Amanpour Despairs ‘Sanest’ Huntsman with ‘Eminently Sensible Positions’ Losing to ‘Bombastic’ Gingrich
ABC’s Christiane Amanpour just can’t comprehend why Jon Huntsman, with his “eminently sensible” anti-conservative positions, could be losing to Newt Gingrich who is full of “bombast” and “does say some pretty alarming things, some might say outrageous things.” More upsetting, Hunstman is supposedly “reversing” himself on those “eminently sensible positions.”
Interviewing Huntsman, who appeared from the Granite State, Amanpour noted on Sunday’s This Week that “you are at the bottom of the pack despite the fact that some independents, for instance, in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running,” yet “ what you’re offering does not seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash in your face against Obama, is what’s resonating.”
A few minutes later, the flustered Amanpour scolded the former Governor of Utah for supposedly moving to the right:
It appears that you are reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions. For instance, on climate change you in August, tweeted that, “to be clear, I believe in evolution and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” You’ve been tweeting about the sort of rightward swing, you’ve been jabbing at the base. And yet, in the last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said that there isn’t enough science.
An exasperated Amanpour wondered: “What are you doing?”
(She didn’t offer any specifics about his “sort of” apostasies.)
Unexplored by Amanpour: How Huntsman is not resonating with conservatives because he is resonating with the media elite who embrace him for running as the anti-conservative trying to rise above his – to borrow from Amanpour’s lexicon -- “sort of” conservative record.
>> Liberal Media Bias Stocking Stuffers: For a gift of $35 or more to support NewsBusters we'll send you two bumper stickers and two buttons proclaiming “Don’t Believe the Liberal Media.” For a gift of $100 or more, we’ll send you a “Stomp Out the Liberal Media” floor mat featuring the face of either Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann. Donate by Sunday night (tonight) and your gifts will arrive before Christmas. <<
Two of Amanpour’s “questions” to Jon Huntsman on the Sunday, December 11 This Week on ABC:
> People are trying to figure out how you’re going to really break out -- because you are at the bottom of the pack -- despite the fact that some independents, for instance, in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a “searching second look” from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet, as I say, what you’re offering does not seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich [holds up her fists], sort of bombast and brash in your face against Obama, is what’s resonating.
> All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you are reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions. For instance, on climate change you in August, tweeted that, “to be clear, I believe in evolution and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” You’ve been tweeting about the sort of rightward swing, you’ve been jabbing at the base. And yet, in the last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said that there isn’t enough science. I mean, what are you doing?
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
When your opponents define
Submitted by okie-pastor on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:06pm.
When your opponents define a candidate as the "most electable candidate".
RUN from that candidate as fast as you can!!!!
Being a liberal democrat, one would think, Amanpour would be happy that the "most sane" person isn't surging because that should mean Obama will win all fifty states. Why is she so worried? Hmmmm.
Exactly
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:43pm.
Look at how Amanpour is upset that Huntsman has changed his AGW position, as if she was his coach or his agent.
I've begun believing that the Left's frustration with Huntsman's lack of traction in the GOP polls is tied to their genuine fear that Obama can't win re-election, so they're hoping for a GOP candidate they can live with.
Liberals Can Live With Gingrich ThenThey Won't be Liberals
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 3:26am.
They just can't get their way and face that their power structure that the built at the end of the nineteenth century is about to fall down. Newsweek changing hands for just a dollar is a harbinger of things to come. Ad how wide spread the understanding of liberal failure is all but Huntsman will take the Democrat/Progressive political machine apart in the next four years. With the modern communication a major western leader delivering real growth will be picked up across the globe and that will be the end for the progressives.
We are headed into a new age driven by changes in technology. Newt understands and will drive the US into the lead position. The others would probably do so too. Even Mitt Romney though he has the most interest protecting the old structures would have the US in a near leadership position in eight years.
It doesn't fit
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 4:29pm.
Anti-conservatives and Republicans don't mix, lady.(And I'm not talking about the Establishment Republicans either)
Plus, how can you call Hunstman a conservative but say he's got anti-conservative positions? Which is it, ya daft bitch?(I'm not going to be nice about this, she's anti-American as she comes)
Real conservatives don't believe in that global warming crap either.
Good God, that picture of her with clenched fists.....that's actually a little disturbing, her producers couldn't have agreed with her frantic antics, could they?
-Jon
Actually Jon
Submitted by LinTaylor on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 4:36pm.
The pic of her with her fists up reminds me of Bert Lahr as the Cowardly Lion: "Put up ya dukes, put up ya duuukes!"
Well christiane is full of
Submitted by rockyracoon on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 4:34pm.
Well christiane is full of something and I'm sure it's not bombast.
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Not bombast, but something
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:12pm.
Not bombast, but something else that begins with "b" and ends with "t", right?
Inthesewer is a pro-Muslim, America hating
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:37pm.
Media whore. That's all anyone needs to know. Next libocommie SHITSTREAMMEDIA mouth, please.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
Inthesewer is a pro-Muslim, America hating
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:40pm.
Media whore. That's all anyone needs to know. Next libocommie SHITSTREAMMEDIA mouth, please.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
Amanpour answers her own questions
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 4:36pm.
Any candidate being pushed by Amanpour is not going to be supported by conservatives.
And her "our George Will" comment isn't going to do George much good with conservatives, either.
I hope this is a sign that the MSM's influence over the election process is continuing to decline.
CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 6:26pm.
Will has been employed by ABC as a conservative fixture on the This Week panel for over thirty years. As such, I don't think "our George Will"--obviously meaning this network's George Will--is unreasonable nomenclature that should upset conservatives.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 6:48pm.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
My pleasure, CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 7:44pm.
Jer
Jer, could you please stop telling us what to think?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 7:45pm.
You got a lib counterpoint? Bring it.
But as a friend, I have to say your lecturing everyone here on what conservatives should think is really getting ridiculous.
Let me see if I understand you, SoL
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:06pm.
It's apparently okay for someone to inform me I'm the victim of bad parenting, and instruct me to grow up and stop buying into the liberal lies...
"...Just a guess, but I will bet dollars to donuts you were a liberal arts major, right? Ha ha, me too! So how did you become a libtard and I became normal? Well, I had 4 brothers and we all grew up in the 60's and 70's just about the same time you and your hippie friends where selling America down the river. But, unlike you, we had good parenting. Sorry to break this to you buddy, but you were lied to by everyone you trusted. That totally sucks I know... but now it;s time to grow up and shed the lie that is liberalism. Can you?"
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/12/10/weekend-open-threa...
...but merely offering my opinion about Amanpour's description of Will--while lecturing no one about what he or she should think--is out of bounds and offensive to you.
As a friend, I have to say that post is not one of your better efforts.
Jer
Nice tag line
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:37pm.
works
You Didn't Build That.
Everyone is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Fact
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 3:34am.
That is where the rubber meets the road. George Will has spoken out frequently on things he has not examined closly and the ABC voice from Iran has not even understood what he did say
Avitar...my point, and my ONLY point, was that
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 3:58am.
"our George Will" was synonymous with "ABC's George Will" or "This Week's George Will"...Will having been employed by ABC for the past 30 years as a regular panel member of This Week.
Jer
It's apparently okay for
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:29pm.
It's apparently okay for someone to inform me I'm the victim of bad parenting, and instruct me to grow up and stop buying into the liberal lies...
Ok I was wrong about the bad parenting. You are the only one responsible for buying into the liberal lies. Happy?
I know I am
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:46pm.
Happy, that is
Let me see if I understand you, SoL
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:21pm.
It's apparently okay for someone to inform me I'm the victim of bad parenting, and instruct me to grow up and stop buying into the liberal lies. But merely offering my opinion about Amanpour's description of Will--while lecturing no one about what he or she should think--is offensive to you.
As a friend, I have to say that post is not one of your better efforts.
Jer
Yup
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:44pm.
;-) , Having a Jer tag is the latest rage.
You Didn't Build That.
upcountry---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:57pm.
it would appear that ol' Jeringo doesn't believe in following his own advice. :o)
MD
I don't understand, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 10:35pm.
what advice of mine are you referring to that I'm supposedly not following?
Jer
However, I'll add this:
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 10:54pm.
You and ucw can snicker all you wish, but, despite my long and generally amiable relationship with MM, his gratuitous slam at my parents was completely beyond the pale. That's about as low a blow as it is possible to deliver in the comment section of a website. And whatever the two of you may think of my posts, or that you may consider my reaction just another example of thin skin, I still can't believe either of you would condone that tactic or that type of remark.
Jer
Jeringo---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 11:39pm.
How does my seeing humor in your advice to someone to "grow a thicker skin", when your skin is so thin it makes Kleenex appear to have the consistency of cardboard, devolve into snickering at what you perceived to have been the lowest blow ever aimed at or sustained by mortal man?
All I saw was a jibe by MM, at YOU; proffered through the medium of teasing, intimating that your parents probably hadn't expected such a staunch liberal Democrat to have resulted from a liaison 9 months prior to your parturition.
Your drama queen rendition of a reactionary reply post, camouflaged as an indignant and accusatory paean in defense of mater and pater, was scenery chewing, over-the-top emoting.
Your "gratuitous slam", "completely beyond the pale", " --about as low a blow as it is possible to deliver--" comments; tossed out so as to convey that upcountry and I are consorting with the devil, MM, were not too bad either.
Sure would like to have caught your act in the theater of a legal action.
MD
For what it's worth...
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:00am.
I agree with Jer that MM's comment in that other threat did go too far - whether it was meant in jest or not.
However, I'm not really sure what Jer hoped to achieve in bringing up that post here.
Either way... we can all take some advice from Ron Burgundy.
Threat, hydro, or thread - ? ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:20am.
Freudian slip? :o)
Note the smiley - I'm just kidding.
Don't agree with you, but then disagreement is what makes life interesting; and some times intolerable.
MD
Thanks, hydro...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:32am.
What I hoped to achieve was to contrast for SoL the example of a clear case of "lecturing someone on what they should think" with what I believe to have been a very benign post of mine, but which for some reason upset him.
Jer
Well Jer, then you failed miserably.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:41pm.
1) My reply to you was benign... reread it. Amanpour is a world class hack, and needs no defense here. But perhaps it was colored by your repetitive robust defenses of The Blessed Shmoe as the only true conservative...
...which would be analogous to me, an arch conservative, spending all my time at DKos defending say, Larry O'Donnell as a true liberal. Sorry, it's weird.
2) And what does your exchange with MM re: parenting have to do with this? I know this will come as a shock, but I do not look up every post you make, and in fact you will see that I did not comment on that thread at all, nor did I even read it. When I reply to you, it's just me - I do not factor in the all the previous slights from others you apparently think you endure here.
So in ending, pick up a fresh tin of Sir Walter Raleigh Aromatic, pack it hard, and pack it tight!
On the contrary, SoL...it was a towering success, a masterpiece
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:15pm.
in the art of the polemical coup de grace. I understand you are still a bit wobbly from the battering (sorry...I had been informed the producers of Morning Joe might be looking on), but when you completely regain your wits, study it and learn from it. ;-) (sarc off)
1) Your reply was "benign"? Really? Compared to what? My reply to CX which provoked your reply?...my reply to CX which, matter-of-factly and without even a hint of ad hominem, had merely pointed out that George Will was a thirty-year employee of ABC and This Week panelist and that "our George Will" should be viewed in that context? Now, contrast that with the personalized, patronizing and admonishing tone of your friendly advice to me: "stop telling us what to think...your lecturing everyone on what conservatives should think is really getting ridiculous" It's not benign, SoL. Nor is it the first time you've jumped me with gratuitous, wrist-slapping instructions about how I should comport myself here. At the very least, as one friend to another, that should be a matter addressed and discussed via PM exchanges.
2 It has a heck of a lot more relevancy than your out-of-the-blue riff on me and The Blessed Shmoe has to the issue at hand. I don't know how to explain it any better or differently than I did in my earlier post: It was to provide you with a sample of real lecturing versus the type of "lecturing" which you have accused me of practicing. The distinction is obvious.
Jer
OK, Jer, then put me on your mortal enemies list,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:34pm.
since I gratuitously jump you all the time.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours (and I really mean it) , and I promise I won't "jump" you anymore... or respond to any of your posts. Peace out.
Great...now I've gone and ticked off one of my alltime favorite
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:46pm.
NBers.
[sigh...]
Merry Christmas. I'll PM you.
Jer
Forgodsakes, matthew...Just once, would you please put
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:21am.
away the thesaurus, can the rhetorical theatrics, and indulge your fertile mind in some elementary word comprehension.exercises.
You are far too intelligent to suggest that an explicit allegation of bad parenting was actually nothing more than a teasing intimation of parental disappointment with the political views of their offspring. I don't know if you were simply being flippant, obtuse, or deliberately deflective. Then again, maybe it was precisely what it appeared to be: A stunningly inept attempt to defend the indefensible...and employed for no reason other than your near-pathological inability to criticize a conservative poster's criticism of a liberal--even if that criticism takes the form of a breathtaking lie about the latter's parents.
Finally, spare me your "scenery chewing, over-the-top emoting" blather. Anyone who reacts to a simple suggestion to discuss a subject at a later time by launching a thundering fusillade of abusive slurs--as you did once in an astonishing meltdown which charted new and previously unheard of territory for levels of "thin-skin" [now known as Deanskin, or the point at which one's x-ray can be taken with a 60 watt light bulb]--is left with dubious standing to define and declare excessive emoting, much less admonish one for purportedly engaging in it.
Jer
You, Jeringo, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:33am.
can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Your whining is secondary only to your complaining; and almost tertiary to your penchant for reaching back in the mists of time to pull up another bitch and whine.
I have noticed that the direr the straits for Lib-Dims, the more of a sour ass you become.
Any connection?
MD
Cut the crap, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:37am.
Just admit hydro is correct about the shot at my parents being out of bounds and let's be done with it.
Jer
Ain't gonna happen, Jeringo; ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:43am.
a difference of opinion does not automatically confer the winner's laurels to you, despite your huffing and puffing.
Cut the whining, Jer.
MD
I tell you what, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 1:52am.
I'll try it out on a random conservative poster...tell him he's the product of bad parenting, worked to tear down America, needs to grow up and stop buying the conservative lies, etc.
If he objects, I'll advise him to shut up and stop whining. In other words, we'll see what he thinks about the Matthew Dean rules.
Jer
You, Jeringo, see the dispute as arising ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:49am.
out of an insult to your parents.
I see the dispute as arising out of a jibe at you.
Difference of opinion, simple as that.
Don't try to convince me otherwise, and I won't belabor my point.
Otherwise, see if you can get MM to meet you on a sand bar somewhere and work it out a la Jim Bowie.
MD
Matthew, your illogic is just staggering...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 3:45am.
The insult to my parents is part of the jibe at me. Now, we may reasonably differ about what my reaction should or should not be to the other parts of the jibe. But the part about my parents is a no-brainer. It's out of bounds. There's simply no justification for it.
Jer
you crack me up Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 2:55am.
Why don't you go do that. run over to Huff n puff and blast some conservative poster and see what happens, then come running back here and tell us how great your experience was because of the full moderation that they have.
We Are The 53%
Denny, let's cut to the chase.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 3:38am.
Taking a shot at someone's parents isn't a conservative or a liberal matter. Do you think my parents are fair game? Am I being a thin-skinned whiner by objecting to it?
Jer
Taking a verbal shot, Jeringo, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:10am.
at someone's parents may well be distasteful, unfair, uncouth, crass, out-of-bounds, off limits, uncivilized, boorish, insulting, and maddening.
That is an individual's call to make.
Taking said shots, however, is neither an illegal act nor a lethal one; and as far as I know, so long as foul language is not used in the process, not against any particular rule around here.
Neither is interpreting another's comments as you see fit.
That said, given the slime you have laid on other posters in regard to inventive insults and put-downs, I find your indignation to be a bit contrived.
Unless you plan on laying out some ground rules as to what is or is not acceptable when crossing verbal swords with your persona as the house lib, If you can't take some whacks, avoid the fray.
MD
.
Who claimed it's illegal or lethal...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:32am.
I said it was out of bounds, and any reasonable person with a sense of what is and isn't fair game or an appropriate target for criticism should readily agree. That you can't even bring yourself to admit it was unwarranted in this case, and, instead, portray me as being whiny and thin-skinned for daring to object to a slam at my parents, is telling indeed.
Please point out the "slime" I have laid on other posters for inventive insults and put-downs. I've heard that tune before. Nobody ever furnishes any actual examples of it, however. I'm confident you won't either.
Jer
Good morning Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:42am.
Yer momma wears combat boots.
When I was in high school that was a common reply to tell a friend he was all wet.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good morning, cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:10am.
What did you tell someone who made a disparaging comment about your mom and wasn't joking?
Jer
Jesus, you are such a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:52am.
bullshit artist.
"No one ever furnishes any actual examples of it".
Boudin, FearMonger, PrisonDog, NL207, MrShy, milootoole, matthewdean, and on and on - it is part and parcel of your action around here to get pissy, nasty, and insulting; and then deny you do so.
Odd, too, how your posts are always 'benign' and 'reasonable', and everyone else is out of step.
Man, you are a piece of work.
MD
I said examples, Matthew...not just rattling off names.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:06am.
Good grief. Shy pops in on this thread and calls me twisted. He's had a history of slander with the shyster nonsense, which was never provoked. I know. I'm just supposed to take the name-calling and turn the other cheek. As I pointed out earlier, I posted a completely innocuous comment to you, and you freaked out with a string of insults attacking my character, intellect, and capping it off with one of your classic condescending lectures. That's how you react, Matthew. Don't tell me it's inappropriate for me to react to a gratuitous shot at my parents.
Again, please show me the threads where I launched an unjustified attack on another poster. You can't do it, Matthew. They only exist in your imagination.
Jer
Why not
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:43am.
I'm just supposed to take the name-calling and turn the other cheek.
Thats what I do,
No you don't, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:22pm.
After I call you out for your stalking and injecting trollish potshots, you simply ignore it and continue to stalk and inject trollish potshots.
Jer
I knew I could count on you,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:32pm.
Nothing says lib, like faux indignation. You so awesome!
What is or is not "justified", Jeringo, seems---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:13pm.
to exist in a dimension wherein only you can define the meaning of certain words.
Your continued assault on Boudin for 'stalking' you is not only silly, but 'unjustified', because posts on these threads are not protected by fiat from reply responses.
Are they? :o)
MD
Also, please see PM...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:42am.
Those "examples" are ridiculously wrong. Absolutely pathetic effort.
Jer
MD meet Perfection; Perfection, MD :)
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 4:34am.
"Your whining is secondary only to your complaining;"
LIKE
Jerry is addicted to this place for the dramatic, theatrical sh*t storms he can kick up almost daily, and often multiple times a day with assorted conservies. I see he's pounced on a particular subject which is the best grist for his beloved feigned outrage.
He really is pretty twisted. That wife's gotta get him off the computer more.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
The name is Jer, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 4:39am.
If you think parents are fair game, then you're more twisted than I thought. And if you don't have the stones to admit that parents are not fair game, that's your problem, not mine.
Jer
NB Addiction
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 4:46am.
Drama Jerry. You need this place bad.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
As I suspected...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 4:50am.
Absolutely nutless.
Jer
Wowser,------
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:41am.
devastating comeback.
Unless, of course, Shy "suspects" you're wrong.
MD
I'm willing to put the issue to a vote among
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:38am.
NB conservatives over whether or not someone's parents are fair game for insults.
I believe they will side with hydro and not you and Shy.
Jer
A vote would be very interesting
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:30am.
But there should be a series of questions to vote on:
Issue 1: Was Mightymouth's comment a jab at Jer or a serious jab at his parents? (It would be interesting to see MM's response to this since he is the only one who knows what was in his mind at the time and I don't think he's weighed in)
Issue 2: If MM's comment was a jab at Jer's parents, is a jab by someone who has never met Jer or his parents something that should be taken seriously?
Issue 3: If the answers to Issue 1 and Issue 2 are that it was a jab at Jer's parents that should be taken seriously, is the most appropriate response to go back to the source of the comment and demand an apology?
I'll be happy to be the first one to vote: I think the answer to question 1 is that MM's comment was a jab at Jer. I have had liberal friends make comments about my upbringing (and even ask my democrat Dad if he was disappointed in me because I'm a conservative) and I never took them seriously because of the source and context of the comments.
But that's just me...
Hi
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:17pm.
It was a jab at Jer. You are correct. And somewhere else I jab him again after he accuses me of dissing his sainted parents.
MightyMouth
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:34pm.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Jeez, Jer.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 11:35am.
Do you stay up all night doing this stuff on NB?
You do know what happens when you fly in increasingly smaller circles at increasingly higher speeds long enough, right?
It depends, Jeringo,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 11:50pm.
on any number of considerations - much like the question of whether or not family members of a candidate for elected office should even be brought into a discussion, let alone criticized.
There is no perfect answer.
Unless, of course, one relies on one's own opinion as irrefutable.
It is not my intention to re-open the argument about parents; however, too much in the way of personal emotion can permeate certain responses to statements wherein the response is tendered as a reply to a perceived insult rather than what was intended, i.e.,an actual insult.
To wit:
If I called you a bastard, would you go on a thread long tear about how I insulted your parents by implying they were not married, or would you attempt to ascertain what, exactly, I meant; and toward whom my malice was directed ?
MD
Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:36am.
If I called you a bastard, would you go on a thread long tear about how I insulted your parents by implying they were not married, or would you attempt to ascertain what, exactly, I meant; and toward whom my malice was directed ?
That's a weak analogy, Matthew. In typical parlance--e.g. Jer, you bastard, your constant defense of the purple-lipped POS in the WH absolutely chaps my ass--the word would be recognized as the expletive it was intended to be, rather than a comment about my parents' marital status or my illegitimacy. I would be justified in feeling personally insulted by the use of the expletive but not for any perceived slight of my parents.
Jer
Jer, Matthew, Lil Dog, Big Dog*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:54am.
Just a small reminder gentlemen that Santa knows who has been naughty and who's been nice
Only 13 days left....;-)
And you better believe, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 2:02am.
I have been compiling a representative selection of Matthew's posts and forwarding same to the North Pole. I'm afraid the Dean household will be dealing with a big pile of ashes and switches on Christmas morn.
Jer
Christmas morn 2012, that is, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 2:26am.
cuz it will take ol' Jer that long to figure out some of the multi-syllabic words I have used in past posts. :o)
MD
Already know most of 'em, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 2:41am.
but what is parunition or parutrition or parturition or something like that which you used in one of your diatribes. I can't find it now and forgot to look it up. I guess it has something to do with conception.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 6:53am.
parturition is the action or process of giving birth to offspring.
I believe Obama was actually hatched.
MD
Ok Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:30pm.
Now that one was funny. Too bad we do not have a like button.
And if it makes everyone feel more secure, let me inform you than coal and ashes will no longer be distributed by Santa even to the most naughty. That particular tradition has been ruled "unsafe" and a danger to the environment by the EPA.
The worst that can happen is that naughties will be totally ignored by Santa, much like the lib media ignores Obama's naughty behavior.
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:18pm.
What Matthew doesn't realize--well, he will shortly because of his software app which alerts him every time I post a comment--is that due to my intimate relationship with the current administration only a brief phone call from me was necessary to secure a limited waiver [applicable only to the Dean household] of that particular EPA reg.
And, because of the annoyance, I'm also calling Claus and ordering him to double up on the ashes and switches and suggesting the Dean front yard would be an ideal spot for a reindeer bathroom break.
Ho Ho Ho...
Jer
Actually, Jeringo, I have no---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 9:50pm.
software app that picks up your comments.
Don't need one.
I just look for any posts that:
-or-
and voila ! (or bingo !) -
there you are.
MD
Not a weak analogy at all,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:04am.
just one that doesn't cater to your desire to shape the argument and the outcome in a way to best show your injured feelings. :o)
MD
sorry for the double post.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:45pm.
I thought I was editing the one above to insert the quote.
Jer
Jer, You clearly FAILED.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:23pm.
I make comment on both of your posts that have the same "tagline" (the last sentence on both of those posts are the same).. MD comments to me about it and you toss in your bandwidth to make this just another jer whinethread. Where did MD mention your parents ?
Lots of posters are bored and fed-up with your add crap while arguing style.
You Didn't Build That.
Another miserably weak post by ucw.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:03pm.
What was the purpose of your tagline comment, ucw? I was responding to SoL. It didn't concern you. You simply chimed in to post your pointless snark. It's an annoying habit of yours. Lying is another annoying habit of yours and I'm fed up with it. So I guess that makes us even. Anyone here who doesn't like my style is certainly free to discontinue reading my comments.
Jer
Speaking of weak,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 8:33pm.
I see you whining about name calling, while name calling. Only a lib would miss the irony.
Go ahead Jer, call me more names.
Please see my reply to your other trollish comment, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 9:26pm.
up the thread.
Thanks.
Jer
Why?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:51am.
I am sure it's just more name calling.
Run tell mommy...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:20pm.
l'il crybaby.
Jer
I've been here longer than you
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:38pm.
So every time you post It's annoying to me,whether or not I read your posts.
HINT: just PM PEOPLE if you don't want any comments from the NB community.
Lying is your game JER, with all the side tracking issues you toss in along the way.
From what I noticed the tags lines are quotes from other people, whatever, keep tooting your own horn it's all you got..
You Didn't Build That.
So what, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 3:57pm.
How is the length of time you've been here relevant?
But, moving along, what tag lines are you referring to?
And where have I EVER stated I didn't want any comments from the NB community? That's another lie in addition to your lie that the f-word is one of my favorite words. By the way, you are more than welcome to point out any and all evidence of my "lying game".
Finally, if you are annoyed that I post here at all, it may be time for you to consider leaving...because I'm not going anywhere. But I would rather you stay and adjust your attitude. Remember, YOU are the one chiming in and injecting harassing comments. So you have complete control with respect to whether or not I respond to you, and, if so, the tone and content of my reply.
Jer
If the length of time at NB's is irrelevant,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 9:55pm.
how is it, Jeringo, that our first flame war erupted over you getting on my case for me not showing what you felt was proper respect towards "long time" member balboa?
Eh?
MD
Jerry's NB Addiction
Submitted by MrShy on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:08pm.
In theaters now!
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Matthew, I've never claimed the length of time at NB is always
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:23pm.
irrelevant. But it certainly wasn't relevant to any issue between ucw and me. He's been here 5+ years, less than a year longer than I have.
In bal's case, at the time, he had been here for several years while you were a relative newcomer, and I pointed out the difference in longevity only because I believed it was unlikely you were familiar with his posting history--one that had earned him praise from Noel for being one NB's most respected lib posters.
And you reacted by going berserk and lecturing me about seniority being of zero importance. And of course you threw in a lot of big words.
Jer
And once again, Jeringo, you---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:03pm.
straddle the fence ---
"--I've never claimed the length of time at NB is always irrelevant.."
Your very next sentence ---
"But it certainly wasn't relevant to any issue between ucw and me."
It was definitely relevant enough for you to bring it up; but apparently only you get to decide when "relevant' is relevant.
I thought you were a barrister? When did you become a judge?
And to quote ol' Jer---
"Please show me" said post where I reacted by "going berserk" and lecturing you.
Yeah I know - the archives are gone, but you do that crap all the time - remember (and bring up) that only benign and reasonable posts are presented by yourself; and everyone else is either stalking you, disrespecting you, insulting you, or attacking you.
You instigate, agitate, and proliferate left leaning propaganda - granted, you are only saying what you believe or believe in, but to me it is left oriented propaganda - and then act astounded that a conservative would give you grief in a less than amenable fashion. Horrors.
Speaking of crap - balboa was one of NB's most respected lib posters?
Seriously? :o)
MD
Hold on, Matthew...before we go any further.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:14pm.
I didn't bring it up on this thread. UCW BROUGHT IT UP! And I explained why, imo, it was irrelevant to the issue between ucw and me, but why, again imo, it was relevant to the bal incident--which you brought up on this thread.
Complain to Noel about your difference of opinion about bal. He is the one who made the statement.
Jer
No problem, Jeringo---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:42pm.
wouldn't want you to not be able to do the straddle dance.
You didn't bring it up, therefore no posts by you are to be considered relevant, as it were. :o)
I brought up the bal incident because I thought it was an example of you siding with a fellow lib and trying to intimidate me, a new NB'er conservative, with that "time at NB's" bullsh*t.
So, relatively speaking, the relevance of the relevancy issue would be inherently relevant.
I could have used 'germane' in place of relevant, but I wanted to go with three syllables rather than two as you seem to get a kick out of making sly digs about me using big words.
Jer & bal, liberals. matthewdean, conservative.
Libs vs. conservatives. Now there's a concept for ya.
Why would I 'complain' to Noel? I could 'ask' him, I suppose, if I felt a burning desire to show that I don't believe you; but that's not the case.
I know it wasn't intentional, but your statement regarding bal being such a respected liberal, was, nonetheless, a HOOT !!
MD
It was berserk, similar to the following case of beserkness:
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:24pm.
I believe Boren and Politico's description is the subject
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 3:36pm.
of this thread, Matthew. Why not stick to it. I'm sure Scarborough will come up again in about a hundred other threads over the next few months.
Jer
Why don't you take your suggestions, Jer,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 9:37pm.
fold 'em five ways, and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.
And I'm sure your unhappy liberal ass will be right there over the next few months, defending Scarborough, a pluperfect ass.
A match made in heaven.
I doubt seriously that thread protocol is absolute law, but even if it were, rest assured, you ain't got the weight, spiritually, intellectually, morally, or legally, to keep me from posting what I choose, where I choose.
Quit trying to act the pushy protagonist for all things proper.
You're a liberal.
You ain't got the chops for it.
MD
"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/06/09/politico-dubiously-...
My advice to you, Matthew: Thicker skin
And that represents going berserk, eh?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:55pm.
Jeez, any real criticism and you would fold like Slick Willie undergoing an ethics invest---- oh, wait, it all depends on what the meaning of is, I mean, berserk, is.
Since you consider the use of that collection of words to be 'going berserk', I can now understand why your Lib-Dim feelings are so easily bruised.
I'll try and limit my use of the words "whiny" and "complaining" in future correspondence with you.
Maybe. :o)
MD
You're right, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 12:22am.
I have to admit that my unbelievably provocative, inexcusably inflammatory suggestion we discuss Scarborough another time was more than ample justification for your unhinged ad hominem attack. [sarc off]
If I pulled that type of juvenile, bullying stunt with you, I would be run out of here on a rail.
Jer
As I said: Thicker skin
Juvenile bullying, you say, Jeringo?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 4:09am.
And what's more, you would be run out of here on a rail if you "pulled" it?
Hay-soos, uh-mee-goh; even for as lame as your charge of 'bullying' is, it doesn't hold a candle to the heavy load of latent desire you are carrying to be a martyr for the left.
"Oh my God, did you hear what happened to our Jer?"
"Naw. Whuuut?"
"He was banned from NewsBusters."
"Fer whut?"
"Posting posts, apparently. Mean ones. And it appears he bully-ragged somebody."
"Them bosstids! Sho 'nuff hope ol' Jeringo wuz wearin' pertection when he done it, though."
MD
And would you believe there are some folks here who
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:30pm.
think I'm too mean to Matthew.
Jer
Nah, you aren't too mean, Jeringo,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:58pm.
but for you to advise anyone to get a thicker skin is a world class mixture of comedy and irony.
MD
Jer You failed to set parameters, in your favorite word category
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:25am.
That is your fault, how could you make such a huge blunder.
I DID NOT SAY It was your favorite word, I said it was ONE of your favorite words.
For a word to be one of your favorite words, what percentile does it rate, on that list of yours?
POST away Pal, bump up your post and oratory by 50% it's still noise.
You Didn't Build That.
Maybe you should reread my post, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 3:00am.
"...That's another lie in addition to your lie that the f-word is ONE of my favorite words..."
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/12/11/amanpour-despairs-sa...
As far as the percentile, bub...you tell me. It was your accusation.
Jer
jer, this "tag line" you used it twice, here on this thread
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:51am.
As a friend, I have to say that post is not one of your better efforts.
Jer
In the slide the glasses down the nose, à la Charles Gibson
You bring up your seniority here lots of times, the ONLY time I mention it is after you, pull that boring stunt.
You Didn't Build That.
Correction, ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 3:15am.
Tell me how often I've pulled rank on someone. How often is lots of times. Here's a clue, pal: Mentioning how long I've been here to indicate that if I were engaging in inappropriate behavior I would have been banned years ago is NOT pulling rank or lording my seniority over someone else.
Yet another fail, ucw. But what else is new.
Oh, and that wasn't a tag line. Geez. I explained to you before that I double posted. I edited one to insert a quote from another thread. But, in any event, the closing sentence was NOT a tag line. It was simply a closing sentence.
Here's another clue, Einstein...if it were a tag line, it would have been under my name, not above it.
Jer
Yea I noticed you added to this post
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:00pm.
So you have the "tag line" rules handy, well do ya!
Ain't buying your version.
You Didn't Build That.
By the way, you do know what double posting is, don't you?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 3:21am.
It's what you did earlier on this thread before you edited both comments. Didn't think I noticed, did you?
Jer
So democrat Jer, where is your
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:02pm.
;-)
You Didn't Build That.
Lord, let them continue to
Submitted by ant on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 4:57pm.
Lord, let them continue to misunderstand the conservative voter, let them continue to stumble around in the dark of their own "sort of" belief that they're relevant.
Amanpour must have 'sort of' dog-eared one page of her pocket Thesaurus, she also said another 'stimulus package' would be 'eminently sensible'.
Okay Christine, You Asked For It.
Submitted by Bourbeau on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 4:57pm.
You're freaking crazyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!
correct
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:42pm.
She shouldnt be hosting a morning news show
Fidiot
Submitted by Curly on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:05pm.
Fire and deport this fidiot!
Well looks like they have
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:12pm.
Fired her
Guess the Meryl Streep accent didn't work for Christie....
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:58pm.
...because she certainly did not have any following as far as the ratings and sponsors go. The only thing she had going for her are the sycophant, bootlicking fans who falsely believe her bad Meryl Streep generic European accent and the middle eastern last name. Certainly was not any collection of objective reporting or unbiased journalism on her part.
Of course destroying jobs and
Submitted by Edhenry on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:13pm.
Of course destroying jobs and bankrupting the country is "eminently sensible"
Amanpour quotes "some
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:18pm.
Amanpour quotes "some independents"
Who are "some independents"? Huntsman is trying to appeal to people who think Republicans are anti-science nuts, but 69% according to Rasmussen, think its likely that scientists have falsified global warming research. Democrats think independents believe conservatives are wackos, but that isn't true.
His platform aside, Huntsman is a complete goof who says he's in part qualified to be President because he knows how to speak Chinese, drops in awkward Nirvana references just to pander to younger people, and appears in Vogue magazine photoshoots. His goofy daughters aren't helping him either.
Amanpour quotes "some
Submitted by Van Halen on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 7:44pm.
Amanpour quotes "some independents"
It's the same idea as when that silly scrunt Katie Couric would try to build a case against a Republican with 'some say', or 'but others disagree'.
Of course, we never saw 'some' or 'others' because they were made up by the lying scum who run our media today.
over protective mom
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:24pm.
It appears that the Newt Gingrich [holds up her fists], sort of bombast and brash in your face against Obama, is what’s resonating.
It would appear that there is some concern on her part that obie is going to get bullied. Hopefully her fears are justified.
Just when Newt was starting
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 5:58pm.
Just when Newt was starting to worry me a bit, Christiane has a mental breakdown over him. That makes me feel a little better. Thanks Christiane!
Just how dumb is the right
Submitted by pwb on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 6:11pm.
Huntsman is a liberal not a conservative and nothing more then a Obama enabler. He is running to gain street creed that he is a republican and then will run a third party campaign to help Obama win the election. Why is it that the right is to dumb and can't see this or at less refuses to state this obvious fact.
Not as dumb as the left
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 3:05am.
Even if he ran as a third party, he wouldn't get more than 1% of the R vote. Although he might pull a few away from Obama.
We Are The 53%
Christiane, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 6:24pm.
... saying the same "glorious" things about Huntsman that you say about Obama ain't exactly the way to get conservatives, or any other sane individual to vote for him.
We've seen what all the Hope and Change, and intelligence, and TOTUS addicted morons can do to the country. It's time to swing as far from that model as possible.
Maybe a little insanity will help us right this shipwreck of a government. (Pun intended}
Only people who are liberals
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 6:48pm.
Only people who are liberals can see anything in Huntsboy. He is Obama's boy through and through.
He's a plant to dilute the
Submitted by Dan Diego on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:02pm.
He's a plant to dilute the vote, just more of Duh dirty politics.
Thank God this utterly worthless woman is losing her job
Submitted by WarEagle01 on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 7:21pm.
She provides absolutely no value added to the ABC brand.
You forgot the word....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:13pm.
"valueless". As in, "the valueless ABC brand."
Can she really be so dim?
Submitted by Old Soldier on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:24pm.
I guess so, she shows her lack of talent and intellect frequently. As has been noted here, if the Democrat Media love you, a Republican candidate shouldn't expect to attract support from his own party faithful! Huntsman is a bright man, thoughtful and articulate -- but clearly he is not appealing to the conservative heartland.
All together now!! Amanpour
Submitted by Van Halen on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:49pm.
All together now!!
Amanpour Ratings!!
FAIL!!!!!
It never occurs to this hack
Submitted by fitzfong on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 8:51pm.
It never occurs to this hack that the reason Huntsman is so unpopular is that he has taken positions that she finds "eminently sensible". Our desire is not to reason with her ilk, it is to defeat it.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
fitzfong
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:44am.
Ding!
Ronald Reagan
Willy Geist (from the Morning Joe) quote:
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:11pm.
"We like Jon Huntsman here. A lot."
I'll bet you do, Willy. I'll bet you do.
And that, in a nutshell, is why Huntsman is toast ...
Submitted by ombdz on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:25pm.
Getting props from the likes of Christina Amanpour is not the way to win a GOP Primary. Newt has the opposite problem - he likely stands no chance in the general. Traditionally, GOP primary voters have understood that there's one qualification that stands above all others, and Newt doesn't have it ... www.ombudizen.com
The GOP could put up a
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:22am.
The GOP could put up a cucumber and it would beat Obama. Newt has what it takes in spades.
True conservatives...
Submitted by Upland_Patriot on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:39pm.
...understood from the beginning that Huntsman is worse than a RINO. The fact that Chrissy Matthews, C. Amanpour and other libtards think Huntsman is the best pick is proof enough that real conservatives never entertained looking past his salesman smile and his progressive views.
Yea, you and others are correct
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:58pm.
Libs fall for the cult of personality so often (that explains Obama) that they think everyone does, or should. Not sure which
Krusty Ann's Sarah Palin look?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 12/11/2011 - 9:56pm.
Anybody notice Krusty Ann trying to sport the Sarah Palin look?
I'm telling you, this woman will do anything to get some of that gravy-tas going, won't she. She's already developed some kind of pseudo-euro-american accent, and now she's getting her hair fixed like Sarah, and even putting on the same glasses.
Yeah, so NOT a good look for
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 6:23am.
Yeah, so NOT a good look for her!!!
Ronald Reagan
If liberal radicals support a candidate...
Submitted by stage9 on Mon, 12/12/2011 - 12:40am.
it's a sure bet that person is no Conservative. That is no more true than with Huntsman.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge