From the south lost | 05/22/2004 1:47:30 AM PDT read
Hi, girls! You know, normally I’ll just pass right by the usual un-informed, over-opinionated crap so many of you are foisting off on this forum while googling my way to Faux News. But when the unmistakable aroma of fresh bullshit came whiffing out yet again, on this kind of subject, and with 268 posts to boot, I just couldn’t help myself! Pretty interesting that so many of you “well- mannered” bigots with your civility and decorum have been so good about getting your teeth kicked in by the “commie left” and “getting mocked for it” for thirty years. Funny, because, with all you shit flumes in here spewing off venom on a daily basis, you’re argument’s not looking too watertight.
On the speaker, set aside, for a moment, the fact that the guy is right. What’s really interesting here is that you dopes are ready to bash Ted Sorensen, major figure in saving us from nuclear war, yet so many of you put “President” (we won’t even go there) Bush, a guy that plunged us into war completely un-necessarily and under false pretense, up on a pedestal. Sorensen is a proven architect for peace. He was critical of Bush for starting this stupid, worthless war without allied support, among other things, and was entirely appropriate in his criticism. Witness this in contrast to your tough-talking, rarely right but always certain, cowboy Bush and his “dream team”– whom it’s now abundantly clear was hell-bent on our “crusade” from the very beginning. And who, other than the likes of Halliburton and the Al-Qaeda recruitment department, benefits from that? It sure as hell won’t be those graduates. And you can bet it won’t be you Mensa mega-geniuses, either.
Yup, Ted might’ve picked a better venue. But he didn’t. And you’re right…it’s all part of the evil “lib” conspiracy that’s growing, festering, lurking - waiting to prey upon your young and dominate the discourse even more than it already does. (Right…and I’ve *never* seen *that* lame argument floating around these pages.) You mob starter/egg-throwers that are ready to “drag him out on the carpet” couldn’t fill one of Sorensen’s shoes. And the thrill of dissecting your “points” ranks right up there with burning up ants with a magnifying glass at age five. The ants were more coherent, at least.
On to that “liberal” media bias you guys keep talking about on this forum. Let see: O’Really, Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, Matthews, Horowitz, Ingraham, Goldberg, Liddy, Roberts, Novak, North, Robertson, Fallwell and on, and on, and on. Man, what a bunch of *flaming* liberals! Hey now - and let’s not forget everybody’s favorite - Anne Coulter, slightly left of the Third Reich. Never mind radio and the press for a minute, ladies. This here’s just mainstream TV and, boy, this crowd must sure enjoy the view from Bush’s colon, because the coverage they’ve been dishing out borders on fellatio. Only now, when the obvious is so obvious that even your liberal media can no longer ignore it, do you see normal people finally calling some of it like it is. (Yup, more “lib” conspiracy there, too.) Your “liberal bias” is a farce that’s been around since the early seventies and the hard right is not only way over-funded and over-represented; it actually has the temerity to whine non-stop about the whole deal, as if the shoe were on the other foot! Disagree? Then explain to me why Clinton, deserving or not, was crucified by the press every time the guy farted yet Bush and Cheney, who make Clinton look positively Amish, have skated through more conflict of interest and scandal than the Enquirer has ink to print for, comparatively unscathed. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that Clinton was basically beheaded for lying about a blow job – probably not a bad thing – but yet, Bush and Cheney, whose lies have now killed 800 people, are “formidable” leaders. Blame that on your “liberal bias”, ladies. And, with that, I’d love to see just one of you distinguished, “conservative” scholars come up with half an argument or a list of any number of people that offsets the market share enjoyed by the “lib” crowd listed above. I *know* you can’t and I *want* you to try.
And to whomever called JFK a gutless, worthless coward: Hey, maybe you’re right! Then again, JFK would have gotten his history straight before signing on as “AlbionGirl”, like a homo, and then writing English like it’s a fourth language.
Oh, and to close, whoever threw up that little gif of Ted Kennedy, the skull and crossbones and the patriotic eagle – nice job! There’s nothing like pointing out the shortcomings of one idiot from 36 years ago to make your lame ideological point against millions of actually thinking people today. Yeah, that totally drives your point home and I submit.
Torqued off, girls? You should be. After reading some of the radical garbage floating around here, I certainly am. And I’m not even a Democrat.
Don’t like it? Humor me…I need a good laugh.
Al Franken flameme@post.com
My guess is that Mark Morford is trying to get Al Franken FReeped. :)
I got it too. ROFL.
Obviously a well adjusted, rationally thinking individual.......(sarcasm/off)
Someone's upset that Err America is cratering.
I curious, how did you get this? Through freepmail or some external method?
Grease up the paddles again doctor, crank it to 10......he's still alive!
And I’m not even a Democrat.
<|:-)~~
For future reference, best way to contact mods is filing an abuse report. In a case like this, you can do it on any thread: just specify at the beginning that it's not related to anything on that thread, but freepmail spam (or whatever may need attention).
Thanks.
This moron isn't worth responding to. Gum on the sole of my shoe on a hot day.
Liberal media? I guess this guy missed the last 70 years of ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, The New York Times, Washington Post, and on and on, ad nauseum. There's a small crack in their stranglehold on the information media in this country and they're hysterical about it.
Which, of course, begs the question: What are they afraid of?
If their ideas are so great, can't they stand up to the likes of an idiot like Limbaugh?
"And to whomever called JFK a gutless... and then writing English like it’s a fourth language."
To the author: If "whomever" is the object of a preposition then it is, indeed, proper to use "whomever." But, as in your case, "whomever" is the subject of the dependent clause (which is itself the object of the preposition). Then, "whoever" is correct. Any questions?
This guy suffers from chronic rectal tearing.
I got the same garbage Also.
Ping!
This guy's Depends are to tight around his head.
you’re argument’s not looking too watertight
has the nerve to accuse somebody else of
writing English like it’s a fourth language.
Another hypocrite who can't be taken seriously.
the south lost
Since May 22, 2004
You point to a few individuals. We can point to whole organizations. Time, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Knight-Ridder, yup, a real bunch of *Reagan Conservatives* if I ever saw them.
Clinton got a pass on everything he did. The pattern was to ignore the serious stuff that he did like sleazy dealings with avowed enemies like North Korea and China, briefly puff up minor things that he did and then dismiss them as mere 'conservative politics', thus neutralizing any criticism from the Right. The media ran interference for Clinton, and you know it.
The Lewinsky thing wasn't even on my radar screen. Never mind that a partner in any corporation that I have worked for would have been cleaning out his desk before the day was over if he was caught boffing an intern. That whole thing was unpresidential and diminished the credibility of the office.
Clinton was, and continues to be a presidential Al Capone. If we have to go after him for income tax evasion, that's what we do. Personally, I think that the Republican leadership could have picked a better issue to nail him on, like transfer of nuclear weapons technology to a country that would love to be powerful enough to directly threaten us globally, in exchange for campaign contributions.