MSNBC prides itself as being the place for politics, the seemingly clever marketing slogan could be used to describe the network as the place where hosts try to use dirty humor about important political events.
David Shuster, filling in for MSNBC loose-cannon Keith Olbermann on his April 13 broadcast, and his writers probably thought they were pretty clever when they pieced an item denigrating the tax protests by using the sexual term "teabagging." Urbandictionary.com, cited multiple times by one MSNBC guest, describes it as when a man places his testicles "onto someone's face, or into their mouth."
"For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day," Shuster said as he began a soliloquy with about a dozen separate oral sex puns. "But in our fourth story tonight: It's going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they're going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.
"They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending - spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan," Shuster continued. "They oppose Mr. Obama's tax rates - which will be lower for most of them -- and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That's teabagging in a nut shell."
That exchange was mellow compared to Rachel Maddow's April 9 program. Air America radio contributor Ana Marie Cox, who also appeared on that program and Maddow teamed up to use the word "teabag" at least 51 times in a 13-minute long segment of bad "teabag" puns.
Both Shuster and Cox are lost in juvenile criticism and ignoring the reason there is discontent from the conservative base. Shuster completely missed the spending aspect that has a lot of people upset with their federal, state and local governments. And one of the criticisms from the left has been the tea party protesters didn't do these sort of protests when George W. Bush was president. Therefore, it must just be because they don't like President Barack Obama.
However, as Conn Carroll pointed out for The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry blog - Obama's proposals will far outpace the government deficit spending under Bush.
That had little impact on MSNBC. Lifting material from left-wing blogs, Shuster also criticized the Fox News Channel for covering the events slated for April 15, and he had to do it with throwing in another lame "teabag" pun.
"We can only speculate why widespread teabagging made [Neil] Cavuto think of the Million Man March, unless he got them confused with Dick Armey," Shuster said. "And in Cavuto's defense, if you are planning simultaneous teabagging all around the country, you're going to need a Dick Armey."
As bad as that was, Shuster wasn't to be outdone by the combo of his colleague, MSNBC "Rachel Maddow Show" host Maddow and Cox.
On the April 13 broadcast of the program that follows "Countdown," both Maddow and Cox attempted to match wits with Shuster's "teabagging" humor. The two had this exchange, in an effort to see who could use the word "teabag" or a derivative of it the most:
MADDOW: Is there some Ron Paul revolution in the teabagging, do you think?
COX: Well, there is a lot of love in teabagging. You have to say that. And that was my favorite thing about the Ron Paul revolution. It had love in it, literally in the logo. You know, it is funny. They really did come up with the concept of the tea party. In 2007, actually, is when they started referring to some of their events as tea parties. It is curious, though, as you point out, they do not use the verb "teabag." It might be because they're less enthusiastic about teabagging than some of the more corporate conservatives who seem to have taken to it quite easily.
MADDOW: They, also, seemed like they had a habit of being good on the online machine. They said there's a lot of very savvy Web organizing so maybe occurred to them to Google the phrase.
COX: Perhaps. And also, you know, I was looking around on some of the Ron Paul Web sites today, some of the blogs from his supporters that are still out there, and a few of them have promoted these events, these current teabagging events. And it's fun if you read the comments - people mock them. These ardent Ron Paul supporters find this particular iteration of what had been, I think, a pretty good idea that one single money bomb event that they had on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party to raise money for Dr. Paul is being somewhat perverted, I might say, by the current teabaggers.
MADDOW: Dr. Paul himself is going to be appearing at one of the teabagging events. He told the Star Telegram - he said, "These things are popping up spontaneously around the country."
I noticed even during the presidential campaign, I know, that he sort of disavowed the movement around himself even when it was so obviously about him. So, he never quite said, "I don't know who these people are," but he always sort of seemed like that. Is it possible we're seeing the same dynamic?
COX: I think so. I'm not sure if Dr. Paul is as good on the Internets as perhaps his followers are. And he also may not know how to use Urban Dictionary. But, also, I want to point out some of the Ron Paul people that are going to these rallies and Dr. Paul himself, I think, do genuinely believe in whatever wacky ideas being supported here. I mean, it is hard for him to say what the idea is, as you point out, a sort of amorphous outrage. But the Ron Paul people are very anti- tax of any kind, so there you go.
MADDOW: That's a connection.
COX: That's their justification be for being there. That's all I can say.
MADDOW: Do you think that the Obama administration like Robert Gibbs in the press office will talk about and promote the teabagging folks the way they have picked on some other conservative causes and figures like Rush Limbaugh?
COX: Well, I have been waiting for Gibbs to talk about teabagging from the podium for a long time. And I'm sure there are other White House supporters who would also greatly look forward to him, explicating the White House's position on teabagging. However, I don't think that's going to happen partially because I think they also know how to use UrbanDictionary.com.
Shuster has exhibited his anti-tea party behavior previously when filling in for Olbermann on the April 10 "Countdown." Shuster and Newsweek's Daniel Gross made every effort to belittle and misconstrue the April 15 Taxpayer Tea Party protests.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
From a woman named COX?
April 14, 2009 - 16:15 ET by Lord ErondMaybe MadCow wouldn't be so hateful if she got a little teabagging. Maybe she misses it.
"To sin by silence when we should protest, makes cowards of men" -Ella Wheeler Wilcox
I am so tired of
April 14, 2009 - 16:19 ET by bigtimerI am so tired of msnbc.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Stupidity Madcow will not help your ratings.
April 14, 2009 - 16:21 ET by Lord ErondRachel, I would have to compare your ratings to a 95 year old man trying to participate in a teabagging. In other words, they're sagging, look awful and it would take an act of God to get them up again.
"To sin by silence when we should protest, makes cowards of men" -Ella Wheeler Wilcox
LOL
April 14, 2009 - 18:32 ET by CobraManWell said, Sir! Well said indeed!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
TEA bag
April 14, 2009 - 16:37 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsScrew MSNBC and screw big government. Send a virtual teabag.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
I sent mine
April 14, 2009 - 16:46 ET by general companyThanks
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Sent mine, too
April 14, 2009 - 18:05 ET by Indiana JoeThanks.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
Me three.
April 14, 2009 - 18:11 ET by BKeyserMe three.
ditto
April 14, 2009 - 19:36 ET by puredmashieswing hard in case you hit it.
Ditto 2.0
April 14, 2009 - 21:34 ET by RukusGary
"Things can only bother you if you let them bother you" -My Dad
MSNBC's Teabagging references
April 14, 2009 - 16:39 ET by trahantgThis is really disgusting that these people use these sort of references on TV. Do they have no standards whatsoever?
What on earth would Mr. Maddow and that gap lapper guest of hers named Cox know about tea bagging anyway?
These people just have no class at all.
liberal humor brings me back
April 14, 2009 - 17:38 ET by TruthMongerliberal humor brings me back to junior high again and again and again
MSNBC has finally turned
April 14, 2009 - 20:05 ET by kgMSNBC has finally turned disgustingly crazy. The FCC should shut them down. I am surprised the rest of the media has not reported on MSNBC's actions. They are totally gross!!!
"DumbAssity of Dope"
What's so shocking? This is
April 14, 2009 - 16:42 ET by SickofLibsWhat's so shocking? This is from the party who proudly brought 'blow jobs' into our living rooms.
Shyster: enjoy your limited time above ground, you little worm, cause you're going back down soon.
LOL!
April 14, 2009 - 21:40 ET by Rukus"...you little worm, cause you're going back down soon."
That's what I'm talkin' 'bout SoL! Hit 'em back with their own "humor"! LOL! ; )
Gary
"Things can only bother you if you let them bother you" -My Dad
sixth graders have taken over
April 14, 2009 - 16:44 ET by katainkentThis is the kind of stuff you'd expect to see / hear on a late night local cable show.
Okay, yuck. This another
April 14, 2009 - 16:44 ET by Chris NormanOkay, yuck. This another good reason not to watch MSNBC - not that I needed yet more reasons...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
The only reason TO watch
April 14, 2009 - 17:14 ET by BuffNBoneThe only reason TO watch MSNBC is to learn who the sponsors are so you can send them your opinions about program content and your plans about continuing to purchase their products.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Sponsors?
April 14, 2009 - 17:38 ET by Old VetI like the idea of contacting or at the very least avoiding any MSNBC sponsors, but just don't have the stomach to tune into any of that nonsense at all. How about someone starting a thread of some type listing all of the sponsors of as many MSNBC shows as possible for us to work with. Believe me, you will be doing a service.
Great suggestion! I refuse to allow MSNBC to have 1 minute
April 14, 2009 - 18:22 ET by Cape Conservativeof accountable airtime from this household. I'd contact the sponsors if I knew who they were!
This is nothing more than FILTHY TRASH! (and, believe it or not, the first time I have ever heard of the term)
When I look at 'women' such as these two, I realize why there are lesbians...NO MAN alive would give them the time of day, much less any other attention! Has anyone else noticed that most lesbians look like they've eaten nails for breakfast? They are ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY and MISERABLE-- and we all know the old saying, 'Misery loves company' - which is a major reason, I believe, for their extreme hatred of Sarah Palin. She is EVERYTHING they wish they were but know they will never be - an attractive, loving woman with a strong faith and moral values as they have never known!
This is one woman who admires Sarah Palin and my husband and I both voted for PALIN/McCain in November. Before she came on the ticket, we were voting against the Democrat ticket...SHE gave us a reason to vote FOR ;-)
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Heh...I agree, though I
April 16, 2009 - 02:14 ET by Anniee451Heh...I agree, though I probably shouldn't say why. The fact is, I don't watch the news. For the same reason the pothead in Idle Hands didn't watch the news. He hated that f***ing show. So do I.
No matter the channel, news irritates me more than anything. Hence, nope. No watching, no channel. I get more than enough news here and on various blogs anyway.
I agree OldVet...after that
April 14, 2009 - 20:32 ET by the strugglerI agree OldVet...after that display,if I knew their sponsors,
I would avoid them completely
AMEN Old Vet... That is the ticket!
April 14, 2009 - 20:43 ET by pahuber:)
hey, maybe someone can post
April 15, 2009 - 08:04 ET by kangaroohey, maybe someone can post the sponsers so we don't all need to be subjected to the misery of pmsnbc, I would email everyone,
. "They oppose Mr. Obama's
April 14, 2009 - 16:45 ET by Kevroy. "They oppose Mr. Obama's tax rates - which will be lower for most of them --"
REALLY? WHEN? You lying scumbags. Where is my tax cut? 13 lousy dollars that gets eaten up next yr when Bush's tax cuts expire? Oh, and a big thanks to you, o-bow-ma, for raising the price on my cigarettes by 9 bucks per carton with a tax that you promised would never happen in any way shape or form.
Lying POS.
I agree
April 14, 2009 - 18:10 ET by Anniee451And I think this is the thing about this that *really* bothers me (I mean, they can make jokes about teabagging; it isn't like we don't know what it means and it just makes them look like the idiots they are). This nonsense that we're protesting because our taxes are going to be lowered while a few people will have their taxes raised but it's going to be a small raise and not even equal the Reagan rates. Who are they trying to fool with that lie? I don't even know if blowbama is trying to anymore.
The fact is, he's spending, not like a drunken sailor, but like a madman. Without *serious* tax cuts and the attendant growth in production and the economy, it is going to be *impossible* to pay for this mad spending - AND he's infusing new dollars into the situation, thinking that dollars = money. Well, I don't think HE thinks that; but he knows the idiot sheeple do.
Ergo - any tiny temporary tax cut is meaningless; he is wreaking absolute economic devastation and WE KNOW IT. THAT is what we are protesting, you morons. We are all going to suffer for this, and badly - and we are protesting against what we know is coming; what is already happening.
Morons. Absolute morons.
Is there anything more juvenile???
April 14, 2009 - 16:46 ET by bpjamSeriously, it's hard to keep pretending that NBC is actually a 'news' organization when they continue to put things on this on the air.
This is just a sign that the Left things that they have absolutely no opposition of any consequence and they can just do and say anything they want with no consequences. The White House won't criticize them. The rest of the MSM won't even touch this. And none of the rabblerousing activist professional-protester types will object. And since they apparently don't have to worry about ratings they don't have any form of retribution to fear.
Imagine if this were a
April 14, 2009 - 16:57 ET by motherbeltCan anyone imagine conservatives doing a 5-day running gag of filthy jokes?
Imagine it as a liberal protest.
If Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly referred to it by using the prurient mangling of the name, none of the news stories would be about the protests. They would all be on what the conservative talkers were calling it, how disgusting they were...with demands for apologies, firings and huge fines from the FCC.
But for liberals, it's just a hilarious little double-entendre.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
I know exactly what you
April 14, 2009 - 17:06 ET by Chris NormanI know exactly what you mean. However, hypotheticals aside, I don't think Beck or O'Reilly would know what this term meant in the gay sense - I know I didn't - and for that, I'm rather proud. :)
The fact that Maddow and Shuster know what the term means and use it has caused their "Smarminess Rating" to go through the roof...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Ummm...it's gay?
April 14, 2009 - 17:20 ET by Protocol_9CNorman,
The term "teabagging" should be considered the same as a blow job...not specific to homosexuals or heterosexuals, used by both to describe a sex act.
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
Yay. Pi314 has found another
April 14, 2009 - 17:38 ET by SickofLibsYay. Pi314 has found another public library.
?????
April 14, 2009 - 18:07 ET by Protocol_9SickofLibs,
I'm out of the loop on this one...what are you talking about? Is this an insult or a joke or some inside reference to something on this site?
What have I done to insult you?
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
No, not an insult at all:
April 14, 2009 - 18:14 ET by SickofLibsNo, not an insult at all: Pi314 was one of the most popular posters here and got unceremoniously kicked off recently. He posted from his library and vowed to come back if he was ever banned.
Your writing style sounded very similar.
Cheers!
I'm not in a library and I'm not pi314.
April 14, 2009 - 18:46 ET by Protocol_9SickofLibs,
Was he some kind of math geek? Too many circular arguments if you get my drift?
My writing style sucks. Especially, on an internet forum. I think it's pissing off people which was not my intention at all. Goodness, I got flamed a while ago. My tail feathers are still singed! What kind of site is this anyway? I'm going off topic, sorry, didn't mean to bore anyone. I realize "going off topic" on some other sites is a pain in the tookus & an internets "faux pas"...
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
SickofLibs~
April 14, 2009 - 20:03 ET by Georgia GirlI have to agree with you -- "Protocol" does have a very similiar writing style to Pi314.
Just sayin'...not knowin'... ^_^
Walks like a duck, quacks
April 14, 2009 - 20:59 ET by Free StinkerWalks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . .
;-)
P.S.
April 15, 2009 - 11:23 ET by Georgia GirlOn good authority, I later confirmed Protocol is not Pi314. As time went by, I started to really wonder because although the style of writing is similar, I didn't think Pi would say some of the things Protocol did...and I feel confident now that it is not him, for what it's worth, guys.
Might be a bad coincidence.
April 15, 2009 - 03:40 ET by JWFIt looks like you had the bad timing to sign up the day before said poster was banned.
If you are in a truly conservative frame of mind, I would not worry about it.
Your post below is troublesome in the least. You appear not to watch Fox News. Are not aware that people are protesting the excessive spending and COMING tax increases because of it. Took a pointless shot at GWB. And are clearly argumentive over every little thing.
Not boding well for you at all.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Thanks for the head's up...
April 15, 2009 - 15:20 ET by Protocol_9JWF,
It took a week or so to sign up...didn't think about the site until I received an email about my approval. Seems a little, well, uptight for a general forum/discussion website. I 'm beginning to understand the basic tenets of this conservative site. I just didn't realize how protective and inclusive it's turning out to be. Some of the posters have been here for a long time(...too long?). It seems to me, in my opinion, differing POV's get branded and labeled pretty quickly(...too quickly?). I read more traditional types of media and some online media than watch TV. It seems online media outlets feed the print and cable media outlets. Hell, sometimes the stuff on TV is a week old, not very fresh. Life's too short to be bitter & pissed off at things beyond your control. Or is it better to be bitter & pissed off at things beyond your control? According to some of these posters, bitter & pissed rule the day.
As for the protesting of BIG government expansion, HUGE spending programs and future tax increases on the upper 5% of the population...it begs the question- Why protest, now & not before? BIG government expansion & HUGE spending programs have been happening for the past 8 years. This is a fact. This not an opinion. As for future tax increases for the top 5% of the population- still not in existence-possible action. Each one of the protesters had the chance to vote in the last election. They are represented by the person who was elected in their local area. Even if the person elected was not their choice, they are still represented in the current government. The protest has been labeled a "grassroots" movement- most "grassroots" movement developed by the people- the corporations need not apply. For FoxNews to brand themselves as "fair & balanced", why so much advertising & "pushing the agenda"? This shouldn't be called propaganda? FoxNews continues to promote themselves, they plan on showing up with a contingent of celebrity reporters at different sites across the nation to "report" on the protest. I'd love to see how many autographs are given today. (note to liberal MSM- report on autographs given by FoxNews reporters).
It's about ratings & the bottom line at NewsCorp...more power to them. Remember this is the same organization that brings you The Simpsons & Family Guy.
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
If not now, when?
April 15, 2009 - 16:32 ET by katainkentIf not us, who?
Protocol: are you at the chess club?~
April 16, 2009 - 06:36 ET by Georgia GirlLet's just, for the sake of argument, imagine that you read an article in the newspaper that the chess club is meeting at the local library...
So you head over to the library to see what it's all about. You've never played chess, but you mosey on over. And imagine this: you get to the library, and glory be -- a bunch of people are playing chess...talking chess strategy and enjoying themselves. Common interest, good time -- they challenge each other and just generally support good, clean, intellectual fun. They are there for a common purpose -- and a productive one at that.
So there you are at the chess club...but you don't really play chess, so you are starting to feel a little uncomfortable, maybe a little defensive. This isn't your "thing." Of course, nobody forced you to come to the library to check out the chess club, but they are totally fine about your being there. They assume you came to play chess because you have that interest as well. But again, you don't really like chess -- or get why people play it -- it seems a little "uptight" to you, because you would rather play tennis. The chess people, on the other hand, didn't head to the tennis courts. They want to play chess, and they don't see any reason to link up with tennis folks and waste their time -- they don't have that common interest. The chess folks are at the library to hang out with friends they can relate to, and they are fine with not playing tennis. But this chess thing is bugging you. You start to become critical and generally unpleasant, ticked off that they are playing chess at the chess club. So you start interrupting the chess matches going on for no good reason. No real purpose. You're just irritated they play chess.
You don't really have anything in common with these people, and don't particularly want to talk about chess strategy. Why do these people enjoy chess and why are they playing? You don't really want to learn anything about chess. You don't particularly have anything constructive to offer to what they're doing. Come to think of it, you've always known you don't like chess. So you can keep distracting others who are playing chess...you can cause trouble or debate the chess club members, even though nothing you are saying is particularly insightful -- so that they have to swat you away while they play chess...but you have no particular stake in the chess club or, again, any real good reason to be there. If you get loud enough to the point of being downright rude and disruptive so that you spoil the good aspects going on around you, perhaps the librarian will ask you to leave. But the chess club members are good people -- they just kind of deal with it.
So there you are, wondering why you are at the library with the chess club. You came. You saw. You didn't like. You didn't have good chess strategies or relevant info to offer. So you ask yourself: gosh, why the heck am I here, in the library, at the chess club?
"Chess Club Meeting at the Local Library. 7pm. Everyone invited.
April 16, 2009 - 10:20 ET by Protocol_9GG,
For the sake of argument...
So I head over to the library to see what it's all about. I've
played Chess since I was six, part of the Chess Club in High School and competed in a number of tournaments in College and now, enjoy a good game online. I noticed something different when I showed up at the Library. I don't think I've played this version of "chess" as was presented at this "Chess Club"...glory be -- a bunch of people are playing
"chess", at least they look like they're playing chess...talking chess strategy and enjoying themselves. Common
interest, good time -- they challenge each other and just generally
support good, clean, intellectual fun. They are there for a common
purpose -- and a productive one at that. There's a problem, though, it's the setup of the pieces on the chess boards. More on that later...
So there I am at this "chess club"...but I don't really know how to play
this version of "chess" that is presented, so I start to feel a little uncomfortable, maybe a
little defensive. I want to tell them something is wrong. This isn't my "thing". Of course, nobody forced me
to come to the library to check out this "Chess Club", but they are
totally fine about me being at the PUBLIC Library. They assume I came to play their version of "chess"
because I have an interest in chess as well. But again, I don't really understand this version of "chess" -- or get why people play it -- it seems a little "uptight"
to me, because I would rather play tennis than this type of "chess". (These "Chess" people, on the
other hand, wouldn't be found at the tennis courts. Too much sweating & physical exertion) They want to play their own version of "chess",
and they don't see any reason to link up with tennis folks and waste
their time -- they don't have that common interest. The "chess" folks are
at the library to hang out with friends they can relate to, and they
are fine with not playing tennis. But I digress...this version of "chess" is bugging me. I start to become critical and generally unpleasant, ticked off that
they are playing a version of "chess" at the "Chess Club". So I start interrupting the "chess" matches going on for no good reason. The thing is they don't realize they aren't playing chess. They are playing with no real purpose and aren't following the rules of the game of chess. I'm just
irritated they continue to call themselves a "Chess Club".
I don't really have anything in common with these people if they continue playing this "game" of theirs, and
don't particularly want to talk about their "chess strategy".
I ask myself, "Why do these
people enjoy this version of 'chess' and why do they think they are actually playing a real game of chess?". I don't really want to
learn anything about this version of "chess". I want to inform them of the problems they face if they were to show up at a real tournament. To show them the proper setup of the pieces on the board and the simple rules of the game. Come to think of it, I've always known I like chess and discussing it. So I debate the
"chess club" members, even though everything I say is particularly
insightful, they have to swat me away while they play
their "chess"...but I have no particular stake in this "chess club" or, again,
any real good reason to be there. I try not to get too loud to the point
of being downright rude and disruptive so as not to spoil the good
aspects going on around me, perhaps the librarian will help me in trying to understand this "Chess Club". So, I mosey over to her and start asking her some questions. here's how the conversation went...
So there I am, wondering why I am at the
library with this "chess club". I came. I saw. I didn't like the version. I
did have good chess strategies & relevant info to offer. So I ask myself, "Gosh, why the heck am I here, in the PUBLIC library, at this particular "chess club", maybe , by chance, there are some new people here who know how to play a true, decent game of chess?"
I mosey back over and sit down, of course, behind the "dark forces of evil" pieces with their 'cool' King and wait for someone to start the game...
Just another POV.
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
dialog interpretation not representative...
April 16, 2009 - 11:30 ET by Georgia GirlProtocol,
My interpretation of you is based on what I have observed & your approach to others. It's a judgment call, but if it's not accurate, time will tell. And, by the way, I stood up for someone that was intense on the liberal side (and full of questions & etc.) that was much like you, not long ago. However, he did not take up the attitude that "golly gee, didn't realize the site was this way -- I had to wait two weeks to be allowed onto the site," etc. He didn't gripe about the nature of the site, and he pretty much figured out what was going on and adapting -- though he did engage in battle, which often happens here and people expect -- many even rise to the challenge.
My problem with you is the that the "poor me" thing got on my last nerve. Leave the site if you don't like it -- or stay on it & realize you came here & are now a guest of NB -- that was my point.
Tongue in cheek...
April 16, 2009 - 12:05 ET by Protocol_9GG,
I appreciate the length at which you formulated your metaphor and tried to apply it to me. Should I be impressed?
The premise of this site is to "combat & expose" the liberal media bias. If everyone here continues to show how FoxNews & TalkRadio dominate the airwaves, the old print media outlets as being on their deathbeds, then the liberal MainStream Media should be reclassified & renamed as the conservative MSM. With the amount of differing media outlets covering the news of the world, one has to start questioning whether there truly is a MSM and why attach the liberal moniker to it.
Would it be better to combat & expose all biases in the media?
Allowing for a more open discussion of POVs & being able to learn the flip side of different arguments would be pretty enjoyable as opposed to the constant bickerin' & bitchin' about the other side being wrong- liberal & conservative.
As for the media outlets...if it bleeds, it leads. Nothing like a good brawl between two opposing forces!
protocol9
PS...I like the chess reference. Here's a proposition for you- Let's play a game of chess- You win, I go away for a whole month. I win, you go away for a whole month. Wanna play? (It would be too hard to play tennis, our computers would be trashed by the first volleys.)
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
Protocol~
April 16, 2009 - 12:41 ET by Georgia GirlI'm not here to impress. I'm a magazine writer, so I communicate how I feel may reach others.
You are more than welcome to stay on the blog/the site. You can have this whole blog to yourself. I will leave~I like to stay positive and wasn't trying to fight with anybody or impress anybody. Many say not to feed the trolls. I was trying to give a little of my own insight to see if there was anything positive for you to glean from it. Apparently not.
It's all yours~and if I was too hard on you, even nice people have a bad day. ;) I don't have a beef with you. Just like Pi314, I see redeeming value in everybody, and same goes with you. I'm just not big on complaining about things that people can change, with a simple attitude check.
Peace out~it's all yours. I'm sure you will be glad to see me go!
No, don't go...
April 16, 2009 - 13:42 ET by Protocol_9GG,
I appreciate your POV. It is not my intent to have someone like you leave over metaphors. My apologies if I offended you in any way. From your comments to me, I thought you were one of the angry ones. No beef with you also. I've been meaning to read through this pi314 character's comments to get an appreciation for why so many on this site seem to love or hate him. I'll tackle them when I have some time...
Thanks for the comments...mine were supposed to be more "tongue in cheek" with a little humor, a little poke...so to speak.
Stalemate?
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
It's okay...
April 17, 2009 - 09:54 ET by Georgia GirlApology accepted~clean slate. Sorry for my crabbiness as well. Hope this closes it out~we can move onto other blogs!
~"Go away for a whole month"
April 16, 2009 - 13:38 ET by choselife3xLet us know when you finish drying out.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Do you really want answers? Or are you here to lie to us?
April 15, 2009 - 23:12 ET by JWFWe will assume for the moment you did not come here to argue or stir the cistern.
But again, you are very argumentive.
According to some of these posters, bitter & pissed rule the day.
This is a site that recognises the bias in the MSM. This site sees the bull that is being tossed out there. And argues against the bull with truth. So if you come here with lies or propaganda, you will be called out.
BIG government expansion & HUGE spending programs have been happening for the past 8 years. This is a fact. This not an opinion.
You need to back this up. But before you do. Let me warn you. You have claimed before the world here today. I quote This is a fact. You best have your poo in one sock.
I ask you now. Here. As a percentage of GDP, what has the level of government gone from in 2001 when President Bush started until the end of Jan 21 of 2009 when he left.
First, before you do any research, throw out a number of what you THINK it went from and then what it went to.
I ask for a percentage of GDP. Don't forget, we have 2 to 3% inflation in this country. At 3% alone, 1000 in 2001 would have gone to 1240 in eight years. The economy also grew during those 8 years. So the government would have taken in more money anyway as peoples & companies paychecks increased.
Are you ready to back up your assertions? Or are you here to harrass and troll?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Facts are cruel.
April 16, 2009 - 13:26 ET by Protocol_9JWF,
Really...?
Honestly...? From a cato report in 2005.
Here's something to ponder from Asha Bangalore-"...the performance of the economy in the eight years ended 2008 pales in comparison to prior expansions of the U.S. economy."
"Big Government Conservatism" -How George W. Bush squares the fiscally expansive / conservative circle. by Fred Barnes
Fact checking not trollin'...
Next!
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
I called you out in the woodshed TROLL
April 17, 2009 - 03:06 ET by JWFhttp://newsbusters.org/forums/woodshed/liberal-lies-bush-was-big-spender-truth-he-was-average-29566
Go there to recant your lies or BACK THEM UP.
Oh, for pete's sake, who
April 14, 2009 - 18:07 ET by Chris NormanOh, for pete's sake, who cares about who uses the term? It has no place on a supposedly serious news show. Neither does the term you use - and, by the way, it doesn't belong on this site either. Most of us here watch our language. I encourage you to do the same.
Oh, and I have a lot of friends, both young and old, and, from them, I've heard some pretty raw slang terms for sex acts that I know are very current. I have used some pretty raunchy language myself when among those friends - situation permitting. Yet, I have never heard one of my friends use the term "tea-bagging". You must run with a racier, more cosmopolitan crowd.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Well I know for a fact that
April 14, 2009 - 18:17 ET by Anniee451Well I know for a fact that among many conservatives it was indeed already a joke (long before MSNBC started in) about these protests - I mean, it was there, it got used. I'm talking about people who are participating in it. And I don't particularly like feeding into their notion of conservatives as bumpkins who just fell off the turnip truck and haven't ever heard of such things before when in fact we're all here on the internet, and how could we really have missed it? Why validate them when in fact many people within the movement made the joke *first*?
Or maybe I'm not as good as you, who knows. I'm no leftist, that doesn't make me polly purebred.
Okay. Let me get this
April 14, 2009 - 18:25 ET by Chris NormanOkay. Let me get this straight - we're supposed to know all the slang terms for sex acts so as not to be thought of as "bumpkins"? Lady (I assume from your name), I know some words and terms that are raw and explicit enough to make fresh milk curdle, but I have never, ever, mistaken that vocabulary as a sign of, what, sophistication? In fact, just the opposite. ]Really, what kind of logic is this?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Sophistication?
April 14, 2009 - 18:36 ET by Protocol_9CNorman,
I'm not trying to get your hackles up. It would be okay for you to explore the nether regions of the online dictionary called the "Urban Dictionary". It has already been referenced in the article, so, I think it's okay. You may actually be shocked at how some terms have been used! Shocking! If you know any teenage kids with access to the internets, they already know, just ask. Knowledge is power. Do you like Shakespeare? He was a hoot way back in the day, his use of the English language would make the Queen blush!
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
No, I don't consider it a
April 14, 2009 - 19:06 ET by Anniee451No, I don't consider it a sign of sophistication - just fairly general knowledge on the internet. It is the *left* that uses this faux outrage to their advantage, in order to present the opposition as unaware, prudish morons, when that simply isn't the case.
I get your meaning, Annie
April 14, 2009 - 19:18 ET by Indiana JoeAlthough I don't think there's anything "faux" about the outrage people are expressing here. I think the point isn't whether one was previously aware of the term or not. Once one is aware (whether sooner or later), it's plain that the whole reason for these "reports" is to demean, belittle, and insult.
That's the source of a lot of the outrage. Mine, at any rate. And, again, there's nothing "faux" about it.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
I get your meaning, too,
April 14, 2009 - 19:28 ET by Anniee451I get your meaning, too, and I agree. They were far far out of line if they think that's "reporting" but what do you expect from the hard left socialist media? They're disgusting and they are stupid and they are immature. It outrages me as well how they act - for example that woman katainket linked to on Cavuto who smugly laughed and dismissed the whole idea as too silly to even report - holy crap! Oh yes, I am furious too, make no mistake. The media's open and willing complicity in this entire abortion of an administration is beyond belief, and is no different from Goebbels or Squealer of Animal Farm.
It's the part about how we were all supposed to be too far above everything to be aware of double-entendres and the outrage on that score that irks me from the conservative end, not the outrage at lowbrow "reporters" or whatever they think they are.
it's blumpkin.
April 14, 2009 - 19:42 ET by puredmashiei'd rather not to go there. i prefer the more humorous "upper decker", as it is now baseball season. it's the gift that keeps on giving.
swing hard in case you hit it.
Oh, dude
April 14, 2009 - 21:22 ET by Captain KirockFunny, but don't even go there.
Where's the outrage?
April 15, 2009 - 15:28 ET by Protocol_9Puredmashie,
Might start a fire...watch your tailfeathers!
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
Sorry, anniee - I, too, am a 'first-timer' for this term and
April 14, 2009 - 18:30 ET by Cape Conservativewe have been planning to attend the Cape Cod TEA PARTY since it was set! Of all the people I have spoken with, NONE had any knowledge of the other phrase!
And, Chris, I also consider it an honor to be considered unsophisticated if this is the standard.
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
In real life or online? I
April 14, 2009 - 19:19 ET by Anniee451In real life or online? I don't know if I know anyone in real life who's aware of it, but most of them aren't into the internet as much as the like-minded political people I meet virtually, who were all aware of it. Well, with the exception of this site, naturally.
What?
April 14, 2009 - 19:55 ET by general companyIn real life or online?
I my world they are the same thing, BTW I never knew the term till today either. But then I dont just hang with anyone
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Ann... Prove it. What
April 14, 2009 - 18:47 ET by bigtimerAnn...
Prove it.
What conservatives do you know that had a link to this use of this term that was used as a joke?
Why would any real conservative think to use tea-bagging for these parties in that term?
What real conservative would joke about this at all in that way?
You are full of bull...of course this is just my opinion.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Yes, that is just your
April 14, 2009 - 19:12 ET by Anniee451Yes, that is just your opinion; thank you for acknowledging that. It was being joked about by most of the conservatives and libertarians *I* converse with online for the most part - which encompasses a pretty broad range, from the Rottweiler to Libertarian Republican to a couple men's rights sites, and various people I've met on all those places as well as my own blogs and message boards. This just isn't something that everyone was unaware of, and frankly some of the clips Maddow showed to mock the conservatives seemed to *clearly* be using the term ironically, with an undercurrent. The guy with the teabag on his head using the term teabagging to encourage people to go to the protests? Come on! No, I refuse to acknowledge that *most* people were unaware of it and were not laughing about it just because *some* people weren't. I do not blame someone for not knowing (no, of course it is not a sign of unsophistication; that's just how the left portrays it when they quotemine from sites like this) but to now act like we were all of us ABOVE knowing?
No, that I will not and do not accept. Not when we were laughing about it long before Maddow and cronies.
I think you're missing the point here
April 14, 2009 - 19:22 ET by Captain KirockIt's one thing to hear a friend use a sexual pun or to see it on the web, but it's a completely different situation for an alleged news network to base their entire prime time line up on exploiting to the point of overkill the use of a disgusting sexual pun.
The Seventh Graders are now in charge at MSNBC.
Exactly!
April 14, 2009 - 19:32 ET by CobraManYou nailed it right on the head! This isn't some blog or IM we're talking about here, is a supposedly "respectable' new source. No Conservative new source would EVER get away with using sexual innuendo in describing a LIBERAL protest, but here I see the liberals have crawled out of the woodwork to defend THEIR use of sexual innuendos. Typical of the liberal hypocrites, it's always "Do as I say, Not as I do!"
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I really hope you weren't
April 14, 2009 - 19:38 ET by Anniee451I really hope you weren't talking about me, because A) I did not miss that point at all and B) calling ME a leftist is serious fighting words. There is nothing you could possibly call me that I would ever hate more or that could be farther from the truth. I am THE anti-leftist, so let's be real freaking clear there.
Real freaking what?
April 14, 2009 - 19:43 ET by CobraManWhat are you babbling on about? I never even posted a RESPONSE TO YOU! Tell me, are you always this self conscious about how someone thinks of your "conservatism?"? If so, then that would tend to support the conclusion that you really ARE a liberal, but are afraid to admit it. Care to be real freaking honest about that?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I am with you CM
April 14, 2009 - 20:00 ET by general companyAs liberal as they get, least that is my bet. No conservitive would carry this train of thought.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
They woldn't get mad
April 14, 2009 - 20:16 ET by CobraManI don't know any conservitive who would get MAD at being confused as a liberal. They may think it's funny, but they wouldn't get angry. That type emotive response is one of the things that defines a liberal, in my opinion anyways.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Correct CobraMan
April 14, 2009 - 23:39 ET by Captain KirockImagine if a Conservative did what Maddow & The Shuckster did here.
It would be so easy to come up with a disgusting sexual pun to refer to the left wingers, such as the Code Pinkers or even Maddow herself. But if anyone did that, the MSM would raise hell until that person had been flayed alive on national tv.
Of course it's a different
April 14, 2009 - 19:34 ET by Anniee451Of course it's a different thing; but what did people imagine the slogan "Teabag Obama/your congressman Before He Teabags You" MEANT? I mean...wasn't it pretty obvious that was a double entendre even on the surface? Not that I am missing your point, because I'm not. My focus is just a little different, because this is exactly what Maddow was mocking - that those conservatives had NO IDEA what they were saying when in fact that just isn't true. I did a whole post mocking HER for accusing libertarians and conservatives of naivete in her implications, because the leftie bloggers were doing the same thing. And you KNOW that the leftie bloggers are not a serious news source and were all over this. Which is why I posted about it because it never occurs to them that we have any idea of anything, when that's just ridiculous.
Though I do admit the joke is partly on me there, because they can easily quotemine here and come up with a different picture :D Oh, well. C'est la vie.
Thanks, bt ;-) From 1 'real conservative to another'
April 14, 2009 - 20:07 ET by Cape ConservativeIt is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
CC... Hey
April 14, 2009 - 20:19 ET by bigtimerCC...
Hey gal...
Ditto.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
You got me on this one.
April 14, 2009 - 18:26 ET by Protocol_9CNorman,
I'm not cursing. I'm using the terms already used in the article & the video.
I truly don't remember when I heard "teabagging", a few years ago possibly. It is a term used by many people. It's funny to see it used by people who all of a sudden realized they are now the butt of the joke. It's funny, actually, hilarious, though you don't think so. MSNBC's "Countdown with KO" is a supposedly "serious" news show? Have you watched it? There's a segment called "Oddball" and "Best People", this is not the 'Newshour with Jim Lehrer' which I would consider "serious".
How many times do posters on this site refer to Bill Clinton as BJ and his blow jobs in the Oval Office? It's not that hard (excuse the pun) to find the terms on this website. (note to site managers-'search' function is archaic and almost useless). So, your trying to somehow tell me I need to watch my language? Okey-dokey, when I feel it necessary to use a term I'm not authorized to use may I get your permission? What's your email?
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
P9
April 14, 2009 - 18:57 ET by bigtimerI truly don't remember when I heard "teabagging", a few years ago possibly. It is a term used by many people. It's funny to see it used by people who all of a sudden realized they are now the butt of the joke. It's funny, actually, hilarious, though you don't think so.
It isn't funny, nor hilarious one iota.
Who do you think you are getting a kick out of this when you declare we are being made the butt of a joke a$$hole?
We the People are rising up against worthless scum in this country that are to stupid to realize that you too will be taken down with the ship that made this country great with your worthless wisdom...you are nothing but pablum...rotten pablum at that.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
The fires of hell are licking up!
April 14, 2009 - 20:04 ET by Protocol_9Bigtimer,
We the People are rising up against worthless scum in this
country that are to(o) stupid to realize that you too will be taken down
with the ship that made this country great with your worthless
wisdom...you are nothing but pablum...rotten pablum at that.
You go, girl! I'll watch from the shoreline!
Shall I throw loose or bag? Better yet, I'm going to get some coffee from Starbucks...
I find it hilarious. I'm sorry you don't. It's just my POV. I could really careless. Lipton will enjoy the profit of selling some teabags. I'm sure no one will buy the good stuff. Plus, the MSNBC types will mock FoxNews types...it's about the ratings, anyway.
Did you know Ana Marie Cox was the original "Wonkette"? Funny gal!
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
P9... You've been here
April 14, 2009 - 20:09 ET by bigtimerP9...
You've been here before...and you aren't fooling me.
Troll.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Play nice...is what I say.
April 14, 2009 - 20:23 ET by Protocol_9Bigtimer,
Come on, lighten up a little. You have bashed me and called me names. I'm not a "troll". You seem to be angry at something. Why me? Why should I receive the hate? I have not attacked you in anyway. You have attacked me and tried to engage me in some type of flame war. I won't do it. You've called me some nasty things for what? I'm sorry I have a different perspective and view. I'm willing to be open and see your point of view. I will try to stay on topic. I will not engage you in a flame war. I'd probably lose since I have a limited number of tailfeathers. If you don't like what I said, please tell me. I don't know you well enough to enjoy some decent ribbing & joking around...I'm not mad or angry. Have a good time at the tea party tomorrow.
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
P9... Stick it. ...and
April 14, 2009 - 20:34 ET by bigtimerP9...
Stick it.
...and you know full well exactly what I mean.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Not a troll? From the
April 15, 2009 - 14:05 ET by Ruths husband BenNot a troll? From the Urban Dictionary: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board withe intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
That would make you a troll and a liar. Want to go for the trifecta?
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
What's the third?
April 15, 2009 - 14:11 ET by bretzysdudeWhat's the third?
Wait for
April 15, 2009 - 14:12 ET by Ruths husband BenWait for it.
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
Darn, we scared him away....
April 16, 2009 - 10:09 ET by Ruths husband BenObama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
WEVS, leftie. The fact is
April 14, 2009 - 19:14 ET by Anniee451WEVS, leftie. The fact is that just because *some* people were unaware doesn't mean others weren't making the joke long before; I'm sorry; your Maddow and friends just are not very original at all. And they're assholes.
What's REALLY funny...
April 14, 2009 - 19:38 ET by CobraMan"It's funny, actually."
Let's see, the use of "Nappy Headed Hoe," a blatant case of sexual innuendo, is met with MASSIVE liberal objections, but the use of "teabagging" and other sexual innuendo is NOT being met with that same level of liberal objection. Care to tell my HOW this is funny?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra,
April 14, 2009 - 20:04 ET by Indiana JoeIt's funny because the targets are conservatives, and a liberal said it. Get it? Ha-ha.
That's the only real difference.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
EXACTLY!
April 14, 2009 - 20:09 ET by Cape ConservativeIt is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
No objection...just clarifying...
April 14, 2009 - 20:09 ET by Protocol_9Cobraman,
There's no 'e' in "Ho".
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
I'll remember THAT
April 14, 2009 - 20:13 ET by CobraManI'll remember that, even though it really doesn't matters as you knew what I was referring to. But thank you for the grammar correction, none the less. Will I get a gold star if I spell it correctly the next time?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobra,
April 14, 2009 - 20:22 ET by Indiana JoeJudging by what happened to Imus, you'll probably get fired if you spell it right the next time... and there better not be a "next time!"
;^)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
Good evening Protocol
April 14, 2009 - 20:22 ET by cocodrieThe Urban dictionary defines HOE as a woman who is "easy", and then goes into all the vulgar details you so love.
HOE is a proper spelling in street language.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Though, "Ho" is the most widely used with the most definitions.
April 14, 2009 - 20:31 ET by Protocol_9Cocodrie,
3 definitions for "hoe" to 120+ for "ho". Thanks for pointing it out. I'm glad I helped you with a new dictionary!
Either way, do the kids on the street know how to spell?
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
Tough to be wrong isn't it?
April 14, 2009 - 20:42 ET by cocodrieTough to be wrong isn't it?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Also clarifying...
April 14, 2009 - 20:34 ET by Indiana Joe"Dostoyevski" is a proper name, and should be capitalized. As should be the first letter in the sentence, "taking a new step,...." Unless, of course, it's a sentence fragment, in which case the ellipsis (...) before "taking" is the proper form.
I wasn't going to say anything, but if we're giving grammar lessons, I'm in. ;^)
<edit: Not really, I'm signing off. 'Night all.>
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
Actually, Protocol, I've
April 14, 2009 - 19:11 ET by Indiana JoeActually, Protocol, I've only heard the term used in a gay context. I understand your logic that the act can be performed by a heterosexual couple, but the term seems to mainly be in the gay lexicon.
Not to get too graphic, I hope, but think of all the "gay-specific" slang terms for anal sex. I've heard a lot of them, and again, while the act can go "both ways" (pun intended), the terms are... well, "targeted" is maybe the best word for what I mean. Mainly used in gay circles, that is.
And that's all I have to say about that....
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
FWIW I've never heard it
April 14, 2009 - 19:16 ET by Anniee451FWIW I've never heard it used in a gay context - I've seen women mentioning it about their husbands on men's rights sites and of course the general context of laughing at the teabagging tea partying among libertarians and conservatives. But thanks for the whole new visual - I really could have done without that one.
Sorry 'bout that, Annie.
April 14, 2009 - 19:44 ET by Indiana JoeJust kinda goes to show that the whole topic is just too unseemly for this forum... so why isn't it for MSNBC?
That is the question, IMHO.
<edit: CTTOI, that's probably why MSNBC pushes this concept of it... I think for a lot of people, it just has gay connotations. After all, where's the humor in accusing conservatives of being heterosexual?>
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
annie - I might suggest you visit some new websites - in
April 16, 2009 - 16:46 ET by Cape Conservativemy world, women don't talk about what goes on behind closed doors! Why would anyone want to destroy the trust between husband and wife?
Try reading some classics or baking or taking up some new handcraft or going to the fitness center. Spending all your time surfing sites that go on as you describe above is NOT good for your mental health.
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
IJ, I've most often heard it
April 14, 2009 - 20:47 ET by balboaIJ, I've most often heard it in reference to fraternities...
Me neither...I actually
April 14, 2009 - 21:33 ET by motherbeltMe neither...I actually asked on here what it was, asked someone to PM me because I was afraid it was not suitable for the comments thread...
I wrote to GE before over Olbermann, and got one of those "thanks for letting us know what you think" responses back.
I told them I would never buy a GE appliance and if I could I would get rid of the two I now have (they came with my house).
I think it's time to write again.
MSNBC has really gone overboard this time. It's been nothing but a week-long dirty joke.
Disgusting.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
MSNBC in its death throws? We could only hope this is their
April 14, 2009 - 17:01 ET by pahubercrazy hail Mary pass to somehow rejuvenate this embarrassment of a cable channel.
The line up is full of extreme nutjubs who offer nothing, but their own viewpoints and guests who say amen to anything they say.
Unlike Fox News that allows a multitude of guests to offer differing viewpoints.
I would even blush with embarassment & shame to admit to watching this network if I were a liberal.
It's a joke!
April 14, 2009 - 17:12 ET by Protocol_9I find it funny as hell as FoxNews continues to show people with teabags getting ready for the party & not one person realized how to use The Google.
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
tea party
April 14, 2009 - 17:20 ET by katainkentWhy would Fox News need to google "tea party". Only MSNBC uses the urban dictionary "teabagging".
Okay...?
April 14, 2009 - 17:34 ET by Protocol_9Katainkent,
FoxNews shows people with teabags. People are referring to it as a teabag party. The problem lies in the fact that they think they are protesting Obama's tax increases when nothing could be further from the truth...there are no Obama tax increases in existence. The taxes they are protesting are George W. Bush's taxes. Plus, the people voted for a representative to represent them in government. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against King George's taxes on the colonies & the unfairness in not having representation in Parliament. History is a wonderful thing, especially, American history. So, why does FoxNews hate George W. Bush's taxes?
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
wow
April 14, 2009 - 17:38 ET by katainkentindulge few minutes in this video. Then get back to me.
This video is
April 14, 2009 - 18:29 ET by Anniee451This video is infuriating. Seriously. That bitch is a lying sack of fetid pus not worth Cavuto's time or effort, and he's still not making the obvious point, when of all people I would expect him to.
I can not *stand* what she is saying; the rank hypocrisy is appalling. Tell me, because I'm 5 minutes in already, does he EVER point out to this fetid bitch as she demands "Ooooh government is getting bigger - give me a specific" that ***in fact she already gave the freaking specifics when she said that the president is indeed engaging in this massive spending***? Because what in hell else does she THINK big government IS but taking and spending the people's money?
Neil, I love you but answer the freaking question, since you were dumb enough to give this vile excuse of a human being a platform.
he lists at least 3
April 14, 2009 - 18:34 ET by katainkentthat I can remember, in the way of specifics. I have already played it twice today. And I already have a heckuva headache because of it.
infuriating is very good word.
He kept mentioning the
April 14, 2009 - 19:01 ET by Anniee451He kept mentioning the bailouts and never pointed out the fact that *she herself* listed the main culprit - the "stimulus" (porkulus maximus) trillion + dollars and the "budget" that proposes trillions more. Do you remember the final debate, in which he swore he would be going over the budget with a SCALPEL, line by line? And he can't pretend the market hadn't already crashed, because it had. Yet here he is a few months later spending like an utter madman intent on our ruination (which he is.) Liar is too small a word for it - megalomaniac doesn't even cover it.
But yeah, that was infuriating - her smug dismissal of hundreds of protests going on nationwide as unworthy of any coverage??? Holy CRAP - I mean we KNEW what the media was about, but for them to be so in-your-face, we're-in-power-now-so-why-pretend-anymore about it, is...stunning.
Anniee451, here
April 14, 2009 - 20:34 ET by RESTLESS 1********************************************************
*******************************************************
*******************
Just though you might be running out.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
R1... *LOL* Doubling down
April 14, 2009 - 20:37 ET by bigtimerR1...
*LOL*
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
LOL! Thanks, I needed
April 16, 2009 - 02:08 ET by Anniee451LOL! Thanks, I needed spares :D
Annie - guess your mom never washed your mouth out with soap
April 16, 2009 - 16:51 ET by Cape Conservativeto remind you it was *unladylike* to use bad words ;-)
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
And I thought Calculus AP
April 14, 2009 - 17:49 ET by SRPwrdAnd I thought Calculus AP was confusing!
"I believe in American Exceptionalism, just like Brits believe in British Exceptionalism and Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism." - PreBO, 4/4/09
Its not about taxes, its
April 14, 2009 - 18:02 ET by MrSnugglesIts not about taxes, its about spending. But you probably already knew that.
Personally, for me it is
April 14, 2009 - 18:04 ET by BDPersonally, for me it is about BOTH.
It's also about
April 14, 2009 - 18:34 ET by Anniee451It's also about ruination. After spending money that we don't have like a lunatic (way beyond a drunken sailor here) and later attempting to tax the people to pay for it, what is achieved is exactly poverty and ruination for all, with a massive government now in place to completely take over. The misery index returns, and with this unheard of level of spending and inflation (pumping dollars into the economy so that anything any of us have is worth LESS) we're all impoverished and ruined.
The fact that I believe this man is doing it deliberately, as he has planned all his life a la Alinsky meets Cloward-Piven, in order to bring down the free market and set himself up as a God (tin or otherwise) just makes it that much worse, because he's not really even trying to hide it, and yet the people are embracing it (like the morons on these news programs, who LAP IT UP) and it's exactly like the crowds who got on their feet and cheered for Adolph Hitler. And don't anyone bother telling me Godwin's Law, because if the jackboot fits, WEAR IT.
People are referring to it
April 14, 2009 - 18:03 ET by BDPeople are referring to it as a teabag party.
The problem lies in the fact that they think they are protesting Obama's tax increases when nothing could be further from the truth...there are no Obama tax increases in existence.
The taxes they are protesting are George W. Bush's taxes.
Plus, the people voted for a representative to represent them in government.
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against King George's taxes on the colonies & the unfairness in not having representation in Parliament.
History is a wonderful thing, especially, American history.
So, why does FoxNews hate George W. Bush's taxes?
"People are referring to it as a teabag party."
April 14, 2009 - 19:31 ET by Indiana JoeBeat me to the punch on that one, BD. See below.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
Thanks, BD.
April 14, 2009 - 19:31 ET by Protocol_9BD,
(1.) I don't disagree with some your points. People are calling it how they see it either as a Tea Party or Teabag Party. It's a little silly to be honest. If people want to place their teabags onto a water body, by all means, have at it! (now, that's funny.)
(2.) My point still stands as factually true. Your opinion is quite interesting.
(3.) GWB signed them into law. My reference should have included the Congress, also. Still, interesting opinion on rewarding failure.
(4.) They have representation in their current government. The Colonies did not. My point stands.
(5.) Okay, thanks for the clarification. Are you trying to argue American History with me? My point needed clarification? Representation in Parliment was non-existent. Currently, the people who are protesting are represented in their government.
(6.) True.
(7.) I don't know, if the economy wasn't so effed up, I might agree. With the situation as it stands, maybe its time to spend it wisely on some needed infrastructure projects and to surgically cut defense spending without hindering our ability to defend ourselves. If your taxes are set to skyrocket, I'd get another accountant to protect yourself. If you're making $250K per year, the proposal, (and I stress, it doesn't exist) states your tax rate goes up 3%...$7500. To the average taxpayer making $45K, that $7500 is 16% of their income which for this argument is quite a lot to them. I'd argue that it isn't for the person making $250K per year. It's a tax increase, yes. Not significant enough to win over the majority of taxpayers. I think too many people are mad as hell at the multi-million dollar paychecks on Wall Street and are about to wreck havoc on the top earners of this country.
I'm glad to see your productive. Being a devil's advocate...I think you should pay for every service you take for granted. Would you like a list? You are part of a great society.
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
Proto
April 14, 2009 - 20:44 ET by RESTLESS 1You are completely wrong about the 0's proposed tax increases. That 250 thousand/year number includes small businesses that GROSS 250 or more, not net, not profit, but GROSS. Big difference.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
(3.) GWB signed them into
April 15, 2009 - 09:29 ET by BD(3.) GWB signed them into law. My reference should have included the Congress, also. Still, interesting opinion on rewarding failure.
(4.) They have representation in their current government. The Colonies did not. My point stands.
(7.) I don't know, if the economy wasn't so effed up, I might agree.
With the situation as it stands, maybe its time to spend it wisely on some needed infrastructure projects and to surgically cut defense spending without hindering our ability to defend ourselves.
If your taxes are set to skyrocket, I'd get another accountant to protect yourself.
If you're making $250K per year,
the proposal, (and I stress, it doesn't exist) states your tax rate goes up 3%...$7500. To the average taxpayer making $45K, that $7500 is 16% of their income which for this argument is quite a lot to them.
I'd argue that it isn't for the person making $250K per year. It's a tax increase, yes. Not significant enough to win over the majority of taxpayers. I think too many people are mad as hell at the multi-million dollar paychecks on Wall Street and are about to wreck havoc on the top earners of this country.
I'm glad to see your productive. Being a devil's advocate...I think you should pay for every service you take for granted.
You are part of a great society.
Just to educate you
April 15, 2009 - 09:36 ET by Tom in NCIt is TEA Party, as in:
Taxed
Enough
Already
proto - Get over it!!! You sound like a 6-year-old saying
April 14, 2009 - 18:40 ET by Cape Conservativedamn, damn, damn just because he thinks it's naughty. Alright already, we now know you get your grins by saying naughty words.
Wait until you see the UPRISING OF THE SILENT MAJORITY at TEA PARTIES all across the country...being conducted without the use of NAUGHTY WORDS! The only bad words you will see tomorrow will be written or spoken by left-wing infiltrators.. Ordinary Americans are finding their voice finally and liberals can't stand to think we will actually protest in a lawful manner...unlike the usual filth and bad behavior by liberal protestors.
Guess your mother never washed your mouth out with soap when you were first learning naughty words - too bad for us! Let us know tomorrow what new naughty words you want to toss around.
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Sorry, Protocol
April 14, 2009 - 19:28 ET by Indiana Joe"People are referring to it as a teabag party."
I've seen reports, gotten emails, and heard about these parties being planned for months. And every single time they're referred to as "tea parties." This is the first and only instance where I've heard them called "teabag parties." A simple semantic device to make them easier to poke fun at, rather than addressing the very real symbolism involved.
As for "show[ing] people with tea-bags (it's not one word)," try holding up a handful of loose tea, and see how many people know what it is.
Bottom line, "people" are NOT "referring to it as a teabag party"... MSNBC is.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
And FoxNews is behind the promotion?
April 14, 2009 - 19:38 ET by Protocol_9This supposedly got started by the Pon Paul types and FoxNews has been promoting it and themselves. Still silly.
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
Posts that include the word
April 14, 2009 - 19:58 ET by Indiana JoePosts that include the word "supposedly" don't really carry much water, IMO. And I repeat (once), I have consistently heard these protests described (yes, even on FoxNews) as "tea parties." No denying they've been reporting on, and even "promoting," these events, but I never heard FN call them "teabagging parties." If you have a clip or link that shows otherwise, I'd be glad to view it.
Only on MSNBC, in the Shuster clip, have I heard them called this. Purely for comic effect, IMO. Didn't bother listening to the other clip. The point was already made.
<edit: As for it being "silly," I don't see why. They're re-creating one of the most famous American protests in history. No sillier than marching through the streets holding banners or wearing body-paint, IMO. I think we tend to think protests are "silly" when we don't agree with the protesters (as you clearly don't in this case.)>
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
Ron Paul? Paul?
April 15, 2009 - 09:44 ET by BDRon Paul? Paul? hahahahahahahahha! He is king of the porkulous and did NOT champion this issue.
Fox news simply articulated what the people are saying (Much like FOXNEWS, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC did with the SMALLER Anti war movement.)
First of all, Pro9..NO
April 14, 2009 - 21:40 ET by motherbeltFirst of all, Pro9..NO ONE is calling them "teabag parties." The correct term, which the protestors are using, it TEA party.The disgusting libs on MSNBC are using TEABAGGING parties.
So get your facts straight.
Second, they are not protesting new taxes, but out of control spending, which will have to be financed by new taxes for generations.
So I guess you are saying that one cannot use a former method of protest unless one is protesting exactly the same thing the first protest was about????
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Thanks, mb - this provocateur is having such fun with
April 16, 2009 - 16:57 ET by Cape Conservativehis little sick games! I will no longer respond to any of his posts!
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
I don't watch MSNBC, so I've
April 14, 2009 - 17:16 ET by BKeyserI don't watch MSNBC, so I've never seen Shuster in action. Can anyone shed some light on the nature of his show? Is it billed as news? Commentary? Both? Frankly, I don't care what he and his half-a-dozen viewers call it, and would prefer to not see his snarky expression so often.
BK... Leftist spewing
April 14, 2009 - 17:23 ET by bigtimerBK...
Leftist spewing filthy propaganda.
You are far better off not watching it....I don't anymore...and I rarely click on the videos of him or any of the slithering creatures from the slime pond poking their heads out with their constant blather from that network.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Tea bags
April 14, 2009 - 17:18 ET by Nearly NobodyI said it before but I am so pleased with myself I want to say it again.
I wonder if Rachael Maddow carries tea bags in her front pocket? I
have a suspicion that she would like to have a set. Tea bags that is!
"Nearly Nobody's News"
She does... but the tea bags hate it!
April 14, 2009 - 18:06 ET by pahuber; )
SO how would
April 14, 2009 - 17:30 ET by 10ksnookerSchuster know?
It's pretty obvious the no audience crowd is jealous.
ARGH
April 14, 2009 - 17:49 ET by SRPwrdMispost
"Teabagging"
April 14, 2009 - 17:50 ET by GigglingGooglerIf it hadn't been for someone else bringing to my attention the possible double entendre of the word "teabagging" I would have been completely in the dark. However, since MSNBC used it regularly in it's comment about the TEA parties, it's obvious, as usual, where their minds are. Shame on the NBC exec's for allowing these stupid word games to be aired!
It's exactly these kind of
April 14, 2009 - 18:51 ET by Anniee451It's exactly these kind of quotes that the leftist bloggers mine in order to present us to the world as a bunch of prudish bumpkins who were all unaware of the double entendre and weren't laughing about it all along, when in fact that isn't the case. Do we have to feed them?
MSNBC News is utterly disgusting
April 14, 2009 - 17:51 ET by Captain KirockThe fact that they let these morons run off at the mouth with disgusting sexual puns and then try to pass it off as news/commentary is insulting to anyone over the age of 14.
If you ever wanted to see what a news organization would look like if it was ran by the local junior high school kids, look no further than MSNBC.
As is par for the course
April 14, 2009 - 18:01 ET by GregEPar for the course and fully expected. I would be more shocked if they didn't talk about it this way. They have no interest in discussing the actual context and substance of the cause, but simply talking about the nonsubstantive and what they think is funny about it, separate from the ideas themselves of course.
It's typical stuff. If it's conservative/libertarian/common sense ideas, attack the person who has the ideas. If it's a movement or a cause, attack something about the title, name, etc, not the ideas at hand.
Its Saul Alinsky at his
April 14, 2009 - 18:07 ET by MrSnugglesIts Saul Alinsky at his finest: pick a target, isolate it, personalize it. This is exactly what they do with everything, never do they attack based on the merits, they make personal attacks.
Excellent points. Though
April 14, 2009 - 18:56 ET by Anniee451Excellent points. Though kata above did produce a video in which the moron that Neil Cavuto had on did attack the substance...she dismissed it as ridiculous and not worthy of news coverage. It's infuriating.
I have to say, at least Maddow and Olbermann and their ilk are *covering* the protests, even if they are doing it in a completely idiotic way. In the process they make themselves look like dipshits. What could be better, really?
"MSNBC prides itself as
April 14, 2009 - 18:19 ET by Indiana Joe"MSNBC prides itself as being the place for politics..."
Really? NOTHING about Shuster's report should inspire "pride" in anyone. It's merely sophomoric potty-humor that goes out of it's way to insult a large percentage of Americans, belittle their beliefs, and totally dismiss them as anything to be taken at all seriously. It's nothing more than intellectual fascism shamelessly on parade. And, btw, just plain lies, in several places.
As Shuster makes very clear, MSNBC is "the place for liberal politics." Period.
<edit: CTTOI, it makes Shuster the perfect stand-in for Olbermann!>
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams
"MSNBC prides itself as
April 14, 2009 - 18:19 ET by GregE"MSNBC prides itself as being the place for playing politics..."
MSNBC
April 14, 2009 - 22:48 ET by GigglingGooglerHey Joe, did you mean pottytics?
MSNBC, the place for pornography!
Such a sexist comment!
April 14, 2009 - 18:36 ET by CobraManIf that "teabagging" comment was used on a conservative show, every liberal feminist would be out front protesting and demanding that the show be canceled, IMMEDIATELY! We'll see how long it takes the feminists to do the same for a liberal show.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
That settles it. First
April 14, 2009 - 18:46 ET by CT PatriotThat settles it.
First stop of the New American Revolution: MSNBC studios.
I hope they can validate my parking.
Don't be so scared of the word Militia. One day, it just might save your life.
This is all the Left has.
April 14, 2009 - 18:52 ET by GregEThis is all the Left has. They don't understand what the Boston Tea Party was for, so they just think that this "tea" theme is some off the wall idea that they cant quite put a finger on where "tea" is in historical reference.
And even if they did understand the Boston Tea Party (which was not the only place, just the most famous), well, they would be against it anyway because it was an anti-tax "rally" of it's day.
Dave and Rachel
April 14, 2009 - 19:07 ET by RacoKevI think David must have attended alot of tea parties and experienced significant teabagging. Be a man Dave and face up. Rachel, on the other hand, might be projecting past dental damming experiences.
Teabagging is also a term
April 14, 2009 - 19:35 ET by NonArabOmarTeabagging is also a term in online gaming. It's what the victor does to taunt his defeated foe.
To the 20somethings and under... the thought of conservatives teabagging conservatives is quite funny.
It means liberals are being pwned like the little sissy nubs they are.
Don't the those liberals get that they are looking like old ladies by comparing teabagging to the tea parties? Don't they get that teabagging in urbar lingo also means that you are getting humiliated after a lopsided defeat?
Aren't they in touch with the youth?
David is just ticked because the right wing thought of this first. David is sure gonna like it when the Democrats get teabagged in 2010.
So is it okay to use the term?
April 14, 2009 - 19:42 ET by Protocol_9Just asking?
Not sure on the 2010 reference. It could come back to haunt you. I like your moxy! Keep your head up!
protocol9
taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear the most. -dostoyevski
When is it ok?
April 14, 2009 - 20:44 ET by CobraManWhen is it ok to use the term, especially in sexual innuendo? When your a liberal using it against a conservative. Hasn't MSNBC taught you anything?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Friends
April 14, 2009 - 20:17 ET by jaywlI've been around but I hadn't heard that one before. It seems to me that Shuster may have a lot more in common with Barney Frank and lesbo Maddux than he lets on. He is very familiar and comfortable with the language of queers. I suppose it is now permissible to say queers. Not only do they use the term but now actually use related terms on national television. Gee, do you think Gibbs will speak of the President's position on teabagging? Now that they bring such excrement to the fore, I have been waiting to ask the country this: Has Barney had his teeth removed? I can't recall seeing a tooth in his mouth, ever, no matter how fast his flustered flaps flutter. Should I thank those potty-mouths for my presumative permission to engage in like drivel? Or should I remember my upbringing?
Read more >> Options >>
(duplicate deleted)
April 14, 2009 - 21:37 ET by GalvanicTake it from an expert . . .
April 14, 2009 - 21:32 ET by Galvanic"It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging." - Anderson Cooper, April 14, 2009 on his show Anderson Cooper 360
Uh... I don't get it...
April 14, 2009 - 21:42 ET by MightyMouthI know what a teabag is...so "tea bagging" is simply dipping your teabag in a teacup full of hot water...right? What am I missing?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
What am I missing?
April 14, 2009 - 23:23 ET by shawn228Hmmm, I wonder if Michelle Malkin or Megyn Kelly will be at the "teabagging party" ;-P
He had my vote
Shuster also criticized the
April 14, 2009 - 21:49 ET by TN MomShuster also criticized the Fox News Channel for covering the events slated for April 15, and he had to do it with throwing in another lame "teabag" pun.
For Obama's Inauguration, CNN sold T-Shirts, NBC sold a DVD, and ABC gave $Million to cover an inauguration ball, all of which were promoted on their networks for weeks.
My parents are really upset that NBC refuses to cover the Tea Party rally's. They thought Brian Williams was a 'nice young man'. Now, they finally see the networks bias; they do not like it one little bit!!
Hey Squirrel...
April 14, 2009 - 23:41 ET by AgentAmericanF**k you and the rest of your limp-d**k latte friends.
That includes your Dominatrix Olbermann.
F**kin' savages!!!!!
2010: A GOP Hill
Conservatives Make Me Laugh
April 15, 2009 - 00:49 ET by williams411I love you neo-cons. Apparently, its ok for faux news to call the president of the united states a fascist, socialist, marxist and a communist...but, its totally not cool for msnbc to poke some fun at the right. I'm not too surprised though, considering that conservatives are in the dark when it comes to the humor department. Conservative humor normally consists of calling women rights activists "feminazis" (limbaugh) or calling hurricane katrina survivers "scum" (beck) or calling black women "nappy headed hoes" (Imus).
Remember when 9/11 happened and you guys were calling liberals "un-american" for not supporting the iraq war and how they should leave the country if they didn't support it?...well, I think its time for you guys to take your own advice. If you hate obama so much, then why don't you just leave. Head over to east germany. I'm sure you guys will love it over there.
Why should ---
April 15, 2009 - 01:24 ET by misterbill-- over fifty million intelligent voters leave America because one a**hat got elected and another comes here to sing his praises???
How about--
--because I was here first??
--because I fought for my country not ACORN//
-- because I know you can't spend yourself into wealth
--because we are not indecisive
--because we understand the problems with illegal immigration
I could go on but I know you are too intersted in whether Portugeses water dogs can swim.
So--later.
misterbill wrote: "because
April 15, 2009 - 04:27 ET by williams411misterbill wrote: "because I know you can't spend yourself into wealth"
Really? So, I can just walk into a mcdonalds and get a big mac without paying for it? I can start my own business without taking out any loans to start it up? A country can provide its army with supplies without paying for those supplies?
The coward's diaper is getting stinky again.
April 16, 2009 - 03:59 ET by JWF"Really? So, I can just walk into a mcdonalds and get a big dump in my diaper without anyone smelling it? I can fill my own diaper without taking out any diaper pins to keep it up? A coward can provide its diaper rash with ointment without waiting for that itchy butt?" - williams411
Williams411: Another Troll
April 15, 2009 - 01:06 ET by Captain KirockThe Obamatons Attack!
Yet another troll. The Obamatons have been given orders to attack.
Hey Williams411, you do know that the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and that East Germany ceased to exist when it merged with West Germany in 1990?
Didn't your Cell Leader teach you anything?
Willians is going to be on a
April 15, 2009 - 01:11 ET by bigtimerWilliams is going to be on a lot of those buddy lists here eh?
LMAO!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Good morning BT
April 15, 2009 - 01:16 ET by cocodrieWhy are all our trolls numbered? Is there a waiting list for them to get on here?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Cocodrie wrote: "Jesus
April 15, 2009 - 04:40 ET by williams411Cocodrie wrote: "Jesus loves you so much he died for you"
How could jesus have died for me when I wasn't even born yet? It would make it kind of difficult for me to demand jesus to die for me when I didn't even exist. Its the same b.s. I hear from people in the military "I'm fighting for you, I'm fighting for your freedom"...please pi** off. I never told you to fight for me, so you can take that "I'm fighting for you" nonsense and shove it up your a**. I also love it when I hear people in the military say that they're making a sacrifice for america...seriously, does it really look like I give a s**t?
Apparently you cannot grasp
April 15, 2009 - 06:59 ET by kgApparently you cannot grasp the concept. Next you will tell us that you are "enlightened". You're anger management classes are not working!
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Unfortunately williams411
April 15, 2009 - 07:06 ET by AgnosticThe people of the military can not pick and chose which Americans they will protect and which ones they will allow to parish so they must protect them all. You have the right not to be grateful, after all many have died, sacrificed and served in order for you to have that right. BTW, these rights you have and take for granted were won through the efforts of people who were willing to fight on behalf of those who could not or would not. Otherwise you could not enjoy the right to voice the opinion you have.
The American soldier has become accustomed to the rhetoric and hatred of the left. You are no different, just one in a faceless crowd of nobodies who stand on principles earned by others.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
LOL!!! Please, spare me the
April 15, 2009 - 08:39 ET by williams411LOL!!! Please, spare me the "they died for your freedom" b.s.
~Everyone say
April 15, 2009 - 08:44 ET by choselife3xGoodbye to this POS troll who just direspected our troops.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Forgive him, for he knows not what he says
April 15, 2009 - 08:53 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsYou'll have to forgive williams411 for he knows not what he says. He believes he is not a creation of God so he believes he has been given no inalienable rights by his Creator. He is a statist and only accepts rights 'given' to him by the state. Of course, we all know the state can give no such thing.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
~Nope
April 15, 2009 - 08:56 ET by choselife3xTrolls like this bring the site down. Nothing but lies (Bush's 4 trillion deficit) and disrespect.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Choselife3x wrote: "who
April 15, 2009 - 08:55 ET by williams411Choselife3x wrote: "who just disrespected our troops"
So what?
Williams~
April 15, 2009 - 08:59 ET by Georgia GirlOf course you don't get it. Chose is an honorable person.
~Stand back, GG
April 15, 2009 - 09:04 ET by choselife3xYou're about to see a troll get blown into cyberspace. Brace for the shock wave.
CL~
April 15, 2009 - 09:17 ET by Georgia GirlLet the fireworks begin!:)
Sad, really
April 15, 2009 - 13:42 ET by RESTLESS 1Having no wish to give of himself to or for anything, little willie here will NEVER know what it is to be a man. Oh well...
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Williams~Try a nation without a miltary...
April 15, 2009 - 10:40 ET by Georgia GirlIt's impossible to debate you because you have no real logical or analytical thought. Try America without a military. You have no idea what would happen. I suggest you read up on history. Start with the Holocaust, and the consequences of a rogue leader -- something that would not be allowed under our Constitution. The military is sworn to uphold the Constitutution. You have certain rights and protections under that -- you apparently do not fully realize that.
And think about where you will be if we are attacked on our own soil from the outside & you or your family are personally threatened by an outside force. Think about where you would be with a military in that situation (the first to want to be protected, I bet), and think about what you would be like without a military to protect and defend you (hiding under your covers, no doubt).
And, by the way, you need honor to die for a just cause and for the freedoms of Americans. Good to know you don't care about the protections & that you are willing to sacrifice your own life because you hate the military and do not need them. I assume you are willing to be put on the "no need to protect me -- I can take care of myself" list then?
Georgia Girl Wrote: "It's
April 16, 2009 - 02:59 ET by williams411Georgia Girl Wrote: "It's impossible to debate you because you have no real logical or analytical thought. Try America without a military. You have no idea what would happen. I suggest you read up on history. Start with the Holocaust, and the consequences of a rogue leader -- something that would not be allowed under our Constitution. The military is sworn to uphold the Constitutution. You have certain rights and protections under that -- you apparently do not fully realize that.
And think about where you will be if we are attacked on our own soil from the outside & you or your family are personally threatened by an outside force. Think about where you would be with a military in that situation (the first to want to be protected, I bet), and think about what you would be like without a military to protect and defend you (hiding under your covers, no doubt).
And, by the way, you need honor to die for a just cause and for the freedoms of Americans. Good to know you don't care about the protections & that you are willing to sacrifice your own life because you hate the military and do not need them. I assume you are willing to be put on the "no need to protect me -- I can take care of myself" list then?"
I've never said that a country shouldn't have a form of military, I just don't particularly care about the soldiers who are in the military. I don't like cops, but that doesn't mean I think that this country shouldn't have some sort of law enforcement.
So says the coward who's diaper is full
April 16, 2009 - 03:11 ET by JWF"I've never said that a country shouldn't have a form of pampers, I just don't particularly care about the soldiers who are in the military because I am a coward. I don't like cops because I am afraid of them too, but that doesn't mean I think that cowards shouldn't have some sort of diaper enforcement." - williams411
LOL!!! Thank you for proving
April 16, 2009 - 03:23 ET by williams411LOL!!! Thank you for proving my theory that you just can't fix stupid.
The coward does not know what the subject line is for.
April 16, 2009 - 04:03 ET by JWFAnd look, the coward types like a 12 year old AOLer. LOL!@!!11!
There is more, the coward stole the can't fix stupid from Ron White. They coward is a thief in addition to being a little yellow stain.
Williams~
April 16, 2009 - 07:10 ET by Georgia GirlThat's even worse. You acknowledge they are needed in our society (i.e., your cops example), but you are arrogant enough to curse out/demean/insult those who meet the need -- with zero understanding of what it entails.
Please see my other new comment on here (below: "Apologies," before responding to this).
I've never said that a
April 16, 2009 - 15:11 ET by BDI've never said that a country shouldn't have a form of military, I just don't particularly care about the soldiers who are in the military. I don't like cops, but that doesn't mean I think that this country shouldn't have some sort of law enforcement.
my sympathy
April 15, 2009 - 11:41 ET by AgnosticEither you want to agitate for your own entertainment or wish to prove how inane you can make an arguement. First, I never said they died for your freedom. The members of the military fought, served and died for the benefit of America and the Constitution - you as an individual have little to do with those two ideas other than your advantageous place of birth. You are welcome to believe anything you want and no one in the military will care. You can spit in the face of 230+ years of Americans and their allies fighting and none of them will care either. Not because you are insignificant but because you are just another person who is ignorant of the history of how they were granted the right to be opinionated and free at the same time. May you never suffer through the tragedies that so many of our soldiers have endured and may you never know the pain your ignorance causes to those that don't know enough to ingnore you.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Agnostic Wrote: "May you
April 16, 2009 - 02:49 ET by williams411Agnostic Wrote: "May you never suffer through the tragedies that so many of our soldiers have endured"
Last time I checked, people had the choice of whether or not to join the army. No one is forcing them to join. Common sense would hopefully tell anyone who is thinking about joining the army that the chances of you suffering some sort of injury is pretty high. The chances of death are noticeably higher as well. If people choose to join the army and lose a limb then thats fine with me, I'm stopping them...just don't come whining to me about how hard it is for them and how much they sacrifice.
So says the coward...
April 16, 2009 - 02:54 ET by JWF"...just don't come whining to me about how hard it is for them and how much they sacrifice."
So says the coward with pee running down his leg. Right, coward?
Reading is not difficult
April 16, 2009 - 03:57 ET by AgnosticOnce again you seem to not be able to comprehend what you are reading; however, I give you credit for at least reading an opposing view. There is no whining going on at all; as a matter of fact, I mentioned how insignificant this whole debate is because you have the right to ignore the military just as I the right to believe that you are over simplifying things to say they chose to take the chance to be injured or killed and therefore don’t deserve respect for that choice. Do you believe someone deserving of respect if they so-called speak ‘truth to power’ or are part of group that claims to be trying to raise the social conscience? If so, why are these people any better since they simply made a choice as well?
It would be disingenuous of me to say that everyone in the military deserves respect and made the choice to protect our nation out of a desire to serve a higher purpose than self but many joined to serve for those very reasons. Oddly these are the same demands made of every citizen in a leftist society, to sacrifice and serve the state or society depending on the socialist rhetoric. When people do this the left gives accolades and touts the benefits of a ‘People’s Paradise’. However, when someone, of their on free will, makes the decision to serve society for not only their own benefit but also to allow others to be free in order to follow their own ambitions they become an object of derision to the left.
No one should be asking for your respect but the men and women of the military most definitely do not deserve your scorn. If people wish to honor the military you should allow them because it should mean nothing to you but when you feel you must respond with the tone you did above it just shows it is not a mere opinion of yours but an emotional response based on your own agenda (not necessarily political). Like I said, I hope you never suffer through the tragedies that so many of our soldiers have endured and you somehow warped that into a little tantrum about personal choice. Personal choice or not do you wish such tragedy on anyone? This has nothing to do with you. This has to do with how a poster above wanted to express their feelings about the military. You attempted to make it about you by applying your opinion and now you want to accuse others of whining? Take a look in the mirror and ask why you had to interject your opinion and then maybe you can figure out why such innocuous support for our military caused your ire.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Agnostic Wrote: "Once again
April 16, 2009 - 06:03 ET by williams411Agnostic Wrote: "Once again you seem to not be able to comprehend what you are reading; however, I give you credit for at least reading an opposing view. There is no whining going on at all; as a matter of fact, I mentioned how insignificant this whole debate is because you have the right to ignore the military just as I the right to believe that you are over simplifying things to say they chose to take the chance to be injured or killed and therefore don’t deserve respect for that choice. Do you believe someone deserving of respect if they so-called speak ‘truth to power’ or are part of group that claims to be trying to raise the social conscience? If so, why are these people any better since they simply made a choice as well?"
If someone is part of a group that claims to raise the social conscience then yes I would probably have more respect for them. While I agree that both instances are chosen by the person, theres a difference between them. I don't see the military as being a place where you can better yourself mentally or spiritually...perhaps physically. Where as, if you claim to be part of group that is attempting to raise the social conscience then you are at least making an effort to improve yourself mentally and spiritually in some way. However, that is not always the case. As far as the "truth to power"...no, I don't hold them in higher respect.
Agnostic Wrote: "It would be disingenuous of me to say that everyone in the military deserves respect and made the choice to protect our nation out of a desire to serve a higher purpose than self but many joined to serve for those very reasons. Oddly these are the same demands made of every citizen in a leftist society, to sacrifice and serve the state or society depending on the socialist rhetoric. When people do this the left gives accolades and touts the benefits of a ‘People’s Paradise’. However, when someone, of their on free will, makes the decision to serve society for not only their own benefit but also to allow others to be free in order to follow their own ambitions they become an object of derision to the left."
I admire the idea of wanting to defend the people and the country, but I don't see that desire in the military people that I've come across. Most troops that I've encountered joined so that they could "blow s**t up", so to speak. I'm not saying that there aren't a few troops out there who do want to protect americans and such...I've just never encountered one. Same goes for cops...I admire the idea of wanting to protect the community, I just don't see that from cops.
W,411
April 16, 2009 - 09:20 ET by AgnosticPoint 1:
I think ‘Claim to raise social conscience’ is a long way from actually accomplishing the goal of raising social conscience – the whole pathway to hell being paved in good intentions argument comes to mind.
Why don’t you think that a person can better themselves mentally or spiritually in the military? On the most basic level think of it this way; the military offers you security as an individual. Food, shelter, exercise and a general purpose is provided for you and allows you the security and relative peace to pursue other personal goals as you see fit. Many more take advantage of this opportunity than you might believe. Also, the number one recruitment tool available to the military is continued education and second is training. How can you not believe that is a betterment of the mind?
The military is a way of life but it is also a job and like all jobs there is a certain portion of employees that just show up and go through the motions. There also those who take pride in their work, commit to the mission statement of the company and these are the ones that are tasked with the most demanding and self-sacrificing jobs because the lives of so many depend on their commitment and ability.
Point 2:
There are primarily two types of people who match the military people you describe. One is the person who talks about blowing things up because of an overt fascination with destruction. The other type is displaying the “tough-talk” of someone who psychologically uses such banter as a way of gaining an emotional distance from their job in order to relax and gain perspective. Which one applies would probably depend on the job they do in the military. The police department is a little different than the military and I won’t claim any understanding of their motivations but I’m sure there are some similarities.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
oh?
April 15, 2009 - 11:52 ET by katainkentcare to elaborate on this point, please.
Kat~
April 15, 2009 - 12:01 ET by Georgia Girl"Agnostic" was addressing Williams411...we've had a little battle here today, defending the military and Constitution. Williams411 (I think) is now hiding out under the covers. And far be it from me to discourage that! ;)
Agnostic~
April 15, 2009 - 09:13 ET by Georgia GirlThank you. Being that your name is "Agnostic," I think we can agree that we don't agree on everything -- LOL. But you are an example of someone with differing views who isn't out to "get" people and has honor -- and knows what it means when someone goes too far, in a hateful rant.
GG,
April 15, 2009 - 11:48 ET by AgnosticThank you for your statement of mutual respect. I think if most people would only look at what I believe instead of worrying about why I believe what I do then we would find there is a lot we have in common. There are many people who are fiscally conservative and vary in their degree of socially conservatism but they don't speak up because they are attacked by both sides. In a nation built partially on religious freedom it is not right for a conservative group to demand religious belief. The fact that we are a nation founded in Judeo-Christian ethics is a fact and not something that should be attacked by any conservative but belief in those ethics doesn't necessarily require a religious belief.
I hope you had a great Easter and are looking forward to the Tea Parties!
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
"Its the same b.s. I hear
April 15, 2009 - 08:17 ET by Galvanic"Its the same b.s. I hear from people in the military "I'm fighting for you, I'm fighting for your freedom"...please pi** off."
I spent 24 years in the armed forces of the US, and I never heard anyone in uniform ever say something like you claim.
And frankly, those who are doing the fighting are too focused on the mission to bother with you.
Williams~
April 15, 2009 - 08:28 ET by Georgia GirlNobody "demands" anything from Jesus. Christ gave a free gift, and if you do not believe in God or have any idea of what is written in the Bible, then it is not something you will understand, nor is it appropriate or of any value to insult the faith of others or to be so hateful.
My husband served in the military, and it is really low of you to insult those who serve today and love the country so much. There is sacrifice and dedication involved in making such a commitment, and again, there is no reason to be hateful. If you disagree with their purpose, there are more productive and decent ways to express that.
Cocodrie has that tagline because it is part of who Cocodrie is and what Cocodrie believes, and there is no part of it that is hurtful or demeaning to others. On the contrary, it is kind. You are out of line & being completely disrespectful to another human being.
thanks to people like you he
April 15, 2009 - 09:08 ET by TruthMongerthanks to people like you he has the right to be an asshole:)
TM~
April 15, 2009 - 09:15 ET by Georgia GirlTrue enough! Shoot, I knew there should be some sort of military clause to prevent this type of thing. LOL.
Normally I think this site is rough on some posters
April 15, 2009 - 09:40 ET by shawn228...but when someone does not appreciate our military and insults them, they are truly a turd
He had my vote
Good morning Shawn
April 15, 2009 - 10:11 ET by cocodrieFinest comment you have ever posted. There are not enough words in the english language to properly thank our military for what they have done for us.
Anyone who doesn't appreciate and love them is a fool.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good morning William
April 15, 2009 - 10:04 ET by cocodrieJohn 3:16 tells us That God so loved the World He sent His only son to die for us. Are you part of this world or not? You appear to live in outer space. you also appear to be obsessed with derrierres. Do you have a personal connection to them?
God says He knew us before we were born and fortunately for you He loves EVERYONE without exception.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Ladies and Gentlemen I
April 16, 2009 - 15:04 ET by BDLadies and Gentlemen I recommend we escort William+11 here to Jolo Island and let him have the full vacation experience.....
I will of course ask the US military to abstain from responding to his aid when he is kidnapped.
411 give the impression that
April 15, 2009 - 08:45 ET by general companyhe is wants information? Guess not
He is fairly foul so far, so whats the over and under for his length of stay?
By the way 411, please feel free to suggest those thoughts to any Marine you want to.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Where were you when MSNBC
April 15, 2009 - 07:10 ET by kgWhere were you when MSNBC called the president fascist? Hypocrite! If there is a "faux" news station it is MSNBC. As a matter of fact they are so far removed from reporting any accurate news that they have become a joke. So I agree with you that MSNBC has turned into a comedy channel. You can laugh the whole evening at their line-up. Saddly, you think their outright lies, lies by omission, lies by taking statements out of context and lies by half truths as fact.
No, you are un-American for not supporting American soldiers. And why did you not leave the country the last 8 years when you had a chance? If you had, we would now be spared your rehertic drivel. Again, you are a hypocrite.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Williams~
April 15, 2009 - 13:37 ET by Georgia GirlThat's truly a weak argument. Presidents come and go, but the Constitution remains solid -- as does the military and protections it provides the country. Same with the ideals and principles of the Founding Fathers. Trump! As such, conservatives have a deep love of their country based on what is absolutely solid and enduring about our country.
With your distain for the solid and permanent aspect of the military in America, have you noticed that nobody told you that you are more than welcome to go to France? That's because nobody wants to insult France.
When you refer to the
April 16, 2009 - 03:28 ET by williams411When you refer to the founding fathers, do you mean those guys that granted freedom to only people who were white males and restricted women and african americans from having any rights?
The coward still can't figure out the subject line
April 16, 2009 - 04:06 ET by JWFBut the coward still thinks he can teach us all.
What part of the world had unrestricted womens and african american rights in 1776? come on. Tell us mr. history perfessor. come on coward. tell us.
Good questions W411,
April 16, 2009 - 04:10 ET by AgnosticBut one must take into account two things in order to judge those on which you cast your derision. First would be what they didn’t do in the constitution and other documents and the second would be the social norms of the age. Slavery was largely accepted at the time and still a majority of the Founding Fathers made a political stand that did not allow slavery to be considered as a right or as a founding principle of the nation. There were many debates on this subject which I’m sure you could find. It seems so easy today to dismiss the idea of the paradigm in which these people lived and expect too much of the Founding Fathers. They were building on Greek and Roman ideas of government using a Judeo-Christian ethical and moral balance all while creating a government free of direct influence from the church and royalty. Denying their accomplishments is similar to denying the intelligence of Galileo since he didn’t anticipate the existence of black holes.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
To Agnostic
April 16, 2009 - 06:26 ET by williams411You seem to be displaying some respect towards me in the responses that you have made, so I will return the favor. I apologize if I offended you in regards to my comments towards the military. I'm not saying my opinion on the subject has changed, but I did use poor words to express it. Judging from a lot of the posts I've seen on here, I'm sure I'll get a lot of responses consisting of "the troll/obamabot/wimp/evil liberal/koolaid/coward drinker is cowering with his tail between his legs"...or as one poster on here said "the coward is peeing himself" (whatever the hell that means, lol).
In response to your post. Yes, I'm aware that some of our founding fathers did not support slavery including jefferson and madison (I think). I still find it hypocritical of them to claim they want to create a free nation, yet they still keep slavery and also kill several thousands (if not millions) of native americans in the process.
I see you have found the subject line.
April 16, 2009 - 06:31 ET by JWFNow explain what countries had broken the shackles of slavery and given women the right of suffrage in 1776.
You are so smart in recognising that our country did not have them. WHO DID?
JWF Wrote: "Now explain
April 16, 2009 - 07:23 ET by williams411JWF Wrote: "Now explain what countries had broken the shackles of slavery and given women the right of suffrage in 1776."
While women were not granted rights until the late 1800's, many countries had outlawed slavery by 1776 or well before the united states did. Japan abolished slavery in 1587, although servitude was still practiced until the 1860's. Portugal outlawed slavery in 1761, France abolished slavery in 1794 (although Napolean brought it back in 1804), Scotland abolished slavery in 1776, Canada abolished slavery in 1803, Argentina abolished it in 1813, Chile abolished it in 1823, Mexico abolished it in 1829, Britain abolished it in 1833 and France abolished it a 2nd time in 1848. Slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865.
Subject line. We put stuff here so the 1st line of the comment..
April 16, 2009 - 07:30 ET by JWF...does not appear as the subject.
So it would appear we were not the first ones to abolish slavery nor were we the last OF MANY.
And this would put a such a bad light on the white founding fathers how again?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Much of this is simply not true
April 16, 2009 - 11:25 ET by general companyFor example, in the 1940's Japan was still making slaves of the Chinese. And many of these countries while not practicing slavery continued to trade in slavery.
One more correction,
In order to get the
unified support needed for the Constitution's ratification and
successful establishment, the framers made certain concessions to the
pro-slavery interests. The compromises they agreed to, however, were
designed to tolerate slavery where it currently existed, not to endorse
or advance the institution.
This is a very good artical on how our fouders stuggled with slavery.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
W411,
April 16, 2009 - 06:47 ET by AgnosticApology accepted, thank you!
The founding fathers actually did not keep slavery but allowed the possiblity of slavery and given the norms of the time that is a fairly generous idea. I'm not saying it is 100% right but in this they were ahead of their time and the also allowed for the method in which slavery was finally ended - the ability to amend the constitution.
As for the Native population I think if you will do a quick review most of the native population that were killed was either during the Spanish exploration of what would become the US or during the westward expansion. The westward expansion actually consisted of mostly people who were first and second generation American families as well as trappers, hunters, miners and explorers from other nations. BTW, they didn't treat the Mexicans at the time any better.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Williams~Apologies all around or just for one?
April 16, 2009 - 07:31 ET by Georgia GirlIs that apology for your choice of words/mocking tone also extended to those (like my husband), who served honorably in the military and love our country dearly (and you hurt me and other military families by saying what you did)...to other Vets...and those who serve now?...Or is the apology just to Agnostic? (who, by the way, I am glad got an apology).
I can forgive.
Georgia Girl Wrote: "Is
April 16, 2009 - 07:33 ET by williams411Georgia Girl Wrote: "Is that apology for your choice of words/mocking tone also extended to those (like my husband), who served honorably in the military and love our country dearly (and you hurt me by saying what you did)...to other Vets...and those who serve now?...Or is the apology just to Agnostic? (who, by the way, I am glad got an apology)."
Alright, I apologize to you and your husband and to the vets who joined because they wanted to protect/defend their country (I'm not aware of that many currently serving, but more power to you if you're out there)
Williams~thanks
April 16, 2009 - 07:50 ET by Georgia GirlWilliams: "Alright, I apologize to you and your husband and to the vets who joined because they wanted to protect/defend their country (I'm not aware of that many currently serving, but more power to you if you're out there)."
I shall graciously ignore the watering down of your last (parenthesis) comment, knowing I can't expect miracles.
Thank you. Forgiven. Clean slate.
P.S. Heading out. My job is done here, so I'll be movin' along to my real job as a magazine writer. May nothing explode here while I'm gone. :)
Agnostic Wrote: "Slavery
April 16, 2009 - 06:49 ET by williams411Agnostic Wrote: "Slavery was largely accepted at the time"
In the U.S, thats true...however, by 1776 many countries around the world had outlawed slavery.
Still having problems with the subject line.
April 16, 2009 - 07:19 ET by JWFNow that you have acknowledged other countries HAD slavery -
Oh do tell us what those countries were, and when they ended slavery. And how many countries in Africa still practice slavery today. DO FILL US ALL IN.
Come on brainboy. We are waiting.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
True W411, however
April 16, 2009 - 07:16 ET by AgnosticMost of those nations if not all were nations that no longer were agrarian exporters. Not to take away from their excellent decision to outlaw slavery but it is exponentially easier to ban slavery when you no longer are relying on its use for income. If not for the industrial revolution and the improvements of farming equipment slavery would have probably lasted several more years even in the US. It took a separation from the sustenance supplied by slavery for most people to see the evils of slavery.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Agnostic Wrote: "Most of
April 16, 2009 - 07:40 ET by williams411Agnostic Wrote: "Most of those nations if not all were nations that no longer were agrarian exporters. Not to take away from their excellent decision to outlaw slavery but it is exponentially easier to ban slavery when you no longer are relying on its use for income. If not for the industrial revolution and the improvements of farming equipment slavery would have probably lasted several more years even in the US. It took a separation from the sustenance supplied by slavery for most people to see the evils of slavery."
Point taken, but did the united states have opportunities to get involved with industrial revolution sooner than they did? (I'm not too familiar with the industrial revolution)
Not too familiar with filling out the subject line...
April 16, 2009 - 08:00 ET by JWFor American History.
But you are familiar with coming here to lecture us, huh?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JWF Wrote: "or American
April 16, 2009 - 08:38 ET by williams411JWF Wrote: "or American History."
lol, says the moron who didn't know that other countries had outlawed slavery before america did...douchebag.
Williams~
April 16, 2009 - 08:57 ET by Georgia GirlOK, I was called over here to PM someone...and then I just stumbled upon this name-calling thing again. Calling JWF a "d-bag" and "m" (I am not even going to dignifty those words by typing them), that just really lowers you. Sure you have taken some hits on here, but it seems to me that it is not as rough as what you are giving out...and if somebody else is using immature tactics, must you follow suit? I was so hopeful that you had actually gained some insight from your choice of words in that previous post (which I guess was taken off by NB admin). I'm bummed.
I'm just asking you to find a different way to argue, besides the name-calling. It really does weaken any points you are trying to make, and it just turns people off to being open about what you are saying. So if your goal is to have impact...and if not, I guess you are just here to pick fights.
In any case, I'm on deadline and don't have time to save the world! ;)
Tell That To JWF
April 16, 2009 - 14:49 ET by williams411Perhaps you should send this response to him as well. These are just a few of the very insightful posts that he has made...
"So says the coward with pee running down his leg. Right, coward?"
"The coward still thinks he can teach us all."
"We got our pampers from the hilarious constipaters who refer to diaper rash as williams411, the7sticks and the histericly funny poo=#2" - williams411
Yes, very insightful indeed.
Williams411~
April 17, 2009 - 09:40 ET by Georgia GirlI just knew you were gonna say that!
Good morning William
April 16, 2009 - 09:02 ET by cocodrieAre you talking about the African, Arab, Asian, European countries still selling their own people into Slavery? You seem to specialize in name calling and insults.
YOUR "APOLOGY" TO THE MILITARY WAS NOT SATISFACTORY BY ANY MEANS.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Agreed, cocodrie!
April 16, 2009 - 17:21 ET by Cape ConservativeYOUR "APOLOGY" TO THE MILITARY WAS NOT SATISFACTORY BY ANY MEANS.
An apology with 'conditions' is NOT an apology!!
It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue. ~ Sam Adams
Industrial Revolution
April 16, 2009 - 09:01 ET by AgnosticThe US was limited greatly from initially getting involved due to states issues and industry war between the industrial north, raw supplies in the south and the shipping companies. Still a young country the US did not have industrial leadership available to unite the three for the greater cause of US developement and I'm fairly sure no one at the time realized that industrialization was the key to ending slavery.
It could be argued that the industrial revolution is the single most important event in the development of America into the country that it is today. The timing as far as world history and what it meant to both world wars is facinating stuff as well. I don't think you can understand the pitfalls of true capitalism, the dangers of unionization or trade agreements without at least a rudimentary understanding of the effects of the industrial revolution. Of course I could be wrong.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Hey everybody!
April 15, 2009 - 13:45 ET by Ruths husband BenLook here. He said "faux news". God he's witty! And he called us Neo-cons.
Har, har, har, har!!
Damn, you trolls are funny!
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
We got our wit from the
April 16, 2009 - 03:37 ET by williams411We got our wit from the hilarious conservatives who refer to President Obama as "Barry", "NObama" and the histericly funny "Obama=Hitler".
Will someone change the coward's diaper please?
April 16, 2009 - 03:48 ET by JWFWe got our pampers from the hilarious constipaters who refer to diaper rash as "williams411", "the7sticks" and the histericly funny "poo=#2" - williams411
A Question For Conservatives
April 15, 2009 - 04:19 ET by williams411Where were all the tea party protestors when dubya was giving us a 4 trillion dollar deficit. I guess its not very important to you guys when a republican (bush) is given a surplus by a democrat (clinton) and turns it into a deficit...and a recession.
williams411
April 15, 2009 - 05:56 ET by AgnosticIn the fact that the protest are happening now you have a point but Conservatives (at least fiscal) have been complaining about Bush spending since the creation of the DHS and the prescription program. If I had to guess why there were no protest then it is probably because Bush's spending was incremental and many thought it was mostly for the war effort.
There were thousands of jokes about the Bush Veto Pen and its lack of use among Conservatives.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
As far as the surplus is concerned
April 15, 2009 - 09:01 ET by Tom in NCThe government has no business making a profit off of the back of the taxpayers, any surplus should be returned to the taxpayers, which is what Bush did.
Slide back under that bridge, troll
Dubya gave the money back to
April 15, 2009 - 09:19 ET by williams411Dubya gave the money back to the wealthy, while everyone else got screwed. If you believe that government should not be able to have money...then how do you expect the government to operate? You think a country can create an army or a form of law enforcement for free? Heck, why have a form of government at all then? If you guys hate government so much, then I suspect you guys support anarchy
"while everyone else got
April 15, 2009 - 09:36 ET by NL207"while everyone else got screwed"
And precisely how did they get screwed?
The tax cuts on the 'wealthy' increased the capital formation rate in this country and consequently job creation.
"then how do you expect the government to operate?"
By constraining itself to its Constitutional authority. You should read this document sometime. I think that exercise would enlighten you as to what your cause really is.
"then I suspect you guys support anarchy"
I suspect you are a two bit tyrant wannabe. Sic Semper Tyranis.
NL207 Wrote: "And
April 16, 2009 - 03:21 ET by williams411NL207 Wrote:
"And precisely how did they get screwed?"
Under President Bush the rise in inequality rose higher than any other president in recent years, with the inequality rate rising from 6.8 percent in 2001 to 7.9 percent in 2006...thats as high as the income inequality rate under President Hoover. These periods of high-income inequality sharply contrast the years between 1942–1987, when the inequality rate between the incomes of the top 10% to the incomes of most Americans never exceeded 6%.
Also, President Bush came into office with a 3% unemployment rate and raised it to 6% by 2003 and eventually raised it even higher by december of last year to over 7%.
The coward has a full diaper
April 16, 2009 - 03:30 ET by JWF"Under williams411 the rise in diaper rash rose higher than any other babysitter in recent years, with the diaper rash rate rising from 6.8 percent in 2001 to 7.9 percent in 2006...thats as high as the contagious diaper rash rate under the7sticks. These periods of highly contagious diaper rash sharply contrast the years between 1942–1987, when the diaper rash rate between the diapers of the top 10% to the diapers of most crybaby cowards never exceeded 6%.
Also, williams411 came into the crib with a 3% poopy diapers rate and raised it to 6% by 2003 and eventually raised it even higher by december of last year to over 7%."
-williams411 the coward
Ya know
April 15, 2009 - 09:44 ET by RESTLESS 1If you are part of the "intelligent" left, then I want my money back. We can't possibly put as much money into public education, and have only stupidity such as yours to show for it.
And your not special. Do you guys have any new talking points? the ones you are using are about 60 years old.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
hi there
April 15, 2009 - 11:14 ET by katainkentwhat percent of your income went to federal taxes last year? Do you know your effective tax rate?
I'll try to explain
April 15, 2009 - 12:27 ET by Tom in NCit to you in language even a liberal can understand. The federal government operates on a budget, if the government collects more in taxes from the people than they budgeted for then that is a surplus or in the private sector known as profits, the government cannot take more money from the people than they budget for, if they do then they are required by law to give that money back to taxpayers, if you don't pay taxes, then sorry but you don't get a rebate.
Who's watching?
April 15, 2009 - 05:38 ET by The ButcherMethinks there are more NB comments than there are viewers to this horrible show!
Keep up the great work MSNBC ... it makes the left look insane.
April 15, 2009 - 07:17 ET by CrashThe first time I heard the slang was on an episode of South Park. The second was on a popular video game. The third was on a sinking leftist hit machine primarily by liberals, for liberals; so I can't say that I'm shocked. With porn being the most "visited" of sites over the internet why would MSNBC not appeal to their base audience?
But, you know, the left is
April 15, 2009 - 09:12 ET by TheConservativeChemistBut, you know, the left is sooooooooo tolerant of gays and homosexual behavior...so much so that, as Ann Coulter said years ago, the *FIRST* insult they *always* reach for to denigrate an opponent is to call them gay/queer/fag and to imply they are gay...what hypocrisy (as usual)...
Also, I thought the left was supposed to be so much more cultivated and intelligent and cultured than us unwashed masses?
A bloody revolution is coming and I think it can't come soon enough...there's no doubt who will win...with 75%+ of the military and nearly ALL the gun owners in this country both on the right, take a wild guess!
Personally, I'm glad
April 15, 2009 - 10:48 ET by Paul AtreidesI'm glad when the likes of MSNBC's own version of the Star Wars Cantina Scene and Wee Willie above show their true colors and finally drop the facade that liberalism is about love, peace, tolerance, diversity, and rights. When those previously mentioned finally let the mask fall, they show liberalism for what it is: a man-made theology based on bitterness, hatred, hypocrisy, lies, narrow-mindedness, greed, and intolerance.
The next time a troll comes on this site to "preach the liberal gospel" and "save" us poor sinners and Obama-blasphemers be sure to thank them for their ugly attitudes since they are showing the world their true colors.
Wee Willie, thank you for showing us, and the world, the ugliness that is your life and ideology.
Olbermann, Matthews, Shuster, Maddow, Schultz
April 15, 2009 - 10:13 ET by Paul AtreidesI bet all of them could write a book about teabagging.
Anyone has played Halo,
April 15, 2009 - 11:51 ET by NonArabOmarAnyone has played Halo, Call of Duty, or any other video game knows what teabagging is. It's act of humiliation where you continuously crouch up and down over your downed opponent.
Who does the left think they are talking to? Conservatives are predominantly male and prone to using insulting language when referring to sissy boy liberals.
Liberals such wussies. They are getting their panties in a bundle because the conservatives are using playground insults on their beloved liberal demigod democrats.
Okay
April 15, 2009 - 17:23 ET by Kelly72Just to clarify, it is really not accurate to say that conservatives are "predominantly male".
That's What Teabagging Means?
April 16, 2009 - 00:58 ET by The7SticksGreat, now you've added another regular word that can be used for sexual innuendo along with : wiener, horny, family jewels, smoked meat log.
If I were the folks at MSNBC, I would just say it straight the way Peter Griffin on Family Guy would do it.
"Dick Armey? What's your wife's name? Vagina Coastguard?"
Now that's vulgarity you can be proud of.
§ Sticks...How Do U Feel about Fishsticks?
April 16, 2009 - 01:10 ET by TheSterUmmmm...Using MSNBC Questions...
..."Do you like Fishsticks?
..."You like like Fishsticks in Your Mouth?"
<<<Waiting>>>
Ster.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Or maybe.... teh7sticks could tell some more stories.
April 16, 2009 - 02:26 ET by JWFIt would not be so funny if we mentioned teabagging in prison now would it?
Coloring page...
April 16, 2009 - 14:46 ET by Georgia GirlDon't ask. :)