chopper said:
I hear alot of lumberjacks, but I don’t see any trees falling. Dr. Hill liked to talk, but he never said anything.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me, too.

Morpheus said:
There are a lot of law enforcement officers in this country who are dirty and if someone takes them out then I would question the sanity of any person who would deride that act of social justice.

Spoken like a true anarchist. What say the next time you get ripped off, mugged, or your kid gets molested you look up the local number for MS-13 and report your crime to them.

BUT…to respond more fully to your remark, yes, there are some dirty cops out there. I’ve also asked why that is, and all I can reckon is it’s because cops are selected from the human race–not the angels.

Sunnyr said:
If this whack-job defends Cop Killers, I will no longer watch any show he is on. Are you listening, Bill O’Reilly?

He may be a whack-job for any number of reasons but, defending cop killers isn’t necessarily one of them! There are a lot of law enforcement officers in this country who are dirty and if someone takes them out then I would question the sanity of any person who would deride that act of social justice. With that said, if you knew anything about Daniel Faulkner and his murderer then you would perhaps also know that that murderer deserves to fry and eventually and hopefully they will!

It is blistering obvious that Hill was fired bc he refused to accept being a lapdog for ppl like O’Reilly and Murdoch. Whether you agree with him on any given subject isn’t the point; he was the most interesting talking head on Faux News and firing him was their loss.

Most of the people who use “academic elite” as a pejorative are simply trying to compensate for their own insecurity and inability to apply their self-proclaimed “common sense” to anything that comes close to a valuable contribution to society.

If our society were to subscribe to your line of thinking, without those ‘academic elites’ sharing their acquired knowledge/information with their students, the highly trained medical doctors and health professionals we both hold in such high regard would cease to exist.

Trying to elevate academic elitists to the level of a trained medical doctors and health professionals is a smoke screen. Highly trained medical personal are not academic elitists. They are highly skilled professionals. They can solve real world problems. They can apply their knowledge for the benefit of their fellow citizens. Academic elitists are the kind of people that may buy a box of nails then conclude that 1/2 the nails have the heads on the wrong end.

During my working career in the electronics and information technology industries I worked with many highly trained and degreed individuals. From time to time an academic elitist would show up that would/could not soil his hands by participating in the actual building of the system he designed. These elitists were quickly ‘drummed out of the core’.

When you need medical assistance, how about you ask someone with common sense to perform your procedure instead of one of those ‘academic elites’ in the white coat?

The only thing using that phrase does is devalue the person saying it. You’re basically saying someone is better and smarter than you are. Nobody can make you feel inferior unless you allow them to.

It’s pathetic that people not only want to denigrate the rigorous work performed by academics that improve the lives of the people who mock them, all the while reveling in their ignorance and wearing it as some asinine badge of honor.

Academic elitists envision deserts covered by photovoltaic panels. The supposedly intellectually dysfunctional, and their distasteful reliance on common sense, ask stupid question about how will the panels will be connected to the power grids or what will we use for power when the sun doesn’t shine.

1. Cut back on 1 of Shep Smith’s shows & give it to Lou Dobbs (when he gets hired)
2. Fire Geraldo
3. Stop inviting Al Sharpton

Calling someone an academic elite is a lazy way to say I don’t feel like doing the homework to get my facts straight about the subjects I discuss.

Funny how that works, isn’t it? It’s also sort of wondrous how many people (me included) employ so many people (like you) who think that they’re way smarter than I am.

Why are you trying to blame Glenn Beck as the cause of criticism of the POTUS?

Criticism of Barack, his philosophies, and agendas, began when he announced his candidacy and his biographical data, limited as it is, became known. This was long before Beck left CNN and moved to Fox.

What is the opposite of an “academic elite?”

The uncomplicated, easy to understand, answer is common sense.

>Hill is one of many people whom the regular guy now sees on TV and thinks, WTF just happened to my country?

When I read comments like yours – labeling everyone to the left of Pinochet as marxist/communist/socialist, it makes me wonder how such a considerable segment of the American population (you included) can be so lacking in basic intelligence and dignity. It’s amazing how many right-wingers just gobble up Beck’s tossed salad like it is complete dogma. It’s going to be absolutely amazing when you learn sooner or later that Beck is pretty much a conspiratorial hack that finds puzzle pieces in cloud formations.

I don’t mean to hate on you, INB, but I think you need to learn the distinction between a real liberal (Dr. Hill, Bob Beckel, Colmes), and a “fox news liberal” (Juan Williams, Kirsten powers, Geraldo) who essentially end up agreeing with the host or whomever they are arguing with. Not too long ago, INB was claiming that conservative personalities on MSNBC, particularly Joe Scarborough, are liked by liberals because they are “conservative enough”… and I believe that same day, Joe had just finished an intense grilling of liberal Max Blumenthal on Morning Joe. And if MSNBC is such a “far-left”, liberal network, how would people watching even be able to remotely stand Scarborough?

And nobody has ever said that Fox News “has no liberals”, they simply reiterate the obvious fact that a lot of Fox News’ “liberals” are weak and when the host disagrees with them, they are yelled over, or even ridiculed, and conservatives are able to finish an entire point. Look at poor Alan Colmes… yes, he is a legit liberal, but look at how he gets treated 2 to 1 by O’Reilly and Crowley on “The Factor” every week, and many times, O’Reilly convinces him to agree with whatever he is saying. Why doesn’t he bring Colmes on to have more 1-on-1 debates? Crowley is always there. Look at this past week… O’Reilly is using Colmes’ mere existence at Fox News to try and prove that they are fair. So then, he brings up how fair Greta is and that she is “pro-Obama” (without actual evidence to prove it) who mostly does crime news and when she brings on conservatives (Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, etc.), she lets them babble on and on bashing Obama and never challenges them. Then, he mentions Shepard Smith, who I’ll admit is the only fair anchor on Fox, but lets be real, his existence and his opinions are mostly ignored by Fox News viewers. It’s Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity who are always remembered for what they preach… hence, their much high viewer ship. Also, both of Shep’s programs, which are shown live at 3pm and 7pm est., are the only programs not repeated later in the day while most of the other programs are.

By the way, didn’t Rachel Maddow (while a guest on Meet the Press) bring up Morning Joe in a debate to try and disprove Mike Murphy’s point of MSNBC being liberal? Granted, it doesn’t prove her point (as much as O’Reilly bringing up Colmes does), but when people heard about what Rachel said, they were incensed that she would use it as an example. However, when O’Reilly brings up Colmes being an analyst (with a conservative counterpart on every time), it somehow proves Fox News being fair, but a 3-hour morning show with a conservative host and weak minded liberal (Mika Brzezinski), who has praised Sarah Palin and NY Mayor Bloomberg (longtime Democrat, former Republican, current Independent), doesn’t count? I guess that’s what happens when you ignore some facts while cherry picking others.

Also, how is Fox News “having no liberals” contradictory of the liberals not being “liberal enough” or “getting rid of liberals”? A real contradiction would be stating, for example, that there are no liberals on fox news, and saying in the next breath that there are liberals. However, INB’s example of a contradiction are very similar complaints, as they all criticize the liberals on Fox News.

I saw him on Red Eye once and it was nice to see him joke about it.. otherwise.. liberal agenda, no question.

Dr. Hill liked to talk, but he never said anything.