| 0 |
Subject: Endorsements: Do They Work On You?
Posted by: Boxman
- [571114225] Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 11:38
I caught a post by PD in another thread talking about how a newspaper was endorsing one of the Democrats and it prompted me to start this thread. Do endorsements by newspapers, celebrities, or what/whomever work on you? If your local paper comes out and says this guy is the shizzle you gotta vote for him, will you? |
| 1 | Tree
ID: 50137108
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 12:29
|
anyone who takes their information from just one, or two, or three sources, is limited themselves and doing themselves, and others, a disservice.
you should gather your opinion from a multitude of different sources (and no, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coluter, and Fox News do not count as different sources), and be informed.
|
| 2 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 12:34
|
No
|
| 3 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 12:41
|
For me personally no. But I know that it does for a good number of people. How many of people that vote know all about the person and their views? Or how many just know "They don't want abortion so i'm with them." "They don't like pet rights, so i'm not voting for them."
|
| 4 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 13:09
|
"They don't like pet rights, so i'm not voting for them."
Finally, the real reason Romney tanked. It was the dog on the car roof incident.
|
| 5 | Seattle Zen
ID: 529121611
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 13:27
|
I don't think that a single person amongst us makes their presidential candidate decisions with any endorsements in mind as there is ample opportunity to learn about every candidate.
But what about local races? Out here in the West, we vote for all of our judges. Since a tiny fraction of the voting public practices law in front of these judges, how are they to decide whom to cast their vote for? Some places vote for the county coroner or county election official. How do you make an informed decision in races like these? Newspapers generally have candidate forums and editorial boards that make endorsements. These endorsements are explained and are vital for an informed electorate on these types of races. Same goes for initiatives, also quite common out West. Some initiatives are purposely misleading or deal with rules that even the wonkiest citizen is unfamiliar with. Local media coverage is enlightening in some instances.
|
| 6 | Building 7
ID: 48033121
Sun, Feb 10, 2008, 15:47
|
I'm waiting to see who Hubert Humphrey's grandson endorses.
|
| 7 | Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 00:50
|
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coluter, and Fox News do not count as different sources), and be informed.
Actually it is the people who listen to them who are the better informed.
Unlike those who get their soundbites from CNN, MSNBC, and the networks, people who listen to talk radio have a more rounded, all encompassing point of view.
Conservative talk radio is the balance to the slanted/warped point of veiw that you get from the broadcast news.
I'm not saying you have to listen to Rush or Coulter as there are plenty of other alternatives but without them you become ill-informed which is worse than being uninformed
|
| 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 3711109
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 01:12
|
Pretty much everything you state is something I'd disagree with, Weykool. What evidence do you have that talk show listeners are "more rounded" or hold an "all emcompassing" point of view?
Why is a conservatively biased talk show format the "balance" to broadcast news? Particularly this brand of hateful "conservatism?"
And why is it broadcast news vs conservative talk shows? What about those millions of people who don't get their "news" from broadcast news?
It doesn't even make logical sense that people who listen to biased conservative opinion sources are "more rounded" than those who listen to broadcast news, even if you buy that broadcast news is biased.
Your big assumption (among many) is that people who listen to talk radio are also listening to broadcast news, and are equally affected by equally biased sources and are thus in balance. This is a "Crossfire" argument which believes that politics is best approached as an adversarial relationship, which is nonsense. As is the belief that talk show listeners watch broadcast news to balance their talk show listening.
|
| 9 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 01:38
|
Using your logic, you can say MSNBC is hateful Liberalism. I wouldn't even call it a news broadcast. Fox atleast makes an attempt to be fair and balanced, MSNBC doesn't even try to hide their bias.
|
| 10 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 06:19
|
CBS busted out the backhoe and scooped up a double helping of BS this past weekend. They had both Hillary and Obama featured on their programs, no Republicans. They were fair & balanced because I guess they represented both Democrats. I posted a study in another thread that showed the bias of the media during this race and nobody blinked an eye at it.
|
| 11 | Tree
ID: 14136125
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 06:45
|
CBS busted out the backhoe and scooped up a double helping of BS this past weekend. They had both Hillary and Obama featured on their programs, no Republicans.
wasn't this the weekend where Fox interviewed Bush, and Chris Wallace tossed out softballs like "haha, we're both sons of famous fathers, what's that like for YOU? haha!"
|
| 12 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 07:16
|
Deflecting doesn't change the facts Tree.
|
| 13 | Tree
ID: 14136125
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 07:23
|
you're absolutely right, as i haven't had time to check on your facts. but that deflection runs both ways.
regardless, i think it would be foolhardy to think that you can say "look! there! this weekend there were no republicans on CBS! that's proof of some such durned liburel con-spire-acy!"
if they had two republicans and no dems on during some random weekend, would that be proof that they leaned right?
|
| 14 | Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 09:45
|
PD:
What evidence do you have that it is "Hateful conservatism".
What evidence does Tree have to make his statement?
I see a lot of hate being directed AT these shows, but I dont see the basis for you to call it hate and certainly anyone to say those who listen are uninformed.
I found Tree's statement to smack of being ill-informed but you said nothing about his statement.
Why?
You dont feel the need to challenge ill-informed statements if you agree with them and you will only challenge staements you disagree with?
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 51137128
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 09:46
|
Arguing about whether broadcast journalism is biased is a waste of time, IMO, mostly because the level of bias is so often a result of the viewer's own biases. We tend to discount news which reflects our own views as being "balanced" while seeing the "other side's" views as being either overrepresented or a token in order to maintain "balance." I have no idea if CBS is biased or not (I tend to think that interviewing the two frontrunners of the Democratic race, who are virtually tied even after Super Tuesday, would fall more into the "news" category than the "liberal propoganda" category but there you go).
In the case of FOX News, however, this is an organization which is intentionally conservative. In this, they are not balanced themselves (in fact, they are intentionally unbalanced). They do so in order to balance what they see as a left-leaning broadcast balance elsewhere.
No one (and I mean no one) can say FOX News themselves is fair and balanced. Even FOX doesn't say that they themselves are (despite the misapplication of their tag phrase by those who are themselves biased conservatively).
|
| 16 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:00
|
I found Tree's statement to smack of being ill-informed but you said nothing about his statement.
which statement? about Coulter, Limbaugh, and Fox News?
as PD pointed out, Fox intentionally leans Right. and it's hard to take Coulter seriously when she admits to being a muckraker.
and Limbaugh's so hypocritical (down with druggies! i'm going to abuse drugs myself though!) it's hard to take him seriously...
|
| 17 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:01
|
I am curious if PD has ever watched Fox and MSNBC. I admit I mainly view Fox, but not because of their right leaning slant, they have the hottest babes by far. MSNBC is pure hate speech, especially Olbermann.
|
| 18 | Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:05
|
Tree:
When you stand next to the left leaning wall that the other network news then anything that brings you back into balance will look like it leans towards the right.
Fox News is more balanced like the networked used to be.
The problem is your leaning has dislodged your center of balance.
|
| 19 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:11
|
Weykool, FOX is no more balanced, than is Rush Limbaugh. They dont even pretend to be balanced. Hell, when they are blasting a dem, they make stuff up and say something like "Now, I cant prove this, but they havent disproven it either...." and then go off on a speculative romp. (Cant recall the specifics, but it wasnt all that long ago that FOX did that very thing.)
To even suggest that they present any sense of balance, is absurd to the extreme.
As to why we (and others) brand this sort of conservatism as "hateful"? Have oyu actually LISTENED to AC? Read so much as the titles of her books? Hateful, may well be an understatement.
|
| 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:12
|
oh, and in repsosne to the threads question: I think Zen said it best in 5 above. For national/state wide, no...endorsements dont "do it" for me. For local elections, Judges, County Treasurer and the like...yeah, endorsements tend to carry a little more weight.
|
| 21 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:24
|
I agree AC is over the top, but so is the hate speech coming from Olbermann, Pelosi, Reid, Maher, O'Donnel, every looney left in hollywood and most of the posters on this forum.
|
| 22 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:30
|
O'Donnel is indeed a looney, not unlike Michael Moore. I'll grant you that one. Maher/Olbermann though...are just plain entertaining and happen to hit on some things spot-on IMHO.
|
| 23 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:33
|
Many feel AC is entertaining spot on, but only the Left likes to coin the phrase 'hate speech'.
|
| 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:34
|
AC festers hatred and loathing. She herself says it. Olbermann OTH, is a satirist/editorialist. Maher, blasts BOTH sides of the aisle, though his usual target is the self-righteous "we are the moral superior" conservative-right.
|
| 25 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:35
|
?
Jag #17: MSNBC is pure hate speech, especially Olbermann.
Jag #23 (32 minutes later): only the Left likes to coin the phrase 'hate speech'
|
| 26 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:41
|
Your remarks have absolutely no objectivity. I admit AC is a bomb thrower and you call two of equal or worse offenders 'editorialists/satirists'.
|
| 27 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:47
|
every looney left in hollywood and most of the posters on this forum.
Next to Oprah, the most visible Hollywood loon in this election is Chuck Norris, stumping for Huckabee.
As for hateful posters on this forum, I submit these thread titles:
> I really really hate Nancy Pelosi
> Are Democrats Blind?
>Bill Maher One of the Most Dangerous Men in America
>Cow Farts Cause Global Warming
>Carter, You Idiot, Shut the Hell Up
>The Democrat Lack of Intelligence Committee
>The Howard Dean Moronic Statement Thread
|
| 28 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:48
|
Mith, I did it as a rebuttal. If you want to deny that the Left uses the phrase more than the Right, so be it, it just adds to the disingenuousness of the Left.
|
| 29 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:51
|
I don't watch much Olberman, but I've seen a few clips here and there. I've seen my share of Maher. I'm not a huge fan of either. I personally don't recall either being nearly as venemous as Coulter.
By all means prove that Olbermen and Maher are in the smae league. It's not hard to find clips or transcrits. You can't go a full sentence in a typical Coulter column without crossing a direct insult and offhand I'd guess she averages maybe 1 totally outrageous assault or accusation per 500 words.
Show me that Olberman and Maher belong in that company.
Back to the thread topic, nes organization endorsements probably don't carry much weight with most people. I'm sure there are some die-hard Washington Times or WAPO or NY Post readers out there but for the most part I don't think most people, even avid readers and watchers, give those endorsements a second thought. However, I believe union and religious endorsements can often sway large groups.
|
| 30 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 10:57
|
PV, do I need to pull up thread names with Bush hate speech in the title?
The term 'hate speech' is constantly used by the the Left to pigeon hole Republicans as vile and self-righteous, when they simply see the failure of a socialistic system. It is a propaganda technique, a tactic only needed by those trying to implement a system, that can not stand on it's own merit.
|
| 31 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:03
|
Mith, I really don't feel like pouring over Maher and Olbermann transcripts, if you can't hear the 'hate speech' spewing from those 2, than I suggest a Q-Tip or a small attempt at objectivity.
|
| 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 51137128
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:03
|
So you don't need to use it, but do so anyway?
|
| 33 | Weykool
Leader
ID: 41750315
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:04
|
Maher, blasts BOTH sides of the aisle, though his usual target is the self-righteous "we are the moral superior" conservative-right.
Please.
If Maher's schtick was to go after the self-righteous he should start with some soul-searching of himself.
Maher is not the only leftist who critcizes only one side and does so with a revolting self-righteous tone.
The self-righteousness of the left is truly mind-boggling.
It is so obvious that you lean so far to the extreme left that anything towards the center even if was still leaning left you would call right wing.
The discussion in this thread has only confirmed in my mind that many on the left have passed clouded and are entering delusional.
|
| 34 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:04
|
Jag? We dont have a "socialist" system in place. Yes, we have some public assistance programs, and yes these are growing beyond their original designs. That growth however, isnt a failure of that assistance program. It is more a failure, of our society/economy to take care of more members of the general public.
You REALLY want to decrease welfare expenditures? Lobby employers, pressure employers, to pay workers enough so they wont qualify for public assistance. Wally-world for ex, keeps the vast majority of employees listed officially as "part-timers" and excludes them from benefits. That way, public assistance gets to provide for their medical care. Its part-parcel and design, of the wally-world business model.
|
| 35 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:05
|
PV, do I need to pull up thread names with Bush hate speech in the title?
Yes
|
| 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:08
|
Here Jag, this writer saya it (re Maher), better than I can:
What the media could learn...
|
| 37 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:10
|
Maher, unlike FOX News, lets R Paul speak on air....
|
| 38 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:12
|
I did it as a rebuttal.
I don't care. You were the first person in this thread to use the term and you used it to describe MSNBC.
If you want to deny that the Left uses the phrase more than the Right, so be it, it just adds to the disingenuousness of the Left.
Lucky for you, I have some time this morning. Lets see who has used the phrase more at this forum. The term 'hate speech' has appeard in 26 Poli-forum threads
Tally (including only specific references to something someone says as 'hate speech' and not discussion of the term):Jag 3
Boxman 2
Baldwin 4
Mattinglyinthehall 4
Tree 3
Pancho Villa 1
Walk 1 Interesting results. 9 from each side of the aisle but given how many more there are on the left here, the trend shows clearly that (at this forum) those on the right are far more likely to categorize something someone says as hate speech.
|
| 39 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:15
|
PD, I am coining the phrase 'hate speech' to illustrate the deliberate talking point the term has become for the Left, I prefer disingenous and looney, when descibing Liberals.
|
| 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 51137128
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:19
|
Weykool: Maher isn't a leftist. He's a libertarian.
|
| 41 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:20
|
coining the phrase
Pretty sure that term means something different from what you think it means.
|
| 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 51137128
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:23
|
Jag: So you are using the term "hate speech" to solely apply to the "Left" (which seems to include moderates and some on the Right)? In other words, you want to insult these people who you disagree with without the need to actually listen to and dissect their arguments?
What a real timesaver for you.
|
| 43 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:25
|
Maher is a comedian, Coulter is a pundit....
|
| 44 | Texas Flood
ID: 37082014
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:29
|
43,Both are Jackasses.
Endorsements, do they work on you? Heck yeah, its really
important that I know who Chuck Norris endorses!
|
| 45 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:31
|
Weykool: Maher isn't a leftist. He's a libertarian
Right, and AC is a reformist and Rush is a revolutionist. He is a Left leaning bomb thrower. If you are giving out titles can I be called Grand Poobah of the World.
Sarge, your article shows how a far Left-leaning person could mistake the show for something other than what it is, a Republican hate fest. He is far-Left. his audience is far-Left, the majority of his quests are far-Left with the occassional token conservative to be ganged up on.
|
| 46 | Perm Dude
ID: 51137128
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:33
|
Facts mean little to you? You are all about painting those you don't like as "Leftist" but rankle when it is pointed out that these people, in fact, aren't "leftists" by any real definition.
What a troll. I'm done with you.
|
| 47 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:39
|
Most Libertarians are far-Left Liberals that smoke pot.
|
| 48 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:46
|
Jag,
For you to use the word disingenuous, unless you're describing yourself, is the epitomy of irony.
|
| 49 | walk
ID: 281501210
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 11:53
|
Aaaaaaaaah, I forgot about this thread...reading now. But first, "Maher is a jackass"...? TF, say it isn't so. I place Maher very high on the phylogenetic scale of political humor and major laughs. He is very good at what he does. I have seen him perform a few times, too. As a straight stand-up, he's very, very freakin funny. He also mocks both sides of the aisle. Now, time to read on.
|
| 50 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:03
|
I have no idea if CBS is biased or not
This dude wrote a best-seller about CBS bias appropriately titled
Bias. It looks like you can buy it now for a penny + shipping if you are interested. I can save you the trouble though......Yes they are biased.
|
| 51 | Perm Dude
ID: 51137128
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:08
|
For purposes of the post, it doesn't matter either way. Of course, anything published by Regnery is almost, by definition, biased.
|
| 52 | walk
ID: 281501210
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:19
|
Okay, read it. I just don't get the anti-Maher stuff. If you don't find him funny, then that's about it. He is not a commentator; he does not appear at conventions, like the way Ann does at CPAC. He is a freakin COMEDIAN. A performer. He hosts a poli talk show. He goes off on both sides, but far more on the republicans, and since they are in charge, rightfully so. IF and when the next president is a Dem, and is fcuking up like Bush (Maher has called the worst president of all time, and I agree), then he'll bash them, too. I believe that.
Olbermann is more of a commentator, but clearly anti-republican and anti-Bush. Very clearly. He's on a news show or whatever you want to call MSNBC. I watch him a lot, and I like what he says, think he's very astute and makes very good points, but I am a like-minded anti-Bush thinker, so my analysis here is invalid. It's almost a taste thing.
However, AC is not a taste thing. I don't care how you spin it, Jag, while the while accusing lefties like me of spinning, AC is a meanie, much meaner and more bigoted in her speech than anyone else like Maher or Olbermann. It's not even close. I do yet feel her schtick is just that; it's pretend...it's her way of getting attention, publicity and airtime and selling books. NO way is she a comedian, and she's not a host of a show. She's some kinda conservative pundit who's MO is to spew very provocative and mean-spirited comments to get attention and move the poli discourse away from more substantive, meaningful discussion. This is not a taste thing. I don't think she's sincere; I do think it's an act, but it's done with a straight (mean) face, and a not a wink, and that's the key, cos a lot of others are believers and then inspired in a twisted way to "hate" the one's to which she spews her made-up venom.
I don't think I've missed more than 5 Real Time's with Bill Maher since it came on the air. I watched a lot of poli incorrect when it was in its final years, too. You may not laugh at Maher, and you may not like it when he makes fun of the folks you like, but he aint no AC. And when he consistently calls Dems "pussies," I still laugh....cos he's funny (and right).
|
| 53 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:26
|
You are correct, the only critixism to the Dems is for not being more far-left. He wants more 'hate speech' and partisanship from them.
|
| 54 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:30
|
My buddy Ann sent me this e-mail just now...
Dear fellow conservative:
My next book, to be released October 2nd, is called: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. It is a user-friendly compilation of my most popular "career-ending" statements for the past ten years. It will be an invaluable research tool for liberals who would like to be hysterical about me, but don't have much time to read.
Categorized into about four dozen chapters, the all-new chapter introductions alone should give liberals aneurisms for years to come.
In addition to the classics, there are hundreds and hundreds of quotes from interviews. TV appearances, speeches, columns and books that will be new to my most devoted readers.
The chapters include:
Airport Security: Make Imams Take Buses
Abortion: Abort Liberals, Not Children
Communism: A New Fragrance By Hillary Clinton
Guns: The Constitutional Right You Can Carry In Your Purse
Hollywood: They Ought to be Committed -- Oops, They Already Are!
Teddy Kennedy: Apparently Fat, Drunk and Stupid a Way to go Through Life
Supreme Court: I Haven't Been Officially Approached as Yet, but Thanks for Asking
For liberals who enjoy exclaiming, "This time, she's gone too far!" the quotes in this book will make that crack about Edwards look like a frosty beer on a hot summer day.
You can be among the first to sign up for my new book for FREE by getting a 35-week trial subscription to HUMAN EVENTS at the reduced rate of just $39.95. That's a savings of more than $30 off the regular rate -- and you'll also receive as a welcoming gift my new book If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. Sign up today.
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
Some of this stuff is a lot funnier than Maher!
|
| 55 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:32
|
Jag 31 - I really don't feel like pouring over Maher and Olbermann transcripts
That you think you'd have to pour over Olberman and Maher transcripts is yet more evidence that neither is close to as hateful as Coulter. You don't have to "pour over" Coluter columns to come across something hatefull. Pull any random column, pick a random paragraph and its right there.
And if your point wasn't about the frequency of her assaults so much as how vile they can tend, when has Olberman or Maher ever stooped so low as telling 9/11 widows that their dead husbands must have hated them and probably wanted to divorce them or just a few months after 9/11 claiming that NYC residents don't care about planes flying into their buildings? Those are classic and rather unforgettable Coulter gems. Olberman and Maher aren't close to as vile.
|
| 56 | walk
ID: 281501210
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:32
|
No he doesn't! Stop it, Jag. You have your own divisiveness issues, and you know it. Maher wants the Dems to stand up to what they believe in and what they campaign for. A lot of what they believe in, he believes in, and that's his preferences. You don't have to agree with his views, and you don't have to laugh at his jokes, but also don't have to make up shiit like "he wants the Dems to do more hate speech." I "hate" to say it, but when it comes to hate speech to which you are referring ("the Dems are all idiots" type threads you start), you are one of the leaders here.
|
| 57 | Jag
ID: 5112883
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:34
|
Then tell me Walk, what does he mean when he calls them pussies?
|
| 58 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:44
|
what does he mean when he calls them pussies?
To my knowlede, he usually means that they are too weak to back up their anti-war rhetoric with policy. Of course a non-intervention foreign policy philosophy is right in line with libertarianism (think Ron Paul) and doesn't make him a liberal extremist. Since you don't seem to quite grasp libertarianism, it makes sense that you'd see it that way.
|
| 59 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:49
|
My buddy Ann sent me this e-mail just now...
Dear fellow conservative:
My next book, to be released October 2nd, is called: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.
Either you're a liar, or she's the one without a brain, since that book came out October 2nd, 2007.
but thanks for listing the chapters, which apparently advocate xenophobia, racism, murder, and a handful of other delightful things.
|
| 60 | walk
ID: 281501210
Tue, Feb 12, 2008, 12:57
|
#57, wimps, cowards, sissies, etc. For not standing up for what they believe in and campaign in and then backing down (e.g. "stop the war" -- then continue the funding). But I think you know this, Jag. You are playing dumb and know you don't have an argument comparing a comedian who bashes them all, but saves this most intense bashing for the one's making the most intense policy decisions, vs. a venom-spewing act that is 100% one-way in direction. Ultimately, AC is mocking folks you like to mock, so it'd be very surprising that you did not find her funny. I think her humor is pretty low-brow and very redundant. It's basically liking watching a bully and saying "that's funny when he beats up the other kid."
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|