Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $70,554
83%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 83%!! Less than $14.5k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by presidio9

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/16/2014 11:19:55 PM PDT · 86 of 91
    presidio9 to Kenny Bunk

    Somehow I made it through my thesis without your help. The composition is quite different from the colloquial manner of social media. But again, if lecturing people on formatting errors (as opposed to actually reading threads and contributing intelligently -or not) is the best that you can manage, then I salute your effort sir. It takes a village.

    I’ll keep that link handy though. Just in case LIU ever offers my field of study and I opt to double down. Or perhaps someday I’ll change my mind and decide to become a librarian or pharmacist. Go Blackbirds.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/16/2014 3:11:02 PM PDT · 83 of 91
    presidio9 to Elsie
    Do ya think the GOP powers that be have learned their lesson about backing a man whose chosen religion is an anathema to a Nation of Christian voters?

    Not sure how that could have been this issue when his opponent was a Muslim/atheist/religious opportunist.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/16/2014 3:07:27 PM PDT · 82 of 91
    presidio9 to Kenny Bunk
    I do confess that after 15 years and 30,000 posts to FR, it does still amuse me when intellectual heavyweights still feel like observations on formatting, typos or grammar pass for essential dialog. Particularly so from those who apparently believe that the "RTFT before posting" guideline does not apply to them. For all the problems you had reading the initial post, you could have saved yourself the effort of responding, had you simply scrolled down to post 30 of this thread. But that wasn't your mission here. You wanted make sure I knew that that you think graduate degrees are a waste of time. Some are. Some are essential.

    I have no idea what it is that you think I plagiarized (perhaps you're confused), but I will assure you that I worked full time during the day and went to school at night. I received an academic scholarship, and paid the rest myself. I can afford it. I happen to know this year's commencement speaker, but I won't be attending.

    I posted my observations from the unique perspective of someone who actually attended a school that is a frequent topic of conversations for conservatives. Apparently you'd rather form your own benighted opinions stick to trying to convince yourself that you know everything. Best of luck with that. And smile: God loves you.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 10:38:40 PM PDT · 74 of 91
    presidio9 to demshateGod
    I was just telling someone the other day that I believe the rise of conservative media has caused the untended consequence of pushing mainstream media all the way to the left. Before they reported bad things about their heroes, then made excuses. Now they don’t even report it.

    Sadly, 100% accurate. Just ask liberal but honest former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. My lefty friends never heard of her either. There was a time when every journalist alive would have thought that the circumstances of her departure were big news. Even if they disagreed with her completely. Today, its quite clear that they would rather turn a blind eye to her professional integrity than risk criticism of the current administration.

    Even four years ago, I figured this was all a house of cards. Now, apart from the fact that Clintons do still have a lot of enemies on the left side of the aisle, I'm not so sure.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 10:22:57 PM PDT · 73 of 91
    presidio9 to 2ndDivisionVet
    Other than that....

    ...WaPo counts as mainstream media in this country. The Week does not. That is the difference.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 10:20:42 PM PDT · 72 of 91
    presidio9 to tumblindice
    You may be experiencing something the sociologists/behavioral scientists call the `halo effect’: `This lefty went to Columbia, so did I.’

    So he can’t be all bad, hmmm?

    Actually, I very rarely think anybody is "all bad." If that's the reaction to certain people that I should be striving for, then I guess my parents failed me in that regard.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 2:48:34 PM PDT · 59 of 91
    presidio9 to 2ndDivisionVet

    There’s a big difference between “The Week,” and WaPo.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 2:44:49 PM PDT · 58 of 91
    presidio9 to miss marmelstein

    I think you are missing my point. I had no preconceptions. I was also studying a topic more related to science than politics of philosophy. But even in that area, I was shocked at some of the things I heard (on a regular basis): “The ‘science’ of Climate Change’ is settled,” “’Fracking’ is ‘dangerous,’” etc. I do agree with you that financial pressure is the best way to get these institutions to change. But (you’ll have to trust me on this one) For the field of study that I was interested in (somewhat obscure, but with immediate professional utility for me personally), there simply was no alternative in the United States. Its a pain in the ass, but it is possible to learn for some of these experts without agreeing with them on every subject.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 2:18:45 PM PDT · 49 of 91
    presidio9 to miss marmelstein
    No, I knew pretty much what I was getting myself into when I signed up for the place that welcomed the opinions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    What shocked me was just how complete the level of ignorance actually was. Even before I went to Columbia, I occasionally watched MSNB (especially on big political nights like the SoTU or elections), just to see what the other side was hearing. I preferred Rachael Maddow, because (while she is sarcastic and condescending), at least she doesn't yell. The big moment, for me, was when was having a conversation with a classmate who is religious (Epsicopalian, I believe), southern, sensitive, and very bright. He's also in his 70's and gay (which, I suppose is one of the ways a southerner gets to be a liberal). I mentioned Kermit Gosnell, and he said "Who's he?" This was while the trial was going on. Never heard the name. Even if you are the most pro-abortion person in the world, how can that be possible?

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 2:04:48 PM PDT · 44 of 91
    presidio9 to righttackle44
    but he would qualify, by most standards, as highly educated. I believe that he has a masters in journalism from the Pulitzer school at Columbia.
  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 2:01:03 PM PDT · 42 of 91
    presidio9 to miss marmelstein

    Actually, I learned a great deal about my chosen profession. The insight into the black hole that is the educated liberal mind was a side effect. I already knew a great deal from having lived for a decade in Greenwich Village, and in Westchester and Palm Beach counties. But one does get a unique level of insight by spending every night for two years walking around the campus of Columbia.

    I used to think a lot of these people, Obama included, were evil geniuses. It turns out that most of them just don’t care to know the truth about a lot of things.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 1:51:36 PM PDT · 35 of 91
    presidio9 to kingattax; miss marmelstein
    if you decide to dive in there, please take some survival gear with you.

    Sorry, never heard of you. Hope whatever is bothering you personally works out for you. Whatever it was: Dude, that was (at least) two years ago. I haven't been here. Have a great day.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 1:45:56 PM PDT · 30 of 91
    presidio9 to Mycroft Holmes; miss marmelstein
    Thanks Mycroft. I did pick up a thing or two in 30,000 posts to FR, and agree that a lack of paragraph breaks can be confusing. It's just been so long that I posted here, and I assumed (incorrectly it turns out) that HTLM formatting was not required in the post commentary. I'll try to never let it happen again (what was I thinking?).

    Under deep cover as a graduate student at perhaps the most liberal University in the United States, I have been away from FR for quite some time now. I've learned a lot about the way an intelligent and highly educated liberal east coast mind works. I believe that this article presents something of a teachable moment in that regard. I won’t speak to Mr. Cohen’s intelligence, but he would qualify, by most standards, as highly educated. I believe that he has a masters in journalism from the Pulitzer school at Columbia. He has also shown a willingness to cross the aisle on matters of foreign policy, particularly when the pertain to Israel. When he writes about terrorism, I read him, if only to hear what the other side is being told about an issue. –And that, in a nutshell, is the main issue for Conservatives when it comes to Benghazi. We are appalled at the death of four Americans, and the fact that the perpetrators are still at large. Given the duration of the attack, we wonder whether anything could have been done to save them. We recognize the White House’s response for what it was: A misuse of power in an attempt to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug so as not to allow them to influence an upcoming election. We are angered by the actions of sworn public servants to hinder subsequent investigations. But, most of all, we see this issue as a touchstone for something very wrong in today’s political marketplace: A complete breakdown in the media’s obligation to present all of the facts to their audience.

    In the last three years, for obvious reasons, I went to great efforts to avoid talking about politics. I was surrounded by affable, but true-believing, liberals. I was investing a lot of time and money into an advanced degree. I could not afford to waste it arguing. Nevertheless, I cannot tell you how many times I was surprised to learn that my highly intelligent and successful professional Ivy League classmates in their 30’s and 40’s had not heard names, places and terms that I supposed were common knowledge: “Single Payer System.” “Kermit Gosnell.” “Brian Terry.” The difference between a “machine gun” and a “semi-automatic weapon.” The fact that Mitt Romney had no intention of putting GM out of business and laying off all of its workers. Or that John McCain never said he wanted to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine. Or that Paul Ryan was trying to SAVE Social Security and Medicare. “Benghazi.” Not “didn’t care” –“never HEARD.”

    What became very clear to me during this time is the extent to which liberals and conservatives get their facts from very different sources. Personally, I have always disagreed with the Conservative canon on two or three important issues. Which ones they are is irrelevant. I make a point of never proselytizing here. The point, which most people here are very aware of, is the liberal tendency to form opinions without having all the facts. It seems that we have become so politically divided in this country that virtually everyone who cares about politics gets all of their information from entertainment news shows (like FOX and MSNBC) or simply entertainment (like Comedy Central and the major networks).

    We know that journalism appeals to a disproportionate share of young liberals. There is a liberal culture in media, and that probably will never change. We live in a center-right nation that gets its news from people that it disagrees with. That was the inspiration behind FOX, and the reason why it is the #1 rated cable news channel. Unfortunately, somewhere in the last decade, (I would say it was during the first Obama campaign), liberals on other networks began to assess their ratings correctly: They finally understood the reason behind the fact that 1/3 of the nation preferred to get their news from people they agreed with, and decided to write them off in favor of the other third. In doing this, they put themselves into competition with themselves for the liberal base. At that point, they decided to trust FOX, and only FOX, to present one side of the story.

    Liberals who watched the news used to hear views, news, and opinions about things that they didn’t care about because journalists took their jobs seriously. Now they get a steady stream of what they want to hear, and if they’re lucky, weak straw-man arguments like the ones presented in the last paragraph. Is it any wonder that they (Mr. Cohen included) have finally concluded that a political philosophy that includes geniuses like (you don’t have to agree with everything these people say, just recognize that they are among the smartest political philosophers alive today) Dr. Ben Carson, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Gigot, Thomas Sowell, George Will, Laura Ingraham, Daniel Henninger, Mark Steyn, etc., is nothing but a bunch of uneducated yokels? They are working off a different script.

    I suppose that I will need to turn these thoughts into a standalone vanity piece at some point when I have more time. For the moment, I will say that I have come to the conclusion that FOX is actually part of the problem. The solution is for more conservatives to get themselves hired at liberal news networks. The solution is not another network perceived as only conservative. That will only exacerbate the problem.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 1:28:41 PM PDT · 6 of 91
    presidio9 to miss marmelstein

    A graduate student, who cuts & pastes to save time. These are my sometimes hard-won observations. I’ve bitten my tongue so many times in the last two years that I’m lucky I can still eat a popsicle. I give you dispensation to insert the paragraphs wherever you want. The message is the same.

  • Richard Cohen: The GOP’s unhinged Benghazi fixation

    05/13/2014 1:22:42 PM PDT · 1 of 91
    presidio9
    Under deep cover as a graduate student at perhaps the most liberal University in the United States, I have been away from FR for quite some time now. I've learned a lot about the way an intelligent and highly educated liberal east coast mind works. I believe that this article presents something of a teachable moment in that regard. I won’t speak to Mr. Cohen’s intelligence, but he would qualify, by most standards, as highly educated. I believe that he has a masters in journalism from the Pulitzer school at Columbia. He has also shown a willingness to cross the aisle on matters of foreign policy, particularly when the pertain to Israel. When he writes about terrorism, I read him, if only to hear what the other side is being told about an issue. –And that, in a nutshell, is the main issue for Conservatives when it comes to Benghazi. We are appalled at the death of four Americans, and the fact that the perpetrators are still at large. Given the duration of the attack, we wonder whether anything could have been done to save them. We recognize the White House’s response for what it was: A misuse of power in an attempt to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug so as not to allow them to influence an upcoming election. We are angered by the actions of sworn public servants to hinder subsequent investigations. But, most of all, we see this issue as a touchstone for something very wrong in today’s political marketplace: A complete breakdown in the media’s obligation to present all of the facts to their audience. In the last three years, for obvious reasons, I went to great efforts to avoid talking about politics. I was surrounded by affable, but true-believing, liberals. I was investing a lot of time and money into an advanced degree. I could not afford to waste it arguing. Nevertheless, I cannot tell you how many times I was surprised to learn that my highly intelligent and successful professional Ivy League classmates in their 30’s and 40’s had not heard names, places and terms that I supposed were common knowledge: “Single Payer System.” “Kermit Gosnell.” “Brian Terry.” The difference between a “machine gun” and a “semi-automatic weapon.” The fact that Mitt Romney had no intention of putting GM out of business and laying off all of its workers. Or that John McCain never said he wanted to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine. Or that Paul Ryan was trying to SAVE Social Security and Medicare. “Benghazi.” Not “didn’t care” –“never HEARD.” What became very clear to me during this time is the extent to which liberals and conservatives get their facts from very different sources. Personally, I have always disagreed with the Conservative canon on two or three important issues. Which ones they are is irrelevant. I make a point of never proselytizing here. The point, which most people here are very aware of, is the liberal tendency to form opinions without having all the facts. It seems that we have become so politically divided in this country that virtually everyone who cares about politics gets all of their information from entertainment news shows (like FOX and MSNBC) or simply entertainment (like Comedy Central and the major networks). We know that journalism appeals to a disproportionate share of young liberals. There is a liberal culture in media, and that probably will never change. We live in a center-right nation that gets its news from people that it disagrees with. That was the inspiration behind FOX, and the reason why it is the #1 rated cable news channel. Unfortunately, somewhere in the last decade, (I would say it was during the first Obama campaign), liberals on other networks began to assess their ratings correctly: They finally understood the reason behind the fact that 1/3 of the nation preferred to get their news from people they agreed with, and decided to write them off in favor of the other third. In doing this, they put themselves into competition with themselves for the liberal base. At that point, they decided to trust FOX, and only FOX, to present one side of the story. Liberals who watched the news used to hear views, news, and opinions about things that they didn’t care about because journalists took their jobs seriously. Now they get a steady stream of what they want to hear, and if they’re lucky, weak straw-man arguments like the ones presented in the last paragraph. Is it any wonder that they (Mr. Cohen included) have finally concluded that a political philosophy that includes geniuses like (you don’t have to agree with everything these people say, just recognize that they are among the smartest political philosophers alive today) Dr. Ben Carson, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Gigot, Thomas Sowell, George Will, Laura Ingraham, Daniel Henninger, Mark Steyn, etc., is nothing but a bunch of uneducated yokels? They are working off a different script. I suppose that I will need to turn these thoughts into a standalone vanity piece at some point when I have more time. For the moment, I will say that I have come to the conclusion that FOX is actually part of the problem. The solution is for more conservatives to get themselves hired at liberal news networks. The solution is not another network perceived as only conservative. That will only exacerbate the problem.
  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 6:10:41 PM PST · 61 of 63
    presidio9 to GeronL
    I remember “Red Eye” but they spent so much time on crap that I didn’t think it was worth my time to watch, and I gave them a good try.

    Seek out and get to know xzins. You two were made for each other.

    Also, consider getting a dog.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 6:08:31 PM PST · 60 of 63
    presidio9 to xzins
    And, truly, who can fail to see the genius and humor of Neil Cavuto.

    I am seriously considering making this my new tagline for 2014.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 5:30:41 PM PST · 57 of 63
    presidio9 to xzins

    No offense taken. People who take the time out of their busy schedules to participate in threads and share their opinions about the 3AM TV programs they could do without are an endless source of fascination for me. Your point seems to be that you would prefer to by yucking it up with the folks at FOX Business Channel. I have no doubt you’re a delight at parties. Good move getting a dog.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 4:38:42 PM PST · 55 of 63
    presidio9 to xzins
    Besides all that, I reiterate MY POINT that the world would be better without Red Eye.

    Actually, you're point seems to about proving to the world that you were born without a functioning sense of humor. Why else would you feel so strongly about a cable news show that airs at 3AM, has an audience of about 400,000 viewers, and serves the function of teaching young people that conservatives are allowed to be funny.

    What's the matter? Are there no kids in the neighborhood for you to yell "KEEP OFF MY LAWN!!!" at?

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 3:10:06 PM PST · 53 of 63
    presidio9 to flaglady47
    Andy was a logical choice, and if Andy didn’t have his own quick humor, he wouldn’t have been on the show in his prior position either. Each to their own, but I like Andy, and I like his sense of humor, different from Bill’s as it may be.

    Would it help if I told you that Andy and Greg go way back, before the show. Andy used to write jokes for Greg on his blog. The two of them put the show together. The found Shultz in a back office (or something like that), took him out drinking, and decided that he needed a place at the table. I agree that Andy can be funny. Unfortunately, his sense of timing stinks, he takes wisecracks directed at him WAY too seriously, and, as I said, he stares at the camera when he's not talking. He was much better off in his role as ombudsman, where he could get his jokes down on paper and read them. Not everybody can do spontaneity. The show suffers with him at the table. He needs to be moved back to his original role and Greg needs to find an affable liberal ASAP. I agree that Bill won't be easy to replace.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 3:01:07 PM PST · 52 of 63
    presidio9 to Elle Bee
    You need to keep in mind that Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Kirsten Powers are all less sleazy versions of Lanny Davis. Their job is to present the liberal point of view. None is a hard core liberal. I agree that they don't always appear to believe the words that are coming out of their own mouths. But, again, that's not what they're there for. The only way to truly understand the strength of an argument is to test it out against the strongest opposing opinions. Keep in mind that Beckel gets along quite well with Conservative brother, and Williams defended Clarence Thomas during the nomination hearings and got fired from PBS for defending Fox News. Powers is the child of academics worked in Democratic campaigns for her entire career before joining Fox and is quite obviously conflicted with herself. At some point for her a domino is going to fall and she is going to step out into the light.
  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 2:51:01 PM PST · 51 of 63
    presidio9 to DemforBush
    BTW, am I the only one secretly hoping to see Michelle Malkin in the Red Eye “leg chair” some day?

    I like Michelle, but she takes herself WAY too seriously to ever appear on Red Eye. It's her loss. I always felt like Dana Pernio had a stick up her ass too. Appearing on the show and laughing along with Greg is probably what got her the gig on The Five.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 2:42:55 PM PST · 49 of 63
    presidio9 to x
    when you hear something like this in politics or show business -- "He’s been a close friend of mine for 13 years ..." -- it usually means, "I hate him and I've been dying to get rid of him."

    If you caught the announcement from Greg, he seemed to be making a genuine effort, but there was clearly not a lot of love in his voice.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/23/2013 2:40:34 PM PST · 48 of 63
    presidio9 to xzins
    I didn’t realize the article had a point.

    No surprise there. Missing points seems to be a habit for you. The article was about a FOX News entertainer leaving the network under mysterious circumstances. The discussion was about what makes a news parody program entertaining at 3AM. Does this help?

    And you've been here long enough that I won't insult you by reminding you to RTFT before you post.

  • Britney Spears' Music Used by British Navy to Scare Off Somali Pirates

    11/22/2013 8:09:17 PM PST · 29 of 30
    presidio9 to nascarnation; Travis T. OJustice; Slings and Arrows

    Everybody's entitled to a bad day.

    I still say "Not Guilty."

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 7:21:04 PM PST · 43 of 63
    presidio9 to Mike Darancette

    Bring back Stacey Dash!

    (seconded)

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 6:51:30 PM PST · 40 of 63
    presidio9 to xzins

    You are also missing the point.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 6:28:10 PM PST · 38 of 63
    presidio9 to Para-Ord.45

    And Porch unfortunately.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 6:25:59 PM PST · 37 of 63
    presidio9 to JediJones
    They've got enough leftists and half-leftists (libertarians). They need a regular Tea Party guy on staff to balance out the left-leaning slant of the show and the best choice is Gavin McInnes.

    If these are your concerns about the show, you are entirely missing the point.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 6:23:43 PM PST · 36 of 63
    presidio9 to All

    (requisite s.e. cup image)

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 6:20:25 PM PST · 35 of 63
    presidio9 to Lucky9teen; JediJones; Rodney Dangerfield; Para-Ord.45; DemforBush

    Agreed that the best replacement is probably the assorted members of the McInnes family. If Greg insists on keeping Andy at the table out of loyalty, I don’t think he should abandon the ombudsman role. Mike Baker has historically done the best job as his replacement, but I doubt he wants to join the show full time. S.E. Cupp was also great in that role, but she works for the enemy now. Personally I was a big fan of Dana Vachon. The show that I believe) got him fired was my personal favorite (when he used the entire Halftime Report to ask the guests non sequiturs. Unfortunately, he burned all his bridges with Fox after he left, so I am assuming he won’t be back. Also, as far as I’m concerned, Jedidiah Bila is cute but she brings nothing to the table in terms of humor. Unless there is someone else I want to see at the table, I usually switch it off and get some sleep when she’s on.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 1:39:42 PM PST · 18 of 63
    presidio9 to Sans-Culotte

    I did not say Bill is not a Democrat. I said he was playing a role on the show. But he was first and foremost a comedian. He frequently mocked the president, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, OWS, and any other leftist cause you can think of. That being said, of course he was the liberal. And the show needs to replace him with another one. Greg could say things to him he could not say to liberal guests without the conversation becoming antagonistic. Bill could do the same with Greg. The quality of the show has suffered without him and will continue to do so.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 1:34:20 PM PST · 17 of 63
    presidio9 to flaglady47
    Andy is a deeper thinker on issues and therefore is a bit darker in commentary; Bill was more flight of fantasy and a free thinker, quick on the draw with the witticisms.

    You just made my point for me. Nobody's looking for deep thoughts at 3:30 in the morning.

    I share your respect for Andy's military service, but I wouldn't watch a comedy show featuring General David Petraeus either.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 1:31:13 PM PST · 16 of 63
    presidio9 to clintonh8r; muggs
    I wondered where he was. These things are rarely “amiable.”

    After I noticed he was definitely gone about a week ago I started watching every night, thinking it might have been an elaborate gag -having him disappear for a while and not saying anything about it. So when Greg literally spent two sentences on it and then moved on to a video of a kitten attacking a puppy I figured there was much more to the story. If he was just getting his own show on MSNBC, no doubt they would have had some fun with it. On the other hand, Bill and Greg like to joke A LOT about drug abuse. I recognize that most of that is just jokes, but as I have some experience with that in my family, I hope for Bill's sake it's not that.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 1:21:16 PM PST · 11 of 63
    presidio9 to funfan

    I wonder if he will go to work for the O regime?

    I sincerely doubt it. Bill is a comedian who played the role of presenting the left's view. He is no kool-aid drinker, and enjoyed mocking the left just as much as he enjoyed mocking the right. Red Eye has had a significant drop off with him gone these last few weeks. Actually, it started when Greg moved Andy Levy (who is never funny and needs to lose his annoying habit of constantly staring at the camera) on to the table. He seems like a nice guy but he is hurting the show. If someone involved with the show reads the thread I need to be honest and say that I have loved Red Eye since 2002 but I probably won't watch as much unless you work very hard at finding a good replacement for Bill. And I know it won't be easy. I know this is a tough call since Andy was the one who discovered Greg, but, Andy, you are not the talent and you are hurting the show.

  • Fox’s Red Eye Announces the Departure of ‘Repulsive Sidekick’ Bill Schulz

    11/22/2013 1:07:28 PM PST · 1 of 63
    presidio9
  • Irish Lawmakers Expected to Approve Limited Abortion

    06/19/2013 8:31:25 PM PDT · 15 of 16
    presidio9 to Tax-chick

    Interesting argument when you factor in the fact that pregnant women are far less likely to commit suicide and women who have had an abortion are far more likely to do so.

  • Obama's Berlin speech: History raises the stakes

    06/19/2013 8:28:48 PM PDT · 41 of 44
    presidio9 to Cvengr; laplata

    I guarantee you the residents of Berlin today, liberal as they may be, place a lot more importance on “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” than they ever did on “”Ich bin ein Berliner.” But they don’t work for AssPress of course.

  • When He Talks Abortion, President Obama Pretends to Be a Libertarian

    06/19/2013 8:25:21 PM PDT · 227 of 228
    presidio9 to TArcher
    Maybe you should start by asking Jim how he feels about newbies who habitually stalk other FReepers, hijack threads for infantile agendas, engage in unsolicited personal attacks and continually misrepresent the opinions of longstanding and respected participants on the website.

    I'll give you a hint: They usually don't stick around very long. You are making a mistake pinging Jim into this, but by all means be my guest. My experience tells me that he will most likely ignore you anyway.

  • How they learned to stop worrying and love nuclear

    06/19/2013 8:21:00 PM PDT · 28 of 29
    presidio9 to TArcher
    That’s why your “conservatism” is only “fiscal” — just like the other RINOs riding in the Log Cabin GOProud Jackwagon.

    You might have a point if I had any use for the so-called Log Cabin Republicans or GOPrproud. You asked me if it was possible for a homosexual to be a conservative president. My actual answer was "There is no law against it, but I doubt he'd win the nomination."

    You, on the other hand have denounced fiscal conservativism repeatedly.

    It's not an either/or prosepect dumbass.

  • When He Talks Abortion, President Obama Pretends to Be a Libertarian

    06/19/2013 8:17:49 PM PDT · 226 of 228
    presidio9 to TArcher
    Oh well let me clarify what you just said — An unrepentant homosexual CAN NOT be a Conservative Christian POTUS.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Try again dumbass. That is a different question from the one you asked and very different from the answer I gave.

  • Obama's Berlin speech: History raises the stakes

    06/19/2013 12:15:50 AM PDT · 11 of 44
    presidio9 to cynwoody

    Don’t care if she did enjoy the workout. She’s still not guilty.

  • Irish Lawmakers Expected to Approve Limited Abortion

    06/19/2013 12:08:40 AM PDT · 7 of 16
    presidio9 to HiTech RedNeck
    Also, there is some evidence that hormonal changes during pregnancy make women less likely to commit suicide. This from a pro-choice women's health site:

    "Biological factors such as pregnancy may protect women against suicide; suicide rates in pregnant women are approximately half those of non-pregnant women."

  • Obama's Berlin speech: History raises the stakes

    06/19/2013 12:04:04 AM PDT · 6 of 44
    presidio9 to Cvengr; Jeff Chandler; laplata

    AP reporter Jim Kuhnhenn: “Fifty years ago next week, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (peace be unto him) gave the most memorable and historical speech in the history of presidential speeches at the Brandenburg gate...

    ...Oh, and I think Ronald Reagan stopped by there once too. But nobody really remembers what he said or talked about. Also, Bill Clinton spoke there.”

    Dumbass.

  • Irish Lawmakers Expected to Approve Limited Abortion

    06/18/2013 11:59:09 PM PDT · 4 of 16
    presidio9 to Tax-chick

    Ireland ping

  • Irish Lawmakers Expected to Approve Limited Abortion

    06/18/2013 11:58:04 PM PDT · 3 of 16
    presidio9 to HiTech RedNeck
    Curious that they would include risk of suicide as cause for abortion.

    Here in the US, where Hillary Clinton assures us that abortion is "safe, legal, and rare," suicide rates for women who have had an abortion are 50% higher than the national average.

  • Obama's Berlin speech: History raises the stakes

    06/18/2013 11:51:27 PM PDT · 1 of 44
    presidio9
  • Irish Lawmakers Expected to Approve Limited Abortion

    06/18/2013 11:45:48 PM PDT · 1 of 16
    presidio9
  • How they learned to stop worrying and love nuclear

    06/18/2013 11:40:46 PM PDT · 26 of 29
    presidio9 to TArcher
    As usual, your saying makes no sense. I also have many friends who are redheaded. That does not mean I have a ginger circle of friends. Doesn't matter how much you want it to.

    Stay down Rock.

  • When He Talks Abortion, President Obama Pretends to Be a Libertarian

    06/18/2013 11:35:37 PM PDT · 223 of 228
    presidio9 to TArcher
    A warning Newbie: I have had dozens of people try to sick Jim Robinson on me over the years. Very often, it backfires on them. In this case, let's see what we're dealing with: You suddenly showed up in very late in this abortion thread posting irrelevant accusations (aka "trolling"). Your first post, #109, was an unsolicited personal attack. You then accused me of supporting the "homosexual agenda," and went as far as to call Little Jeremiah into this thread to gang up on me. The only problem with that is that she and I have known each other for years. So when she did show up here, she vouched for my conservative credentials and told you to take a hike. Undeterred, you started posting asinine hypotheticals, such as post 137

    Could a homosexual be a conservative POTUS?

    My actual (honest and accurate) answer was

    There is no law against it, but I don't think he would be likely to win the nomination.

    Since that time, you have renounced fiscal conservatism repeatedly, repackaged my opinions dishonestly, and refused to state your own political opinion. Oh, and that's when you're not

    STALKING ME ON OTHER THREADS.

    So, again, I do not support homosexuality. I oppose gay marriage, and the homosexual agenda. But I am first a Christian, before I am a conservative. I see gay people for what they are: sinners. Their particular sin disgusts me. But so long as they do not make an issue of it (and trust me on this one, other than on TV sitcoms, most do not), I am happy to treat them like the human beings that they are. I know gay men that are trying not to be. I also know gay men that support typical gay rights issues but are otherwise conservative. Pro life. Pro gun rights. Pro family. Et cetera.

    So, again, if you want to bring Jim Robinson into this idiotic conversation, have at it. But be careful what you wish for.