http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/30/hume-hose-down/
What an insightful answer Brit :rolleyes:
Brit, you are a :wally
I think he was meaning “hose you down” as in “put water on you to put out the fire [of your comments”, not “hose you down” as in “spray you with water from high power firehoses so as to knock you down, which is a common tactic in dealing with protestors”.
You’ve never heard the expression used before?
Yes, but in another bad context: I heard it before as an expression that literally means to throw water to animals in heat so as to calm them down. Metaphorically applied specially to human males that are too frisky.
[American Dad]You know damn well I like Brit Hume.[/American Dad]
That’s the interpretation that I’ve heard. I’ve never heard “hose you down” applied to a debate or heated discussion. It was, if nothing else, a patronizing comment. It does harken to that imagery from the civil rights movement, but I have a hard time believing that even Brit Hume would knowingly make such a link.
Let’s see, your point seems to be that Hume is putz because his answer was inadequate and lame. And you’d be right if that was the entirety of his answer. It’s not. I couldn’t find a longer transcript, but through the site you linked to you can find this video which shows that Hume immediatley went on to explain why he thought Williams was wrong.
So, did you post this devasting thread without checking to see if what you included was Hume’s full answer? Or did you check but intentionally not include the fuller answer in order to provide your insightful and devasting analysis? :rolleyes:
Well… now that you mentioned, Hume went on with the same discredited White House talking points about the unfolding of events, so that also deserved a :rolleyes: So fine by me if you want to make that also part of the roast.
If the Niger report was as “inconclusive” as Hume claims, then WHY did anyone take the trouble to lie and out an agent that was not part of the evidence found in Africa?
I saw that show. The Fox News shills were all in hyper-spin mode trying to minimize the charges against Libby and smear Joe Wilson at the same time. Juan Wilson’s comments were stated very calmly and reasonably and Hume was trying to act like Wilson was some kind of raving conspiracy loon. It was really a disgusting display by Hume who kept trying to deny that Libby had done anything wrong (he actually claimed that Libby had been “indicted for speaking to reporters” which is a lie on its face and extremely innappropriate coming from an anchorman) while simultaneously trying to hijack the conversation into an irrelevant (and not entirely honest) attack on Joe Wilson which had nothing to do with the charges against Libby. His attempt to suggets that anyone who thinks the White House intended to smear Joe Wilson “needs to be hosed down” is nothing but fatuous handwaving and showed a complete lack of respect for Juan Wilson as journalist and as a person.
One thing at a time. Your OP clearly criticized Hume for what you mockingly referred to as an “insightful” answer, which you supplied in a quote box. I then point out that your characterization was unfair, because you supplied only the first sentence of his answer.
Now, whether you were not aware of his full answer and were being lazy and blaringly partisan, or whether you were aware of his full answer and were being deceptive and blaringly partisan, I do not know. Either way, you were 1) unfair 2) blaringly partisan.
Now you seek to find cover for your original statement in the OP in the fuller answer Hume did, in fact, give, but which you omitted. Sorry. Your original knee-jerk leftist critique was based on the one sentence you supplied being the full answer.
Your tactics in the OP are that of a partisan hack that has no interest in truth or fairness. And thus, someone who should simply be ignored. Now you can admit to jumping the gun—which we all probably have done fro time to time—and treating Hume unfairly, or you can continue to try to excuse your low tactics by broadening the issue and deflecting the focus from your own actions.
So, what will it be spin and obfuscate? Or own up?
And as I explained before, the rest of his answer was boiler plate white house response.
Nope, At this level, as **Diogenes ** mentioned, Hume was the partizan one and had to lie on top of everything. So to be fair to him we have to mention that he is a lier too.
His full answer was a kneejerk.
When Hume added his partisanship to the mix, it was better to ignore the rest; otherwise this would be just another discussion on the Bush administration.
But I don’t mind. 
I am owning up simply because he proved to be a bigger jerk on the rest of his reply; I jumped the gun in the fact that I shortened his sorry and lying answer. You are so obtuse to not realize that I actually welcome the chance wrought by you to deal with the rest of his answer that actually is more embarrassing to him considering what many on the SDMB know already.
So, to be fair to the unfair Hume:
If the Niger report was as “inconclusive” as Hume claims, then WHY did anyone take the trouble to lie and out an agent that was not part of the evidence found in Africa?
Why did he lie saying that Wilson was"indicted for speaking to reporters"?
Eh, Hume always acts like that to Williams. You see it on FNS, you see it on Special Report. And I guess I’m too young to know or care about hoses.
Are you so obtuse as to not realize that the critique you gave Hume, based on the one-sentence answer as you attributed it to him, does not apply to the rest of his answer? You may think his full answer was “more of the usual”, but it was a substantive, reasoned answer. That fact that you now welcome the opportunity to critique the part of the answer you originally omitted is beside the point. Are you so obtuse as to not see that?
Your attempt to use the part of the quote you omitted (by the way, was in intentional or not? Please, do answer that.) to retrospectively excuse your action is transparent and lame.
Your OP is simply unfair and dishonest. A perfect example of the tripe that some—from both sides—try to pass off as insightful and reasoned analysis, to the detriment of the quality of the Board. Do you not think that any member could go to a left or right wing sight, find some edited quote from the other side, start a thread here and say “Oh boy, look what a jerk this guy is! And ain’t I smart for having noticed and disected this idiocy?”
You could have said “Yeah, I guess I was a little quick to the trigger and should have found and supplied his full response. But I still think his answer was not good because (your reasoning goes her)”. But you chose to not take that course of action. And that is your choice. Readers, particularly those not fully in your camp, will just have to be more suspicious of your claims from here on out.
Argumentum ad tantrum.
This is the pit, I still mantain the rest of his answer was not needed in this case, but I see you are backpedaling in not dealing with your attempt to be fair to Hume that it turned to be even more damaging to him. (IOW you now are not answering the embarasing questions that the fair complete follow up Hume gave us)
Because now, I do see with the explanation from other dopers that his reply may have had a more simple explanation. But his complete reply leaves the right looking even in a worse shape. for that I have to thank you.
How much would you all pay to see Juan Williams kick Brit Hume’s smug ass on live national television?
Brit Hume is a washed up hack. The best thing about Fox News is that it is removing fake journalists from the mainstream.
As you point out, this is the Pit, so, are you really that fucking dense?* Can you not understand that the content of the portion of the answer that YOU OMITTED is immaterial to the point I was making. Can you not see that that particular part of the answer may fail on substantive grounds and that your original OP is STILL cheap and unfair. Do you not see that the criticism of the two parts of the answer are different in kind? I’ve read some of your posts in the past and I can see that logic is not completely alien to you, so I can only conclude that you just don’t have the stones to admit that you made a mistake and were too quick to piss.
Please, read this thread over with a clear head. For your sake I hope you see the error you made. For the sake of the rest of us Dopers, I hope you come clean.
OPs like yours in this thread do not make for good debate or aid in fighting ignorance. In fact, quite the opposite. And just because this is the pit, doesn’t mean the rules of logic and fairness should be abandoned. I’d say they are even more important, as you don’t want your criticism to be able to be dismissed easily.
And for the record, I haven’t backpedaled on anything. My entire communication has been focused on the sole issue of the cheap tactics you used in the OP.
*Please excuse my language. But that is what would qualify as argumentum ad tantrum.
You know, GIGO, at first I was somewhat inclined to regard you as a rather formidable foe in the battle of political ideology that goes on here, but that estimation is being diminished very rapidly.
The title of your OP is exactly the kind of knee-jerk overreaction to a perfectly obvious and innocent statement that is so typical of the type of liberal I rail against here.
I have heard the term “hose you down” all my life, and I’ve never heard it used in a racial context. It means to cool someone down…as in telling an overly affectionate couple that if they don’t knock it off, you’re going to have to hose them down.
It’s like people of your ilk just go around looking for things to take offense at so you can throw accusations of racism, sexism, and all your other pet “isms” at them.
Cripes!
I suggest tag-team. Brit Hume and Bill Krystol versus Juan Williams and Mara Liasson. No-holds-barred on the Special Report set.
Curious, I already said that Hume might indeed had said something innocent with the hosing comment. And it was you who complained that it should be fair to bring the whole response of Hume into. Maybe you are not backpedaling but you really don’t read what one replies (Same to you Starving Artist), so your evasion still stands: Why did Hume had to lie?
No problem, that is what the pit is for. Of course it looks that now you jumped on me before reading.