26/2008, -9/+2You disagreed or are offended by her opinion... fine her!!!!
    • akamurph, on 05/26/2008, -10/+2Wow, you liberals are such hypocrits!!! How many things have been said much worse than this about Bush on tv? It is typical though, you guys cry whenever something doesn't go your way. Why do you watch so much Fox when you hate it so much? It's your CHOICE what you watch, turn it to the Clinton News Network and you'll be fine...
      • herbertstrasse, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5wow, you conservatives don't know how to spell!!! for your elucidation, hypocrite has an e at the end.
      • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -1/+2"How many things have been said much worse than this about Bush on tv? "

        Geez Akamurph, how many? I can't think of any. Why don't you give us some examples. I'm assuming you're a conservative with your callout of "you liberals" and the bad spelling. Let us all know when you find the worseness toward Bush on the tv. can't wait.
    • tcbishop12, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5You can express an opinion directly by e-mail to: americasnewsroom@foxnews.com
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -3/+2You can also express an opinion directly by e-mail to "all of you people who dont think like us should die a horrible death" DOT COM.

        We've been through this before. 6 million people died.

        Obviously writing to Fox News will not make any difference. Ideologues will always ignore reason and adhere to the party line.
        • BertRussell, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1irony being that while you're using hyperbole, this fox broadcaster actually wished for the death of someone who didn't think like her.

    • Vash3001, on 05/26/2008, -7/+2Illegal? Are you retarded? Its only illegal if he is the president which he is not.
      • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -3/+0It's not illegal to broadcast the idea of killing a candidate for president? what a country.... what if we had a black president in office? should it be illegal then?
      • Elranzer, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2He will be president soon, though.
    • MindyB, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4Fox and that idiot woman commentator have already been reported to the FEC and the Secret Service. She made an implied threat against the life of an elected official on a nationally views broadcast-that is illegal.
    • garnaal, on 05/26/2008, -4/+0How can you guys not see that it was just a bad choice of words. The article is also wrong, she doesn't say ''IF we could'' it's ''we could''. She probably just meant that it would be nice if someone killed Osama.
      • HHP2K, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3Uh.. yeah right.
      • wombat02, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2She said the word "both", talk your way out of that one.
      • garnaal, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0uh.. doesn't change the fact that she probably just meant that she wanted someone to kill Osama.

        Digg has come to the point where anything that happens on FOX is done on purpose..
    • HHP2K, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3I'm just dreaming of being on that set when she said that. I would have made the show absolutely epic by walking up and just punching her straight in the back of the head, to the applause of millions of americans across the country (Then again, I hope not that many people watch this disgusting trainwreck of a show).
  • ReidFleming, on 05/26/2008, -15/+101This has to get a wider dissemination. Although I am not familiar with her (perhaps as I don't have Faux News visible in my TV listings), she is far from a nobody:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Trotta
    • richnojutsu, on 05/26/2008, -23/+1I clicked the link you provided and saw this:

      "the clip is a fake. if you listen she says, "well, twoath if we could." now, "twoath" is obviously not a word. nor do people speak with splice marks, such as the one that is easily audible at the beginning of the word. further, you can clearly see her lips run afoul when the word is spoken. play this specific part a few times and listen closely. it quickly becomes obvious it is a fake. anyhow, i don't think you are doing a service to obama's family to produce or propagate this type of content. of course, i'm just one lowly voice of reasoning dissent among a stampeding flock of misguided sheep."

      When I reloaded the page it was gone and it seems the powers that be were quick to remove the edit as vandalism. If you check out the users talk page, there's a few people slamming the user. Interesting stuff.
      • bitcloud, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3some of the pixels right?

        then they hacked youtube, reuploaded the new video at the old address and noones the wiser... we're dealing with the reptilians here.. there's no other explanation...
    • LukasSmith, on 05/26/2008, -15/+2I think this video has been manipulated like the John McCain video where he said we would be in Iraq for 100 years maybe. All the Democrat propagandists were good enough to cut off the video where he finished by saying that by 100 years he meant having a place in Iraq like in Vietnam where we do not have our military but maintain relations.
      Since I can't see the rest of this particular video I will imagine it started with a question about Hillary Clinton's comment about Ted Kennedy. Though I do believe the McCain video was far clearer to understand especially when the full speech was heard I might also imagine when she said something along the lines of Knocking off Obama she might simply have meant in this election. Not from life itself. But its unlikely we will ever see the full video so we will never know.
      • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -0/+7I dunno, you could, maybe, try clicking on the link under the excerpted video. The one that says: (The full interview can be viewed here)

        Just a suggestion.
    • plimpton777, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2DUGG since it's a dupe that was NOT submitted by MrBabyMan.
      Liz Trotter and Hillary Clinton will be sharing bunk-beds in hell.
  • mabs0, on 05/26/2008, -27/+9This story was accidentally submitted twice. It didn't show up on the duplicate story page. I don't care which one you digg or if you digg them both, but I think it's worth getting it on the front page.

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Jeffrey_Feldman_ ...
    • gdehms, on 05/26/2008, -4/+3You mean this story was submitted three times. Just look at the god damn top story list right now.
      • mabs0, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2Well, not my fault Digg can't show up duplicate stories when you submit them. This story did not show up on the list and I hadn't seen it before. So, take it up with Digg.
      • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Well, if it was submitted three times and each of the stories hit the front page, that, in itself, is telling.

        I doubt there is irreparable damage caused by the redundancy. People feel passionate about this; it's an election year. I'm thankful that there are enough remaining Americans who give enough of a ***** to BE so passionate. It's kinda what the country's about and it's been sorely lacking any real vigor for a generation or two.

    • ZeRux, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1You're still a troll though.
      • Dgen_X, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1a troll?

        That's the same person who submitted THIS version of the story...
  • Eleniki, on 05/26/2008, -11/+75The article uses Liz Trotter in needs to be corrected to Liz Trotta.
    Trotta has worked for Hillman Periodicals; Inter-Catholic Press Agency; Long Island Press; Chicago Tribune; Newsday; NBC and CBS. She has taught Journalism at Stern College of Yeshiva University. In spite of all her credentials, this woman is loathsome.


    • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -1/+29Notice how she even does that typical ***** tactic of "accidentally" confusing his name with osama.

      Inciting acts of violence is illegal. Bush even signed some laws that make it even more so, now.

      It would be funny to see a neocon sent to Guantanamo for a law their hero signed into law.
    • jforjools, on 05/26/2008, -0/+24Well, I much prefer the homeland security approach (Guantanamo)...but I made a complaint to the FCC:

      http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=d1e640& ...

      You gotta figure promoting a serious crime is a bigger FCC offense than Janet Jackson's nipple ring.
      • rmxz, on 05/26/2008, -2/+5dugg for jforjools actually doing something about it rather than just chatting on digg like the rest of us
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4rmxz, sometimes trying to sway conventional logic or public opinion does more than writing your congressman or notifying a regulatory agency.

          Think about it. You or I could write our congressman. He will probably say "ah, forget about it, it is just one guy."

          Or, we could tell other people why we are going to write our congressman, and maybe if enough people agree with what we are saying, and maybe we can even reason with people who might otherwise have followed the sheep, we can get enough people to call or write our congressman in order to make that congressman rethink his position, and he might vote differently than he would have if we had simply focused our efforts on trying to convince that congressman to vote in our best interests.

          Congressmen and Senators vote based on what their constituency wants.

          You have to focus on convincing each constituency. Not the actual office holder.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/26/2008, -2/+1I'm afraid to give them my real name :(
  • SheilaNoya, on 05/26/2008, -23/+45Don't waste $10 on dialing the psychic hotline...
    I can tell you for free what Olbermann will say on Monday:

    "Liz Trotta at Faux News - Worst Person in the World"
    • vexadril, on 05/26/2008, -0/+10I think he's on vacation till Tuesday.
    • kingsal, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5No show on Monday. It's a holiday here in the US. What a great alternative to the psychic hotline you are... (just kidding)
  • notoka, on 05/26/2008, -14/+184I can't wait to hear Olbermann all over this one.
    • reeder, on 05/26/2008, -8/+4We need to Google Bomb that *****:

      http://reddit.com/info/6krfw/comments/
    • manfrin, on 05/26/2008, -1/+18Oddly enough, the first thing I thought of when I saw this was 'oh god Countodown is going to be so great tonight.'
    • Vash3001, on 05/26/2008, -10/+1Olbermann is a tool.
      • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -1/+4crap. wasted time responding to vash3001. give it back.
    • theOster, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1i just watched his rant about hillary's comment, and while i agree with the message, he's just another old media, ranting, raving, ratings-hungry, jackass same as rush, bill, etc...

      the methodology really makes it really hard to watch. it's the kind of stupid sensationalism my parent just eat up.
  • kalala2520, on 05/26/2008, -17/+85Any company who advertises on Fox will not get a dime of my money until they stop. Not a dime.
    • tlo182, on 05/26/2008, -11/+13Well how would you know who advertises on Fox unless you watch fox?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/26/2008, -12/+5Pretty much every company advertises on Faux News...
    • goon5000, on 05/26/2008, -10/+1So?
    • ElderBieler, on 05/26/2008, -42/+10Oh boo hoo. You won't spend any of your money at companies who advertise with Fox? Who freakin' cares? You think they really need your dimes? I hate whiny little babies like you.
      Who cares what she said, while annoying she was obviously kidding so all of you should quit the dramatics and get over it. When a movie was made portraying the assasination of President Bush I didn't hear any of you throwing fits.
      If you're going to boycott Fox for some of the crap that happens there then you should apply the same logic to MSN, NPR, ABC, NBC and CNN. Each political party has networks which favor their side, honestly without Fox News conservatism really wouldn't have much of a voice at all.
      • Pandalemon, on 05/26/2008, -4/+3Sound pretty whiny yourself ... feel better now?
        • ElderBieler, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1It was kind of whiny wasn't it? Whiny, but true.
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -8/+7No more Cialis for you!
    • akamurph, on 05/26/2008, -10/+3GO cry to your Mommy! I bet you're a teenager too... trying to make a point. Do you think they really care about your 10 cents? No, they don't... and no one hear cares about your stand against Fox news cuz they said something bad about your Master, God, and 'The ONE' Obama. STFU
    • smackjack, on 05/26/2008, -2/+1there are a lot of oil companies that advertise on Fox News trying to sell themselves as "good for the environment." Does that mean you will stop using gas?
    • leahcim, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4Christ I don't know what I'd do without my Head On.

      It applys directly to the forehead you know.
    • Elranzer, on 05/26/2008, -0/+4List of FOX sponsors:

      - ADOBE
      - AMERICAN EXPRESS
      - ASTRA ZENECA
      - AVAYA
      - AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE
      - AT & T
      - BMW
      - BAYER
      - BLACK & DECKER
      - BOEING
      - BRISTOL-MEYERS
      - Burlington Coat Factory
      - CDW
      - Celebrity Cruises
      - CheapTickets.com
      - CINGULAR
      - Circuit City
      - Dannon
      - Direct TV
      - Ditech.com
      - Dodge
      - Earthlink
      - Edward Jones Investments
      - Eloan.com
      - Enova
      - Fidelity Investments
      - Hula Networks
      - Hyatt Gold
      - Infiniti
      - Jeep
      - Lending Tree
      - Lexus [Toyota]
      - Lincoln-Mercury [Ford]
      - Mercedes-Benz
      - Morgan Stanley
      - Napster
      - Northwestern Mutual
      - Office Depot
      - Progressive Insurance
      - Splenda
      - Target
      - Travelocity
      - Walmart
  • tsouth1, on 05/26/2008, -94/+12So What. The racist crap that Rev Wright, who was and is Obama's mentor is much worse. Wright/Obama hates all whites, be they republican or DEMOCRAT. good luck with that.
    • argaen21, on 05/26/2008, -8/+43Lies. You're an idiot and obviously a douchebag redneck. I'm white and I hate you.
      • tsouth1, on 05/26/2008, -2/+1Your nuts, I am hispanic dumbass. Typical democrat, where is the tolerance and free speech that democrats are supposedly all about. Oh yeah, free speech or tolerance unless it is something I disagree with.
    • fani, on 05/26/2008, -4/+29Ha-ha. You're bitter because our truth (Obama) will triumph over your liar (whoever is your candidate).
      Face it.
      Oh, and for the record, Obama doesn't hate anyone and whites love Obama evident from all his wins.
    • onionlayer, on 05/26/2008, -2/+28Regardless of what else Rev Wright has said, has he called for the death of a presidential candidate?
    • pintomp3, on 05/26/2008, -0/+19who exactly did wright say should be shot?
      • tsouth1, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1who did she say should be shot? learn to read angry person.
    • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -0/+10I wonder, did you ever carry on like this over Falwell when he played kissy, kissy with Bushy. Prolly not.
    • drakethegreat, on 05/26/2008, -0/+6Think carefully about what you are saying. You are saying its ok to make threats against a potential president simply because he doesn't support your political beliefs. You are saying so what. Now think if this was the opposite where someone threatened the candidate that you support. What would you think of the situation? Its quite obvious that this sort of comment should result in her being arrested as well as the network that decided to air it should be penalized. Its a threat regardless of political affiliation.
  • sylvok, on 05/26/2008, -24/+12Digg for the love of Xenu Digg
  • NikoKun, on 05/26/2008, -9/+59"Both, if we could."
    What the *****???
    • plopper, on 05/26/2008, -19/+1Did the joke go over your head?
    • topgigmedia, on 05/26/2008, -1/+7Disturbing the right is soooooo wrong in so many ways
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -15/+1It would be a great two for 1.
  • Sean42, on 05/26/2008, -9/+69Boycott Foxs' Sponsers. The only way to influence Fox to stop this crap is to hit them where it matters, their wallet.
    Does anyone have a list of their current sponsers?

    • ziffel, on 05/26/2008, -1/+16"Boycott Foxs' Sponsers"

      I'm already boycotting the Bush Administration.
    • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -4/+12I think its a noble gesture to boycott companies that advertise on Fox News in the fallout of this event, but it doesn't really make sense for a few reasons:

      1.) Advertisers make buys based on efficiency (ie - delivering the most impressions to their target audience [people with the highest likelihood to purchase the product])
      2.) Viewership typically dictates a given stations audience makeup. Consider the companies that advertise on Fox News -- there is a lot of travel, cars, and credit cards. They also have Gold Bond, Web MD, and Crest Whitening Strips. The companies fit nicely with the stations demographics -- conservative adults over 40 with expendable income.
      3.) Typically the company showcased in the commercial does not make the buy. The advertising agency that holds their account makes the buys, and simply presents their decisions to the company.
      4.) TV is not as easily measurable as say, the internet. A decline in sales can rarely be marked up to ad placement on a single station, unless virtually all of the ads were placed on one station.

      The real way to hurt a television station is simply not to watch. That will lower the price at which they can sell their 30-second ad spots. The money flow is cyclical when it comes to the advertising industry. I doubt that people that are Digging this story are Fox News advocates, but simply not buying from a given company does little to hurt the network.
      • TwoSidedMan, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5Ok, but how does our not watching have an effect? Hell, I'm already not watching. And even if I did catch a peek now and then just to induce mouth-vomiting, nobody in the universe would know it. Isn't that "viewership" statistic based solely on the Nielsen ratings? So only those households with the mysterious black box installed are capable of "hurting" Fux News (by not logging time with the station, or however it works). Aside from becoming one of those families, which are apparently selected at random, what can we do? How would we start a bona fide anti-Fox movement?

        Isn't the Dig community poised to do something like that? Most users are net savvy, possibly intelligent/educated, posses free time, and share a hatred for Fox News (and all that stands behind it). What stops us from uniting and actually making a dent against a monster like that? I would suspect laziness, distraction, intoxication, indifference, or even just a pair of *****. We'd just as soon as watch a stupid video, turn on the tv, jerk off (again), or play a video game.

        Does anybody feel this way? Frustrated that the online community is poised for actual real-world accomplishments and change but instead channels its time and energies into thin air? Surely there is enough brilliance, skill sets, and free-time amongst just the Digg community to do something as monumental as killing Fox News. If only we could...what?

        Unite and actually organize a plan
        Sustain effort and interest long enough to begin
        Care enough

        I think motivation is the big key here. If things continue to get worse (10 dollar gallons of gas, national drafts, assassinations, non-neutral net, censorship, or whatever), people like you and me might actually put our minds to good use. Just wait, we're headed there...
        • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -0/+3You've got few misconceptions about how television is measured, but you have some strong motivation to make change. The Digg community, as well as a number of other viral sites are perfect for spreading a message. You just have to find a compelling way to present your message, an effective way of spreading it, and encourage motivation.

          Develop a site, create a blog, write letters to Fox, Digg more Fox stories, write to newspapers, make a podcast -- its your call. I don't think there is an exact answer, but I'm sure you could develop a plan and put it in motion.
        • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1One more thing, as long as News Corp. finds Fox News to be a viable property they will continue to finance it. It will be considered a "viable" property as long people watch it -- thus making it money. People that watch it will likely continue to watch it for one reason or another. Perhaps they enjoy the shock value, maybe they just like the way the news is presented. These reasons won't change unless work is done to change them Perhaps the best way to do that is to bring to light weak arguments (or instances just like this one).
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -20/+2Why do you liberals watch so much FOX. You should be watching the Obama channel = MSNBC. STFU
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -18/+1Why do you liberals watch so much FOX. You should be watching the Obama channel = MSNBC. STFU
      • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5Its a valid question. But are you just trying to copy and paste this same post as many times as possible in the same thread?
    • Hooner, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5A list of Fox sponsors (I'm not sure if the list is recent and has been updated).

      http://digg.com/television/Boycott_Fox_News_Sponso ...
  • Serial0Hacker, on 05/26/2008, -49/+23But it would be Freedom of Speech if it was about Bush.
    • mabs0, on 05/26/2008, -12/+19No it wouldn't. Go back to school and maybe learn something.
    • petrodollar, on 05/26/2008, -9/+15Oh lordy, another ***** who doesn't understand the First Amendment.

      The issue here isn't whether it was illegal for this dumb bitch to say what she did, the issue is what it says about Fox News and the assclowns like you who consistently rush to defend people who make appaling statements like this.
      • Serial0Hacker, on 05/26/2008, -14/+5I'm not defending her, I'm just stating a fact about people on digg.
    • Vet4Peace, on 05/26/2008, -6/+14Get over your persecution complex you stupid cornhole.
  • TheUserFactor, on 05/26/2008, -20/+46This is truly outrageous. She should be locked up, or interrogated by the Secret Service at the very least. Absolutely outrageous that the Hard Right gets a free pass on remarks like this. (The "Osama/Obama" mix-up is pathetic too.)
    • badqat, on 05/26/2008, -18/+9Wow, since when is the Obama crowd anti-free speech? Seems it was all the rage when Reverend Wright was making his "love-filled" addresses, but now it's got to be stopped!
      • nycmac247, on 05/26/2008, -12/+6wait until they get to throw you in jail for watering your lawn on conservation day... or using too much toilet paper... "it's for your own good, Comrade"
        • p0s3r, on 05/26/2008, -2/+3Or setting your thermometers at 72, or driving your SUV to the grocery and buy stuff that's not on your government approved shopping list.
        • TheUserFactor, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2You must be part of the crowd that went long on DC batteries delivered by the tractor trailer-load prior to Y2K.

          Wondering how I made that extrapolation? Simple: by the same magical process that led you from an assassination "joke" to "free speech" to "too much toilet paper" to "government approved shopping lists." You guys are The Party of Fear and you know it and I know it and everyone knows it. (Now go write an essay, give me your best shot.)
      • metalhead87, on 05/26/2008, -2/+9I'm not anti-free speech at all......it's not the fact that she said it....it's who she is and where she said it. A supposed professional on a news network should have enough class and intelligence to not make a comment like that on the air.

        I don't think she should be locked up or investigated or anything, but it is questionable if she should have the job she does or not.
        • badqat, on 05/26/2008, -6/+3I'm not defending her, or her comment. I agree, it was a bit of an asshat moment. But the venom and anti-free speech coming from so-called Obama supporters ought to give everyone pause as well.
        • TheUserFactor, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Hard to tell if you thought it was an asshat comment by the way you leapt to her defense by tearing into the people condemning the remark.
      • artwithbyte, on 05/26/2008, -2/+6I going to assume that wishing the death of a Presidential candidate is a matter for the Secret Service to investigate. I think that's part of their job or something.

        Nothing to do with free speech.
        • badqat, on 05/26/2008, -5/+3I bet you can't wait for the day when folks can be convicted based on their thoughts, rather than their actions. You'll be able to lock everyone you don't like up, eh?
        • artwithbyte, on 05/26/2008, -2/+4Thought crimes? OOOOkaaaay. Hey badqat, call Coast to Coast with your crazy conspiracies.
        • p0s3r, on 05/26/2008, -4/+2The Secret Service should immediately shut down digg using your standards.
        • TheUserFactor, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Depends, badqat - got something to hide? You listen to too much Megadeth, really. Get outside for once, take a walk through a park or something. You need more fresh air and less Fox News.
      • Bith8654, on 05/26/2008, -2/+4Your purposely being ignorant to the fact that there is a major difference between "free speech" and saying on a news network with a large viewer base that killing a presidential candidate would be favorable, I don't understand how that isn't blatantly obvious to you.
        • alittleroy101, on 05/26/2008, -0/+6Because he is an idiot.
        • badqat, on 05/26/2008, -7/+2Yep, lock her up, or would you prefer she be killed without a trial?

          As for you, littleroy, I note the old and tired ad hominem attack...the form favored by those who cannot make a cogent or logical response.

        • Bith8654, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3I never said anything about locking anyone up or killing anyone, I simply think they should rethink her position and that some sort of consequence should result from her doing something so irresponsible. Badqat your the one who cannot make a cogent or logical response, all your doing is putting words in everyone's mouth.
        • magus_melchior, on 05/26/2008, -2/+4@badqat: To clarify Bith8654's response, the fallacy you are making is that of composition: it is not the case that the entirety of Obama supporters want Trotta detained, imprisoned, or treated as she probably would be in Russia under Stalin or Putin. To put it simply enough for your mind: TheUserFactor's remarks aren't representative, so assuming they are is fallacious.

          Nice non sequiturs, too: Unless they imply or state that they want her to be charged with a thought crime or something equally ridiculous, bringing it up neither contributes to the discussion nor your argument.

          And all you have to show, argumentatively, is an accusation of an obvious ad hominem from a troll? Amateur.
      • TheUserFactor, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2badqatbadqat - since when do jokes about hypothetical assassinations of Presidential candidates fall under the casual and facetious umbrella of "free speech?"
      • jbozzy, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2you're a moron. encouraging acts of violence is not protected by freedom of speech. you can't yell fire in a movie theater either.
    • HonestAbe, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Throw her in Guantanamo.
    • tsouth1, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1So what you are suggesting is called a "police state" arrest anyone who says anything you don't like, I think Stalin did what you are syggesting. Good one.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/26/2008, -11/+18Call the Secret Service....send that "c you next tuesday" to jail.
    • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -10/+3Nice job supporting the 1st Amendment.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 05/26/2008, -1/+9making death threats (even as a joke) is not covered under free speech. Its called a felony, and since it was directed at a Presidential candidate, the Secret Service is supposed to get involved.

      p.s. nice job supporting fox news and the ignorant bigots they give airtime to.


      • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -9/+1"And now we what, uh, some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osa... Osama, um uh, Obama. Well both if we could."

        Technically she is stating she wishes that someone would suggest that we knock off Osama, along with the previous comment that may or may not infer that someone should knock off Obama. So in retrospect this entire comment is a misinterpretation of an instance of misspeaking, which I assume happens frequently on live national television. I actually watch FOX News for certain anchors including Andrew Napolitano so I guess I do support it in some ways.

        I may be incorrect of my interpretation of the first amendment also but violent speech or the advocation of violence is not prohibited and in fact is an essential protection when the necessity to challenge government is factored in.
        • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5The secret service takes all threats, suggestions and desires to commit or incite harm upon the president seriously.

          At the very least, if Obama happens to become president, they will probably revisit her comments and decide if it is worth paying her a visit. They will obviously need to assess all possible threats to him if he takes office. It is their job to protect every president, even if a small portion of the population still thinks we should be ruled by neocons and everyone else should die.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3The Secret Service has already been assigned to protect him.
    • statstudent, on 05/26/2008, -1/+5Guantanamo?
      • PhilLesh69, on 05/26/2008, -2/+5It is a Marine Corps base in Cuba, that was supposed to revert to Cuban ownership after the 99 year lease negotiated in the early part of the 20th century.

        Now it is a pison camp for those brown people who hate us for our freedoms.

        Keep up with the changing tides of reality.
        • yingjai, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2"Now it is a pison camp for those brown people who hate us for our freedoms."

          I lol at that statement. Prison camp? Maybe you haven't heard about what they do there.

          "alleged ongoing torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution"

          And some of the prisoners are imprisoned without charge for years only to be sometimes set free after all the torture. Don't forget some of these detainees are from allied countries.

          What about back at your home? Government spying on its own citizens? Don't give me that "you gotta sacrifice some liberties for security" *****. Who's hating on your freedom now?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detent ...
  • yehudasf, on 05/26/2008, -35/+40Who really cares? Be cautious what you wish for, because far and away many more leftists (famous and not) have publicly called for the assassination of President Bush. If it starts with one, it will start with all.
    • Serial0Hacker, on 05/26/2008, -29/+5Be prepared to get dugg down.
    • sebby2022, on 05/26/2008, -13/+1LOL!!!!!
    • fantasmacanino, on 05/26/2008, -9/+6Bush's life has never been seriously threated. The same thing can't be said about Obama's since, you know, race is an issue in this case.
      • RebeL5K, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5Except for that one time, with the pretzel.
    • childermass, on 05/26/2008, -1/+14Not that either is okay, but "leftists" who may have done so aren't television commentaters. Those who have done so are just regular citizens expressing a loathsome thought, which is significantly different than being a so-called journalist and advocating for it
    • RebeL5K, on 05/26/2008, -2/+10I suppose this is just my ignorance shining through, but I can't seem to think of any examples for your broad and sweeping comments. Can you please name me just a few of the "many leftists" whom have called for the assassination of GWB? Because I can't think of a single one.
    • azpat, on 05/26/2008, -0/+11Ok, I call your bluff. Post the video on youtube of a "liberal media" calling for the assassination of Bush. Go ahead. If it exists we'll tear them a new one too because two wrongs don't make a right. But I'm thinking it doesn't exist or we would have heard about it already. Go ahead. Post it. We're all waiting. CBS is part of that "liberal media" the right media is always complaining about. I'm sure some rightwing thinktank has had a tivo trained on CBS since the Dan Rather thing. If something like this ever happened on CBS there's video available. What about CNN, that's all pro clinton right? Surely they were anti-bush right? They're 24 hourse for nearly 8 years. Surely if someone called for Bush's assassination there's tape available. NPR? ABC? NYT?

      NO! Cause the liberal media is few and select. Rachel, Tom, and Stephanie, a few blogs and some weeklies. And none of them would ever say anything like this about even someone as terrible as Bush. They have called for impeachment, but not assassination.

      Instead, the "fair and balanced" channel is the one calling for assassination of a US Presidential Candidate, on Memorial Day weekend, on National TV.

      So go ahead, post your video evidence. Until then I'm thinking the "but they do it too" argument is a bunch of bull *****. Not to mention two wrongs don't make a right.
      • sandog08, on 05/26/2008, -1/+0Feel free to email your godess Randi Rhodes and "tear her a new one" I find it humorous that liberals have such a short term memory when its their side doing it.
        • dratman, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2Yes, I will criticize Randi Rhodes, but I can't very well do that until you provide the evidence, can I? So document your claim.
        • azpat, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Interesting. She had a skit with gunfire sounds apparently directed at Bush. I never heard it.

          The announcer said: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of four gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

          She also said this:
          "The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me."

          I wonder how the responses differ. Will Drudge be equally outraged? Randi herself?
          I think both comments (all three) are disgusting.
          Did right wingers call for her to be thrown off the air? Did they call for all of Air America to be thrown off the air? I wonder what they'll say now. I wonder also what lefties said then? Did they defend her? Did they dismiss it as a joke?

          I don't think we should tolerate either one. Others may say we should tolerate both.

          See, I really am fair and balanced.
        • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0post the video.
        • azpat, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1The other interesting thing is that if this is the metric for being extreme, then Randi Rhodes is the beginning of the extreme on the left and Fox News is the beginning of the extreme on the right.
          That then means that when people talk about the liberal media they can't include ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. They have to jump way out to Randi Rhodes to get someone as extreme as Fox News. The difference of course, is that Air America doesn't pretend to be mainstream and isn't a major cable network.
        • sandog08, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Yeah thats a "fair and balanced" reply....

          B-B-But Fox news is worse.Your hypocrisy is astounding and that is why no one takes Liberals seriously in this country... You scream bloody murder for the head of a lady who misspoke, then covered it up with a lame joke. I point out that your left wing media actually joked about killing the sitting President, you demand proof claiming none exists, I point it out and you try to turn it back on Fox News.
          Typical liberal response... Its always a Republicans fault, even when your side does it.. ..
    • tcbishop12, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1One wrong never justifies another. Period.
      • sandog08, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Good answer. Her joke was lame, and so was Randi Rhodes. The think I have a problem with is the hypocrisy that the left is showing right now. I didnt hear anyone on the left calling for Randi to be jailed for making a threat, or lose her job. I actually recall people on the left saying "It was a joke, relax".
  • diggafrica, on 05/26/2008, -11/+62What a ***** bitch
    • ElderBieler, on 05/26/2008, -9/+4Oh wow that was a productive comment. You sound high class to me.
      • diggafrica, on 05/26/2008, -1/+0you are still in the world of classes ?
        • ElderBieler, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1absolutely, class in terms of social skills, emotional maturity, intelligence, and lastly; finances. We all are not equal and classes do distinguish, and you my friend are clearly in the asshat class.
    • plimpton777, on 05/26/2008, -2/+4***** BITCH SUCKS!
    • Claude1971, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1that's harsh, stupid bitch however
    • michaeltime, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1dry
  • Sfenton, on 05/26/2008, -29/+11NOOOOO, we had about two days of non Huffingtonspamposts. There is already the same article on the frontpage. Who the hell digg's Huffingtonspamposts?
  • iidestined, on 05/26/2008, -22/+10THIS IS CRAZY. People can't just say aaaaaaaaanything on tv. Come on now.
  • petska, on 05/26/2008, -16/+7wtf this is madness
  • roychr, on 05/26/2008, -30/+15I am amused to find that fox can let these comment easily air while we cannot even remotly talk about the fact that the U.S. is Israel's puppet dog. I mean is'nt publibly talk about killing someone makes you guilt by intent ?
    • screwfanboys1, on 05/26/2008, -5/+5why the ***** do you people always manage to bring Israel into EVERYTHING. This has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, so stop trying to push your stupid agenda.
  • gdehms, on 05/26/2008, -4/+56AHEM... look at the most dugg story right now.
  • PPGBM, on 05/26/2008, -27/+1I love getting dugg down!
  • b3and1p, on 05/26/2008, -36/+17Jesus, lighten up people. Who cares? You guys are soooo sensitive.
  • lobsterxcore, on 05/26/2008, -14/+4Barack could take her.
  • poleag, on 05/26/2008, -14/+2You will not enjoy this.
  • alx1507, on 05/26/2008, -35/+151LIST OF FOX SPONSORS + PHONE NUMBERS.
    As of January, 2008:

    Crest Whitestrips & Dawn (both Proctor & Gamble) 513-983-1100
    Delphi (Driving Products) 1.888.809.9800
    Mercedes Benz 1-800-367-6372
    Comcast 1-800-COMCAST
    Subaru 1-800-782-2783
    GMC Suv’s 1-800-551-4123
    Best Buy 1-888-237-8289
    Travelocity 1 888.872.8356
    Capzasin 1 (423) 822-5020
    New Phase
    Orbitz 1-888-656-4546
    Ditech.com 1-800-DITECH-3
    eloan.com (415) 786-3317
    Toyota 1 800-331-4331
    Centrum (Wyeth) 1-800-322-3129
    Nextel (aka Sprint)1-800-639-6111
    Vehix.com 1.866.698.3449
    Gold Bond (Chattum) 423-821-4571
    Aspercreme
    webmd.com via email or webmd.com via other (212) 624-3700
    American Express 1-877-877-0987, 1-800-525-3355
    Holiday Inn Express 1 800-315-2621
    M Professional unk
    priceline.com 1-800-774-2354
    L. L. Bean 1-800-441-7513
    Jet Dry (Dishwasher Products) 1-800-820-8939
    Chemistry (Matchmaking Web Site)
    Bankrate.com (Mortgages)
    Cars Direct.com

    source: http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1513
    if anybody has a more recent list, please post.
    • Serial0Hacker, on 05/26/2008, -18/+11I'll have one of everything please.
    • 72doubledown, on 05/26/2008, -13/+4probably the most significant comment ever on digg.... too bad digg users only know about up and down buttons.
    • EddietheHated, on 05/26/2008, -2/+16I disagree with certain parts of the article, but I'm digging you up for common sense. it's a precious commodity around here these days. THAT is how you go about making change.
    • cheztir, on 05/26/2008, -2/+8Amazing, I'll definitely be using this list come Tuesday (I figure most will be closed for Memorial Day). Time to boycott.
    • rgranger, on 05/26/2008, -9/+2damn i don't do business with really any of those companies. Guess I'll have to make some sacrifices and buy a few Toyotas.
    • ejpusa, on 05/26/2008, -0/+9For what it's worth, after seeing an insane show on fox news (some homophobic thing), I sent ONE email to the sponsor. They told me they pulled the ads. It was just one email that did the job.

      In the end, these big media companies are run by people that went to college, got stoned like everyone else - live in Manhattan or LA - they have pretty decent jobs now so they can pay their $3500 a month Manhattan studio rents. BUT if you send them a link, and an email they are generally pretty good about pulling ads. There are LOTS of places to place an ad these days.

      Who knows? :-)
      • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -5/+2I have some swamp land to sell to you.
    • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -9/+3I'm sure the target demographic of Mercedes Benz is 18-25 year old males, good luck with the boycott.
    • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -4/+8Well put Lurtz. I'm going to commit a Digg sin and dupe a comment I made earlier because I think its important for those threatening a boycott to see...

      I think its a noble gesture to boycott companies that advertise on Fox News in the fallout of this event, but it doesn't really make sense for a few reasons:

      1.) Advertisers make buys based on efficiency (ie - delivering the most impressions to their target audience [people with the highest likelihood to purchase the product])
      2.) Viewership typically dictates a given stations audience makeup. Consider the companies that advertise on Fox News -- there is a lot of travel, cars, and credit cards. They also have Gold Bond, Web MD, and Crest Whitening Strips. The companies fit nicely with the stations demographics -- conservative adults over 40 with expendable income.
      3.) Typically the company showcased in the commercial does not make the buy. The advertising agency that holds their account makes the buys, and simply presents their decisions to the company.
      4.) TV is not as easily measurable as say, the internet. A decline in sales can rarely be marked up to ad placement on a single station, unless virtually all of the ads were placed on one station. If sales of a given product to see a decline in sales, they probably wouldn't be able to attribute it to the ads they placed on Fox News. That said, they would have no incentive to stop placing ads on Fox News

      The real way to hurt a television station is simply not to watch. That will lower the price at which they are able to sell their 30-second ad spots. The money flow is cyclical when it comes to the advertising industry. I doubt that people that are Digging this story are Fox News advocates, but simply not buying from a given company does little to hurt the network.

      What is often most effective is simply contacting the station (cheers to ejpusa above!). Instead of indirectly hurting a station in a hardly measurable way, you may as well directly tell them what offended you and why. I'm not saying that you can change the way Fox broadcasts news, but it would certainly do more than an abstract boycott that won't not really make a dent on the station.
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -16/+1Why do you liberals watch so much fox news? Go watch Obama TV = MSNBC and STFU.
      • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5That's the fourth time you've copied and pasted that.
        • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -7/+1Yes.
        • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Any good reason? I think its understood that you think liberals shouldn't watch Fox News. I don't disagree with you, I just think its getting a bit redundant.
      • msflower97, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0I don't watch Fox News. I do, however, watch/read other news media that reports on Fox News stories. So I am kind of hard pressed to escape it completely.
    • tkstock, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3I, for one, don't need any more Aspercreme. The rest of the stuff I can't do without, though!
    • Abnormal77, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the info
    • hydro5135, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1way to go showing that big business controls free speech if they don't like it you get fired if they don't like it you wont hear about it. thank you sir for making America less American.
  • buildbyflying, on 05/26/2008, -15/+7Of course there's this lovely 4k+ dugg page: http://www.debone.com/boycottFoxNewsSponsors.html

    (Marked as possibly inaccurate. Which we've all come to learn doesn't mean jack s**t.)
  • Strooperman, on 05/26/2008, -11/+51This is a dupe post.
  • kylere, on 05/26/2008, -11/+59It is already on top stories for the day http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Fox_News_Jokes_A ...

    It has over 3700 diggs already, at LEAST look in the top stories. That coverage was submitted twice as long ago as this story.
    • aristideau, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3You might get a multiple post maybe every other day, and even so, big deal, the story derserves a second post, dont you think?
      • kylere, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1No story deserves a repost. No story should be posted when it is already on the front page, I agree it is an important story, but when epople do this they are merely gaming the system to get an article THEY posted to have a lot of diggs.
  • TheWorm, on 05/26/2008, -6/+16This is already on the front page. It's literally 5 stories down.
  • GTOFan350, on 05/26/2008, -23/+17I find it so strange that digg.com went from being ronpaul.digg.com to obama.digg.com. For all you diggers Ron Paul is still in the race
    • rgranger, on 05/26/2008, -8/+3Heh, people don't look at the issues anymore.

      Barrack Osama... i mean Obama... and Ron Paul are about as far apart from each other as it comes.

      The problem is we have blind people who only look at the elegance of a speaker and ignore the substance. The only conclusion I can make is that Diggers are the ones who whine about a videogame's graphics.
    • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -5/+3The collective "BAHHH!" of the Obama sheeple has drowned out the sensible cries of "Liberty."
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -2/+2Who is Ron Paul?
    • krc1, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul lost. Deal with it.
    • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -0/+5I do too, GTO, but I've concluded that the commonality shared by Paul and Obama is integrity, and that is what's swaying this community. Integrity is what's sorely needed after eight years of Bush/Cheney, furthermore, I think there is an underlying belief that both Paul and Obama want what is best for the Country, and that both are willing to put it ahead of their own agendas. Oh, and they are both intelligent men who respect intelligence.

      America really wants a leader. We haven't had one for some time now. (Unless you count Rush with his hydrocodone-drone)
  • cfrog7, on 05/26/2008, -13/+5This is sick
    So sick that someone needs to bust out the tar and feathers

  • supermanred, on 05/26/2008, -7/+47So are we at the point where its okay to discuss killing someone running for President if they don't fit with the current Facist government?

    Wow. This is *****.
    • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -2/+4Violence and politics have gone hand and hand for hundreds if not thousands of years. Along with un-educated people who spell things incorrectly.
      • LowRentDiggs, on 05/26/2008, -1/+2"hundreds if not thousands of years....Along with un-educated people"

        Oh the irony... BTW, the phrase is "hand in hand".
        • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Misspelling Fascist when your comment hinges around that topic is not the same as editing a phrase in common usage that loses little of it's intended meaning in exchanging in with and.
        • LowRentDiggs, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I'm just saying you have a weak grasp of history and your posts are littered with misspelled words. You really have no grounds to call anyone "un-educated".
        • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Examples of my misspellings would add to the validity of your argument. On a more important point however how is my grasp of history weak?
        • LowRentDiggs, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I'll just use one example from your previous post:
          loses little of *it's* intended meaning

          And saying "Violence and politics have gone hand and hand for hundreds if not thousands of years." puts you about at the Ali-G level of sounding educated.
        • benecere, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Lurtz: You just helped me connect prescriptivist and neocon, thanks!

          Oh, yeah, and beheading, flaying and witch-burning have gone on for a good many centuries as well. What's your point?
        • Lurtz, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1How is the view I expressed something you associate with Neo-Conservatism? Did I advocate violence against foreign Communist governments to usher in Democratic reform in the hidden margins?
      • AlbinEber, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I love reading comments from people pointing out the spelling errors of others. Along with their own goofy and misplaced punctuation. :)
        • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -3/+1Thats the public education system for you. Twelve years in advanced placement English courses and not one refresher on punctuation usage.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Just because something has been done for thousands of years doesn't mean we should keep doing it. Example: human sacrifice.

        We *can* attempt to improve. Of course, you're free to go back to eating bugs and living in a cave if you wish.
  • poleag, on 05/26/2008, -8/+12This will not be over quickly.
  • ajb2015, on 05/26/2008, -5/+20this is frontpage already, come on people
  • rudezombie, on 05/26/2008, -8/+46Classy. REAL classy. Also, nice to see they're still running with the old Osama/Obama thing.
    • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2we'll see the osama/obama thing through october. they seriously don't have anything else.
    • yoris, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1They sure did pick up a trick or two from advertising, didn't they? Mention two things together often enough and they will become associated in people's minds, whether they want to or not.

      I can't help but honestly wonder if this kind of slip-ups is planned & prepared or simply caused by the pundits' own subconcious bias.
  • itsthemechanic, on 05/26/2008, -9/+54America: You can't say "*****" or "*****" on TV, but you can make a thinly veiled remark that you would like to have a political opponent murdered? GG USA.
    • goon5000, on 05/26/2008, -3/+1America didn't say that, some moron said that, the fact that we're all here calling it BS should underline that point.
      • Lhakrots, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1More hell needs called down on her than calling bs, especially if it doesn't get any further than the net.
      • element14, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0The outcry of somebody saying "*****" on TV probably drowns the "BS calling" here...

        I mean, not exactly a direct analogy, but last time somebody showed a nipple on TV the outcry was HUGE..... let's see what this "kill O[bs]ama" thing amounts to.
    • temporaryholder, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1actually you can say "*****" on TV
  • jakeabbott, on 05/26/2008, -19/+8bury
  • thunked, on 05/26/2008, -16/+6Obama is half white. What's the big deal. I love how race is being brought into this when he leads the popular vote.. really race is just a talking point for liberals.
    • Acewrap, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Wow. That had nothing to do with the post.
    • graddatadda, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1with a name like "Thunked" are you surprised?
  • bellow, on 05/26/2008, -11/+17This is nothing less than a veiled death threat. She should be jailed for this. Really.
  • astericks, on 05/26/2008, -8/+11dugg for the fact that it is NOT hard to distinguish between a United States senator and a terrorist.

    I'm still shocked by that comment. just wow!
  • diemunkiesdie, on 05/26/2008, -31/+17"Americans Everywhere Are Tired Of This!"
    Actually I'm tired of people reading too much into every little thing! I'm sure she doesn't want Obama to ACTUALLY be assassinated, it was just a way to cover her slip up! I, for one, like to believe in the good in people so I choose to believe she made a slight mistake in her comments.

    I know I am smart enough to figure out the difference and not be swayed into thinking that Obama = Osama. I also know that if people are watching FOX News they wouldn't be voting for Obama anyways so it doesn't really matter if they are fed "propaganda".
    • gwolf, on 05/26/2008, -5/+4You delude your self. I suppose it's for the same reasons you keep voting for people who could care less about you.
      • diemunkiesdie, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I delude myself in thinking that people are good? Sure, that's probably right.

        I have a question for you though, who have I voted for that could care less about me? Do you have some magic way of looking at my voting records? Is there a central database of everyone's votes to which you have access?
    • goon5000, on 05/26/2008, -5/+1I watch fox news and I might vote for Obama. Don't be ignorant, if you don't watch fox news then you don't know what you're talking about do you? cnn is just as much propoganda as fox news, the fact that the left ownes cable news (just like the right ownes AM radio) is the reason fox news exists. I might vote for Obama, but after you're post I changed my mind. Stop whining, you give your party a bad name. By the way, fox news has an hour long program by gays for gays, I don't see your left wing stations doing that. Get a clue.
      • diemunkiesdie, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3Really! My one post changed your mind? Wow! It's surprising how you won't vote for Obama, just because of some post by a random person on the internet! You'll show the system!

        Pray tell, how was I whining about something? Or are you just calling me names because you don't agree with what I said? Great tactic!
        • goon5000, on 05/26/2008, -2/+0I think "I know I am smart enough to figure out the difference" might have set me off genious.
        • diemunkiesdie, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1How is that whining? That's simply complementing my self! By the way, good job spelling "genious" correctly!
    • Puppyfam, on 05/26/2008, -0/+6You're spot on, diemunkiesdie.

      I believe the real story here is not a tactless joke, but the blatant bias behind the joke. If she's supposed to be a "fair and balanced" contributor, making an anti-Obama joke is terribly inappropriate.
    • AlbinEber, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3Wow... a blatant death wish wrapped in giggles is a "little thing." Even if it's a "slip up" it should be dealt with severely.
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -5/+2Exactly. Liberals don't watch fox. Why the hoopla?
      • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Apparently liberals do watch faux news otherwise this wouldn't be on digg. my guess is the hoopla is about the illegality assigned to the little people if they were to encourage a violent act toward an elected official and candidate for president but when someone on cable news advocates it then it is clearly allowed. makes sense since the little people reach so many and nobody watches cable news...
      • ZenRN1171, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0I am a liberal and I watch all three cable news networks. I bounce back and forth to try to discern differences in coverage, especially the language used to relay a news story. Fox presents itself as a news station, and should present the news "fair and balanced" as they claim. A viewer who knows very little about a candidate (or only knows what their email inbox holds) might not bother to dig further. Statements like this reinforce the false rumors that Sen. Obama is Muslim. This is not news, it is propaganda.
    • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1I tend to agree that her statements were a slip up, rather than a blatant joke. But I also understand why some people are reading into this so much.
    • Reaper2806, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Just because a group of people are susceptible to something doesn't make it right to go ahead with it. That's like giving drinks to alcoholics "cause they're gonna do it anyway". People hear what they want to sure, and big media is big business, but there's a difference between putting a conservative spin on something, and the kind of "journalism" and "political debate" that sees people insight hate crimes, mixes up senators with terrorists, and deliberately sabotages primary elections of the opposing party.
  • steelclash84, on 05/26/2008, -13/+26This is how democracy dies.
    • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -10/+5The overzealous promotion of a candidate who preaches change but in the end will only serve to advance an immense government bent on more control over it's citizens?
      • LowRentDiggs, on 05/26/2008, -1/+2Which one is that?
        • Lurtz, on 05/26/2008, -4/+2Pretty much any presidential candidate for the last 23 presidential elections, sans a select few such as Ron Paul who advocate smaller government.
        • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0Ron Paul? 23 elections? wow.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/26/2008, -1/+1Democracy is plenty alive here, its the Republic that is in danger because of all the big government tyrants you idiots have been electing over the last 75 years. Just listen to the way Obama panders to you, blathering on about hope and change and health care and education and in reality it all amounts to nothing more than taking your property and limiting your freedom.
      • ch1naski, on 05/26/2008, -0/+0love it. fantastic stuff, keep it going.
  • sebby2022, on 05/26/2008, -20/+9BURIED AS OLD!!!!!
  • alwaysthinking1, on 05/26/2008, -6/+1wow i really hope that it was a mistake and the people who believe that this is orchestrated are wrong cause if not wow
  • eleete, on 05/26/2008, -26/+8Hussein Obama
    • KazamaSmokers, on 05/26/2008, -1/+3Yeah! King Hussein was a great guy. Brought democracy to the Middle East. Wife was a hottie.
  • Stetsonboy21, on 05/26/2008, -11/+53Sign the petition to get her fired:

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/543978507
    • JMPeronto, on 05/26/2008, -1/+2This petition makes far more sense than a sponsor boycott. Cheers to you.
    • guestworker, on 05/26/2008, -6/+3America has gone to pussys. You can't say anything even if it is a joke.
      • invisiblelemur, on 05/26/2008, -2/+2Agreed, this is getting blown way out of proportion. I'm an Obama supporter and I definitely grinned a little when I heard it. It was an out-of-the-blue joke that perhaps was in poor taste, but nothing more. This was not a death threat.
      • guidogallopyn, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Broadcast news is not the comedy channel. There is a real concern about Obama's safety, and news media should cover that topic.To cover it by means of assassination humor however is inexcusable.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/26/2008, -1/+2File an ONLINE COMPLAINT with the FEC

      http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=d1e640& ...

      Remember to fill out all the blanks or it wont get processed...listen folks, we dont have to take anymore of this crap lying down..in force we can make something happen!

      Obama/Webb 08
      • coffeebaby, on 05/26/2008, -0/+2i'm not sure of a few of these. did this happen today?

        (1) Date of Program: was it the 25th?

        (2) Time of Program: statement was made at 8:56 PT

        (3) Network: FOX

        (4) Call Sign, Channel OR Frequency of the station on which you viewed/heard the material: ?

        (5) City and State where program was viewed or heard: Nationwide

        (6) Name of Program or DJ/Personality/Song/Film: Fox News election coverage

        *Please include below as many details about the program as possible in order to help the FCC determine whether the material was obscene, profane, and/or indecent (such as specific words, language, images, etc.):

        During a live interview, FOX Contributor Liz Trotta jokingly wished for the assassination of Sen. Barack Obama.
      • fredmv, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Complaint filed. Hopefully something is done about this.
    • captndalton, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1You will take it and you will like it! . . .

      relax. it's all talk. you don't have to get all uppity and go wacko because someone said something you don't like. In the same way that people shrug what you say/think/live for off, you can do