Wednesday, September 17, 2014
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta


Season of Lists – Stupid Pundit Tricks of 2007 – UPDATED

December 27th, 2007 by Celeste Fremon

ann-coulter-3.jpg


What remarks made by our political pundits
and the chattering media class sent you the most round the bend with fury this year? Which not so bon mots did you find to be the stupidist, most vile and generally destructive to the health and well-being of the national discourse?

I’ve named my top three below.

UPDATE: To be clear, I picked a trio of verbal hair balls coughed up by conservative commentators because these were the three examples that were most vividly lodged in my own particular (liberal-leaning) memory. But there’s been plenty of frog vomit and idiocy to go around among both conservatives and liberals. I’m sure the diligent among you can come up with some doozies of your own from each side of the blue/red fence.


1.. Quite a few Ann Coulter remarks make my top ten. But this one was definitely the winner.
(Actually, I look forward to a year when Coulter isn’t in my top three.) When asked on CNBC’s show, The Big Idea, for her wish for an ideal America, Ann Coulter said that everyone would be Christian. “It would be better if we were all Christian?” ” asked show host, Donny Deutsch. “Yes,” she said with her typical glassy-eyed smile. Deutsch pursued it, suggesting Coulter couldn’t possibly be serious. “There would be no Jews?” Deutch asked. Coulter smiled. “Yes, but they would be perfected, as they say.”

2. Second place in my book goes to the moment when on September 26, Rush Limbaugh called American service people who advocated withdrawal from the war in Iraq “phony soldiers.”

3. And third, but still a strong contender goes to nationally syndicated radio host Glenn Beck
who said that the victims of the October fires in Southern California hate America. “I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.”

If you’ll remember, last year
, Beck scored big in the stupidist media pundit remark race when he said to US representative-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, “I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’ ”

There are many more.
But these are my top picks.

What are yours?

NOTE: Next we’ll do both Dem and Repub presidential nominees, so start gathering those memorably bad quips from those who would be president.

Posted in Season of Lists | 46 Comments »

46 Responses

  1. "reg" Says:

    “Irionically”, two of the soldiers attacked by the druggie Limbaugh – who “sat out” the Vietnam war with a 4F obtained because of a (removable) cyst on his ass – for editiorializing their vew of the war from the ground were killed in Iraq a month later. I think Limbaugh deserves the “top” place for that bit of spew and Coulter should be discounted as a phony pulbicity-seeker who’s only trying to sell books.

    Certainly the psychopathic radio wingnut MIchael Savage deserves note for this: “You know, the Gore-leone crime family is now the number one crime family in the world, when you think about it. He’s about to pull off the biggest scam in the history of the world. It’s bigger than any bank heist, bigger than any drug deal. It’s bigger than any counterfeiting scheme, and he’s doing it all nice and natural with a little help from the socialist perverts in Norway, who gave him a Nobel Prize. Why do I call them socialist perverts? Answer: because they are. By and large, 90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies.”

    And there was this from that poor twisted guy who has hated America his entire life – simply shifting from the far left to the far right version of shamelessly propagandizing against liberal values – David Horowitz: “Why do liberals love water-boarding? Because it gives them yet another opportunity for self-righteous anger and the moral hatred that goes with it — hate as always directed against America and its democracy. It gives them a chance to deflect their attention away from what they have actually been doing, which is to sabotage the war against terror in Iraq.”

    (I’m tempted to give recovering “international markets uber alles” cheerleader Paul Krugman honorable mention for calling Barack Obama the “anti-change candidate” in this election and claiming in an interview with TPM that Obama’s less progressive than Hillary Clinton, but I think I’ll leave that family feud alone.)

  2. "reg" Says:

    Since it’s not yet officially published, but available only in the review copies that are generating quite a lot of hysterical laughter, Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” will have to wait until your 2008 edition. But look for pathologically wingnut stuff like this:

    “It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion.”

    “The first appearance of modern totalitarianism in the Western world wasn’t in Italy or Germany but in the United States of America.”

  3. Woody Says:

    Celeste, by presenting only the liberal side and excluding the responses and meanings of those who made the statements, you’re guilty of smears and yellow journalism. Do some homework before you blindly accept the left-wing talking points or admit that you intentionally want to hurt people without all the facts.

    The wild attacks of the left are so outrageous and numerous that I’m surprised that you couldn’t find one that was offensive.

  4. Woody Says:

    From the no news from Iraq can be presented as good news department:
    “As Violence Falls in Iraq, Cemetery Workers Feel the Pinch”

  5. "reg" Says:

    I’ll add this one in a special “homegrown/backyard moonshiine” department:

    “you’re guilty of smears and yellow journalism..admit you intentionally want to hurt people without all the facts.”

  6. Woody Says:

    Lesson on distorting quotes:
    LINK: Jackie Broyles Vs. Mike Huckabee

  7. L.A. Resident Says:

    “you’re guilty of smears and yellow journalism..admit you intentionally want to hurt people without all the facts”

    *********************

    I agree that’s is a pretty good example right there. I also remember Celeste being accused of liking Huckabee, because she is part of the liberal conspiracy supporting Huckabee.

    Come on Celeste, admit it, you’re a Nazi, Communist and radical Islamist who hates American. I have an extra Che Guevara, Anti-Christmas tee-shirt left over, just for you.

  8. Woody Says:

    Of course, no parody disproves the accusation and fact. It only deflects attention of people stupid enough to fall for that.

  9. "reg" Says:

    “people stupid enough”

    Mirror, mirror on the wall…

  10. "reg" Says:

    This is a different order of incredibly-fucking-stupid-and-damaging-to-rational-public-discourse than, say, Coultergeist’s serial vomit-fests, but (thnx to GGreenwald) we can’t let any catalog of dubious and/or dumb punditry in the primary season pass without including The Shouter:

    “Does he have sex appeal? . . . Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man’s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of, a little bit of cigar smoke?” –
    Chris Matthews, fantasizing about the pleasing, manly body smells of Fred Thompson.

  11. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Woody, I haven’t followed your links yet, but I welcome them. I have no doubt that there are many stupid and awful things made by liberal commentators. However, in terms of the three I listed, I looked very carefully at the full context and I think all three easily hit the marks of stupid and vile.

    This is not a slam at conservatives, only against these three commentators for what they said.

  12. Randy Paul Says:

    Celeste, by presenting only the liberal side and excluding the responses and meanings of those who made the statements, you’re guilty of smears and yellow journalism. Do some homework before you blindly accept the left-wing talking points or admit that you intentionally want to hurt people without all the facts.

    Welcome to the dark side, Celeste [cue organ music]!

  13. Woody Says:

    Celeste, those comments offered without additional disclosure makes them misleading. Did you attempt to get Limbaugh’s side and actual intent? Just like you showed us how easy it was to check on someone from the internet, all you had to do was to go to Limbaugh’s site to see what he had to say.

    I’m not a Limbaugh defender, but I do expect the truth–especially when it comes from a site defending justice.

    I want to illustrate something for you today, folks. I’ve done it before. I want to do it again. I call this the anatomy of a smear, and what this is is a great illustration of the liberals and the Democrat Party playbook for ’08, which is underway now. The morning update on Wednesday dealt with a soldier, a fake, phony soldier by the name of Jesse MacBeth who never served in Iraq; he was never an Army Ranger. He was drummed out of the military in 44 days. He had his day in court; he never got the Purple Heart as he claimed, and he described all these war atrocities. He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop ‘em up. When it is demonstrated that they have been lying about things, then they just forget about it. There’s no retraction; there’s no apology; there’s no, “Uh-oh, sorry.” After doing that morning update on Wednesday, I got a phone call yesterday from somebody, we were talking about the troops, and this gentleman said something which you’ll hear here in just a second, prompting me to reply “yeah, the phony soldiers.”

    That comment, “phony soldiers” was posted yesterday afternoon on the famous Media Matters website, which is where all leftists go to find out what I say. I have a website, and I have a radio program that reaches far more people than Media Matters could ever hope to, but the critics of this program never listen to this program. They never go to my website. All they do is read Media Matters and they get the lies and the out-of-context reports. They assume it’s all true because they want it to be true, and then they start their campaigns. This has led to me being denounced on the floor of the House. Howard Dean has released a statement demanding I apologize; Jim Webb; John Kerry issued a statement, three Congress people went out on the floor of the House last night and said some things, and it’s starting to blossom now in the Drive-By Media. So this is the anatomy of a smear, and this is how it starts. The same group is trying to get Bill O’Reilly into problems because of some innocent comments that he made about going to dinner at a restaurant in Harlem. So the illustration begins with just a sample report from MSNBC whose content is produced almost exclusively by Media Matters for America and MoveOn.org. This is this morning with the anchorette Contessa Brewer reporting on the phony soldier controversy, spawned by me.

    …That was the transcript from yesterday’s program, talking about one phony soldier. The truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose, which is exactly the way the website, Media Matters, generated this story, fiction, out of context, did so knowingly. What is amazing is that after all of the examples of how this organization is simply a Democrat Party Hillary Clinton front group; how they constantly do this; how they take things out of context and embarrass themselves and get things wrong; they still have credible so-called journalists and others, members of Congress, Democrat Party, who treat what they say as gospel. Not one member of the media, not one congressman, nobody has called our office to ask, “Did you really say this? And what did you mean by it?” The reason this does not work, ladies and gentlemen, is that I have a 19-and-a-half-year record on this program of being one of the most devoted supporters of US military personnel in uniform that there is.

    Was that “vile or stupid,” or were the attacks against him deserving of that description? There are many sites explaining and showing the moderation of his comment. Why were they ignored? Shouldn’t we get away from those short sound bites and check the substance of comments from Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, and others?

    Now, how did you feel about “General Petraeus vs. Betrayus?” How do you feel about pundits wanting Bush and Cheney dead? If you want to display hate, look toward your friends, not those of conservatives.

  14. Randy Paul Says:

    Post-facto ass-covering.

  15. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Woody, Randy’s right. If you listen to the audio in its totality from the link I posted, Limbaugh’s context is entirely clear. Then in the stuff you posted, he’s trying to spin his remark after the fact so he doesn’t look so lousy. The truth is, he blew it totally with this one.

    The point of this exercise, by the way, is not to suggest that my choices were definitive—because they’re not. But to open the floor up to everyone to point out the idiocy that often passes for commentary.

    In fact, I believe I’ll update the post to reflect that.

  16. Woody Says:

    You hear what you want to hear and ignore anything that you don’t.

    How disingenuous was this leftist attack on Limbaugh? Let us count the ways.

    1. Before reviewing the facts of the case, one has to shake his head in disbelief that anyone would accuse Limbaugh of an anti-military bias. A day doesn’t go by when he isn’t praising our military on his radio program. He’s visited the troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and brought comfort to our wounded at the Walter Reed Army hospital. He’s raised and donated millions to military charities. It is no wonder that he is the single most popular personality on the Armed Forces Radio Network.

    2. Less than two minutes after uttering the words “phony soldiers,” Limbaugh elaborated on the subject, explaining exactly what he meant by the term. He named one Jesse Macbeth as an example of a phony soldier. Macbeth had become an overnight darling of the far left, a self-described Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient man who posted a YouTube video denouncing American military atrocities he’d witnessed. Except he was never awarded a Purple Heart. He was never in Iraq. In fact, he was never in the military, period. He was tossed out of boot camp after four months. Macbeth is now in prison serving a five-month term for falsifying Army records and applying falsely for veterans’ benefits. Limbaugh was right.

    Limbaugh also pointed that that he wasn’t the first to discuss the Macbeth phony soldier story. Brian Ross had filed a report on this man several nights before, on ABC’s World News. Mr. Ross even used the term “phony soldier” — and not a soul on the left found fault with that.

    3. So the left returned with another charge: Limbaugh had used the plural, “phony soldiers,” therefore Limbaugh’s sole example — Macbeth — was inadequate. So are there any other “phony soldiers” out there? Jeffrey Sullivan, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, thinks so. Besides prosecuting Macbeth, he’s prosecuted another five “phony soldiers.” Jim O’Neill, the assistant inspector general for investigations at the Veterans Administration, confirms that the federal government is presently conducting another 60 such “stolen valor” cases. Rush was right, in spades.

    And when Rush fought back, that military hawk Sen. Tom Harkin took to the floor of the Senate to denounce him for engaging in a publicity stunt, for ratings. In other words, Rush had no right to defend himself.

    4. The left knows Rush was correct, yet, just as with the spurious racist accusations against Bill O’Reilly the week before, the attacks continued for days, unabated. This is no accident, and no coincidence. Yesterday it was MoveOn. Today it’s Media Matters. This is the far left at its repugnant worst, perfectly content to destroy a man’s reputation through dishonest attacks if it will further its agenda. Josef Stalin would be proud of this movement.

    I think a person should be viewed by the totality of what he says aand what he means. If one has to resort to so-called mistakes for an attack, then that shows the person whom they attack must not have outrageous comments of substance–as opposed to those on the left, whose venom is well known and well intended and regularly spewed.

    Here’s your friend and hero, if you care so much about our soldiers: LINK

  17. Woody Says:

    Outraged? LINK: Ted Rall *

    *Ted Rall: In 1996, he was one of three Finalists for the Pulitzer Prize. He was one of the New York Times’ most reprinted cartoonists in 1997, 1999 and 2001. He also did color strips for both Time Magazine and Fortune Magazine from 1998 to 2001. He was awarded the 1998 Deadline Club Award by the Society of Professional Journalists for his cartoons. Rall received first place in both the 1995 and 2000 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards for Cartoons. The award, founded in 1968, recognizes distinguished work on behalf of disadvantaged Americans.

    Or, outraged at this statement made twice? LINK: Betty Williams **

    **Betty Williams: Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Schweitzer Medallion for Courage, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award, the Eleanor Roosevelt Award, the Frank Foundation Child Care International Oliver Award, heads the Global Children’s Foundation, and is President of the World Centers of Compassion for Children International.

  18. "reg" Says:

    “Now, how did you feel about “General Petraeus vs. Betrayus?”
    I’m not bothering to read that fountain of drivel – if a person’s statements need that much ‘splainin’, there’s a problem. And of course Woody talks about how he doesn’t have time to read other people’s links. But I do know that before there was any MoveOn brouhaha, the druggie draft-dodger Limbauh called the conservative Republican Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel “Senator Betrayus.” So he and his defenders can just shut the fuck up on that one. This man is a prime example of media whores who will do or say anything, no matter how vile or politically and personally destructive, just to keep on top of the ratings heap feeding the damaged psyches of Dittohead wackjobs.

  19. Woody Says:

    Consider that Limbaugh is an entertainer more than a news journalist.

  20. "reg" Says:

    And while you’re in engaged in a phony “holier than thou” act and defending the absurdly indefensible, castiing aspersions on the host and typically making an ass of yourself, how do you feel about Coultergeist wishing the New York Times had been blown up or that Bill Clinton could be assassinated rather than impeached ?

  21. Randy Paul Says:

    He was one of the New York Times’ most reprinted cartoonists in 1997, 1999 and 2001

    I call bullshit. The New York Times does not publish cartoons. Indeed, the only time it carries cartoons is on Sunday in the This Week in Review section in which it reprints cartoons from other news sources.

    In fact, Ted Rall has cartoons in the Village Voice as well as syndicated cartoons through Universal Press Syndicate.

    I certainly don’t defend him and never had. As for Betty Williams, I met her on a few occasions when I worked for the lecture agency that represented her. She is as crazy as a loon. The real heart and soul of the peace movement in Northern Ireland when Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize was her co-winner Mairead Corrigan. I certainly don’t want to see george Bush killed. I want him to live a long time so the full and harsh judgment of his presidency can be seen by him.

    Finally, L. Brent Bozell, again, Woody – in a completely unsourced column? What’s wrong, you couldn’t find Rush’s mother?

  22. "reg" Says:

    You know Woody, you would have been welcome to find some silly or utterly obtuse some liberal or alleged liberal journalist said (I did!), but all you can do is come here and whine because Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have been “unfairly maligned” by the “yellow journalist” Celeste Fremon. My advice is to quit whining and wetting your pants everytime some rightwing wackjob gets called out – Grow The Fuck Up !!!

    And quit boring us with reams of bullshit…

  23. Woody Says:

    Tough, reg.

    How about a revealing statement?

    “You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, ‘Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?’ And I said, ‘That’s what journalists do.’ And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I’ve ever had.”
    — Co-host Diane Sawyer joking on ABC’s Good Morning America July 12, following a report on how some people try to avoid serving on a jury.

  24. "reg" Says:

    “Consider that Limbaugh is more of an entertainer than a news journalist.”
    Oh…you mean like some guy who, say, draws cartoons ?

    Incidentally, Woody clearly wants to hurt people by intentionally failing to disclose all of the context and facts. He’s guilty of smears and yellow journalism, when you consider the following statement by the New York Times on cartoonist Rall: “After two years of monitoring cartoons by Ted Rall, we have decided that, while he often does good work, we found some of his humor was not in keeping with the tone we try to set for our website,” said Len Apcar, the editor of NYTimes.com (in March of 2004.) “While NYTimes.com and its parent company support the right of free expression, we also recognize an obligation to assure our users that what we publish, no matter what its origin, does not offend the reasonable sensibilities of our audience.” The cartoon Woody linked to was penned by Rall in July of 2007. I’m not defending the Times’ decision to dump Rall nor Rall’s satire – some of which I myself have found offensive. Just letting folks know that one of our backporch “pundits” cannot to be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

  25. "reg" Says:

    And I “cannot to be” trusted to construct impeccably grammatical sentences when I’m typing this stuff.

  26. Randy Paul Says:

    Diane Sawyer worked in the Nixon White House.

  27. "reg" Says:

    Why would I give a flying fuck about Diane Sawyer ? I never watch her and consider her “journalism” a joke. What else have you got ?

  28. Why Bother to Comment VI Says:

    It’s impossible to make a comment here without being attacked by that hysterically ranting reg, so like many others who’ve tried on this blog I wouldn’t waste my time trying to do so.

    I’ll just suggest this, Celeste: Easy as it is to mock Ann Coulter and Limbaugh since they’re larger than life, and I can’t stand the sound of either of them and agree they’re obnoxious (but maybe intentionally so, as entertainers, like Woody says — otherwise, who’d listen to a pasty fat white guy and a scrawny bleached blonde?), couldn’t you have found someone from the left to make fun of, too, to show some attempt to find a balance or middle ground on this blog?

    Beck’s comment was foolish but hardly ranks as the year’s all- time worst. If you read the L A Times reader blog on the fires, you’d see there were many remarks from the other side that were just as stupid, along the lines of, who cares about a bunch of rich white people burning down, serves them right. Ann Coulter’s religious remark: If you go to any evangelical (or Mormon) church, that’s exactly what they feel but might not say it so crudely: to “save” someone’s soul you must help them to be converted to Christianity, in other words, to see that the Old Testament (of the Jews) is only a precursor to the “perfected” New Testament, which clarifies some of that vindictive fire-and-brimstone Kill- your- only son to prove your love for god stuff with the symbolic sacrifice of ultimate love Christ made for us all.

    Rush Limbaugh, is a misogynistic/ anti-environmental old fool who exists only because idiots like reg do. Rush’s comment that we should think twice about elected Hillary because “who wants to see a woman age in office?” is enough to make me want to elect her. (Right wingers like him also love to make fun of older women like Nancy Pelosi for their face lifts, etc., as thought he sight of fat pig old guys is a beautiful sight to behold.) Worst of all: his disputing that anything we do in terms of pollution harms the environment. (Attack Gore as a hypocrite who makes millions off the global warming issue/ credits/ etc., but to say we can pollute and deforest all we want without impact is just criminal.)

  29. Celeste Fremon Says:

    “….couldn’t you have found someone from the left to make fun of, too, to show some attempt to find a balance or middle ground on this blog?”

    Probably. Quite honestly, they’re harder to find. Not because the left is any less dopey. But the remarks I found with the idea of posting them weren’t anywhere near as over-the-top and dramatic. (There’s a lot of left-leaning conspiracy theory nonsense, but it doesn’t lend itself to this kind of list.)

    I’m having the same issue as I look for annoying quips by the candidates. Some of the repubs are more outrageously quotable, whereas the dems are mostly irritating for what they don’t say.

    That’s why I was hoping that you guys would come up with something more impressive than I turned up in the time I allocated.

    Woody’s Betty Williams thing was a good one.

  30. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Now, see this 1994 quote is the kind of mind-numbingly stupid burbling I was looking for from idiots on the liberal side of things:

    “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease…. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas”

    But even at this website, which lists—as of Nov. of this year— the “Top 10 Most Outrageous Liberal Media Quotes from the Last 20 Years,” there’s nothing more recent than 2006, so what’s a poor listmaker to do????

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23251&page=1

    I do like the 2001 Dan Rather quote, though:

    Host Bill O’Reilly: “Do you think President Clinton’s an honest man?”
    Dan Rather: “Yes, I think he’s an honest man…. I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.”

  31. Kevin Says:

    Diane Sawyer is, indeed, an idiot, but she is, and always has been, a Republican.

  32. Kevin Says:

    But Celeste, isn’t that Human Events story just a bunch of smears and yellow journalism? After all, it doesn’t also have a bunch of stupid statements by conservatives.

  33. Why Bother to Comment VI Says:

    Look for Silly Lib Tricks, huh? Woody is the best and most motivated seeker in this regard, but when I come across something…(not tonight, just a brief check here.) You’re right that the main Dem candidates are trying to be too bland for these kinds of quotes, especially Hillary, who’s had her quotable moments in the past In an LAT Op Ed 11/8/07, “It Worked for FDR, James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn compare her “cautious and vague campaign” to yes, FDR’s winning strategy.

    But remember, the three you picked are pundits, and when someone like Maggie quotes over-the-top essays by the likes of Rosa Brooks claiming Bush/Cheney are literally psychotic, that Iran is harmless because it has the GDP of Finland and never invaded anyone (openly, of course), the likes of reg and ric jump all over themselves attacking the commenter. I genuinely believe the left can’t see absurdity from the left.

    By the way: There are even plenty of moderate Dems who worry that the kinds of things these two say to dismiss Iran as a threat are minimizing the very real threat from whacky Pres. Ahmadenijad and Iran. It’s true that the Ayatollah has the real power and Ahmedenijad is a figure of fun even to the more cosmopolitan Iranians: but he was hand picked by the Ayatollah precisely to be his public alter ego, to say what he thinks, and take the heat as a diversion. Pretty clever.

    Does anyone think this nutcase would be saying and doing what he does if the Ayatollahs didn’t fully support him?

  34. "reg" Says:

    “It’s impossible to make a comment here without being attacked by that hysterically ranting reg, so like many others who’ve tried on this blog I wouldn’t waste my time trying to do so.”

    MANY, MANY SENTENCES LATER…

    “Rush Limbaugh, is a misogynistic/ anti-environmental old fool who exists only because idiots like reg do”

    Gotta love this stuff…

  35. Randy Paul Says:

    Woody’s Betty Williams thing was a good one.

    Celeste, trust me on this: while she can be an inspiring speaker when speaking on Northern Ireland, if you talk to her in a less formal setting, you realize that she’s a few items short of a combo plate.

    “Rush Limbaugh, is a misogynistic/ anti-environmental old fool who exists only because idiots like reg do”

    My God, reg, there’s a side of you I didn’t know about!

  36. "reg" Says:

    “when someone like Maggie quotes over-the-top essays by the likes of Rosa Brooks claiming Bush/Cheney are literally psychotic, that Iran is harmless because it has the GDP of Finland and never invaded anyone (openly, of course), the likes of reg and ric jump all over themselves attacking the commenter.”

    Time to Rewind…

    # “reg” Says:
    November 23rd, 2007 at 7:19 am

    Lest we forget just how wack Maggie is, she’s pissed because I pointed out the following comment of hers was “crazy”, which it obviously is: (Quoting Fareed Zakaria, as quoted by Rosa Brooks:) “And yet we are to believe that TEHRAN IS ABOUT TO OVERUN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AND REPLACE IT WITH AN ISLAMO-FASCIST ORDER ?” (Maggie’s rejoinder – WELL YEAH – because it’s Iran’s leader in his funny suits who’s a nutcase, in denial of reality, and hence liable to do anything.)”

    Rather than elaborate even the bare bones of any substantive argument that this equation of the Iranian threat and the Iranian political reality with much more powerful and, in fact, totalitarian systems that we have faced in the past, like Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China is anything other than an article of faith (and paranoia), she’s still just ranting away in the next thread about “Che Guevara tee-shirts” and other purely ad hominem crap. We are to believe that Fareed Zakaria is “worse than imbecilic” (Maggie’s words) and she’s “rational.” Very bizarre, very sad, and very scary if one actually ran up against such a person in the real world. (END CLIP)

    If you wanty to keep playing this game of serial ad hominem, you’ll get no free passes for your half-baked bullshit, lady !

  37. Why Bother to Comment VI Says:

    To quote your esteemed colleague, Randy (now, there’s a nice double entendre perfect for the occasion — “My God, reg, there’s a side of you I don’t know about!” he says peeved, after all those intimate moments — Paul: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    What Maggie said in totality is a reply to Rosa Brooks’ nutty comments which did make her sound more psychotic than her targets — but you can’t judge these things as a psychotic, reg. Especially when you don’t have the education, perspective or wordly experience to have any idea about anything in the real world. Take those meds — I hear they work pretty well. Or try jumping jacks to exhausiton or shadowboxing — better uses of your and everyone’s time.

  38. "reg" Says:

    More substantive analysis from the worldy intellectual…

  39. "reg" Says:

    oops…”worldly”

  40. Randy Paul Says:

    WBTCVI:

    My God, you can’t even come up with an original comment.

  41. Woody Says:

    reg has a way of ruining discussions.

  42. Woody Says:

    Looking back up, you guys are idiots regarding Diane Sawyer. Let’s try this again.

    “You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, ‘Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?’ And I said, ‘That’s what journalists do.’ And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I’ve ever had.”
    — Co-host Diane Sawyer joking on ABC’s Good Morning America July 12, following a report on how some people try to avoid serving on a jury.

    Now, was that a statement against Diane Sawyer or the field of journalism? The courtoom only laughed at her naive belief. Honest journalism was the target.

    You guys are so stupid.

  43. richard locicero Says:

    Boy! A guy goes away for a rest and whenj he comes back he gets all this. Think I’ll check back into the hospital!

  44. Randy Paul Says:

    Looking back up, you guys are idiots regarding Diane Sawyer. Let’s try this again.

    Woody,

    Facts that you may be unaware of:

    1.) Diane Sawyer lives in Manhattan, one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the nation. Most of us know that she’s a Republican.

    2.) The potential jurors may very well have been laughing not at what was said, but who said it.

    I know calling us idiots gives you the warm tinglies, but you’re the one constantly making post hoc ergo propter hoc presumptions that demonstrate with consistency that you have no idea about that which you write.

  45. Woody Says:

    Randy, I know what was intended. You read what you want. At least you didn’t end your last sentence in a preposition.

  46. Randy Paul Says:

    Randy, I know what was intended.

    Now you have delusions of omniscience. Congratulations

Leave a Comment





Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.