What is it about humor? It seems inevitable now. Whenever one of our NewsBusted episodes gets popular, it inevitably attracts left-wing haters who get enraged that something poking fun at their sacred cows is allowed to even exist at all.
I'll be checking in later today with a few choice examples of today's dose of liberal peace and love but in the mean time, have a look at the comments yourself. Notice also how many of these left-wingers blindly rate us "one-star" just because NewsBusted is conservative.
Comments Policy
The lock-step comment is
March 5, 2008 - 15:45 ET by balboaThe lock-step comment is false. Certain types of liberals will leave the same kinds of comments, just as certain conservatives always bag on Jon Stewart.
Have you read them?
March 5, 2008 - 15:49 ET by Matthew SheffieldAlmost all of the YouTube lefties' behavior breaks down as follows:
That is just one segment of
March 5, 2008 - 15:58 ET by balboaThat is just one segment of the left side of politics. I have stated that I don't think the videos are very funny, but have conceded when I thought certain jokes worked.
Again, I could generalize and say that all conservatives, based on comments from this site, are in lockstep over Jon Stewart. But I don't think that's true.
You misread my post boa
March 5, 2008 - 16:02 ET by Matthew SheffieldI said YouTube lefties. I don't know what non-YouTube lefties would think since they can't post comments.
Your ideological colleagues over there do react in a lockstep manner, it's plainly obvious.
And they're most likely all
March 5, 2008 - 16:08 ET by balboaAnd they're most likely all pinheads who think it's totally "rad" to tell people off, think being rude is the same as being honest, etc.
and we NEVER see that
March 5, 2008 - 16:10 ET by sarcasmoOr "lock step" thinking, around here! ;)
JMR
PS How's that for a one-liner, Matthew?
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Lots of people here
March 5, 2008 - 16:16 ET by Matthew Sheffielddo think similarly about things, however, NB commenters are quite a bit less lockstep in their behavior and certainly nowhere near as vile as most cyberlefties.
Post something about
March 5, 2008 - 16:24 ET by balboaPost something about Letterman or Stewart and we'll see that "less lockstep" works. Maybe less vile, but no less lockstep.
Spoken like someone who
March 6, 2008 - 05:17 ET by sarcasmoHasn't been (repeatedly, time after time...) presented with the following "conservative" comment: "you have yet to prove to us that you are not molesting little boys. Why is that?" I am told by the Whiner that I'm not "adult" enough to fathom the conservative nuance of this "argument." One standard, folks. Conservatives hate it when I bust your double-standards here just like lefties hate it when I nail theirs, but I'll keep callin' 'em like I see 'em. If Bal tries to get away with a double-standard for the left, I'm on him like white on rice, too.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Why do you suppose
March 5, 2008 - 16:13 ET by Matthew SheffieldYouTube lefties act that way pretty much en masse? I am curious what your opinion on that is.
Because they're the
March 5, 2008 - 16:23 ET by balboaBecause they're the angriest bunch of loons? People who get so upset over a silly internet comedy video that they actually take the time to respond.
Because they view conservatives as snakes who just want to tell people what to believe, and so they're "rebelling" against what they see as brow-beating, condescending comedy akin to their parents telling them to get a haircut and turn down the rock 'n roll.
Bal (& Matthew)
March 5, 2008 - 17:08 ET by MrShyFirst off Matthew, congrats on getting featured on the YT homepage! (how did that happen?)
Bal, I think what we're trying to underscore here is.... just how uncivil and foul-mouthed and over-the-top irrational with hatred the left has demonstrated itself to be over and over. I will assert that this is MUCH more a behavior reflected in liberals than in conservatives.
A big part of it is precisely as you made the analogy just now: liberals are like kids that haven't grown up, and republicans are, well.... grown-ups, who have more personal responsibility and value things like "common decency", "respect thy neighbor", "manners", etc.. Do you think people like the ones who left these simply lovely comments I found (and pasting below) are people I'd want to have as my neighbor?
Here you go, NB'ers (excuse the awful language here, of which I did a lot of asterisk'ing out... I'm only the messenger):
god i hate this ugly non funny p***y face b*tch
Man conservatives have poles shoved up their asses if they find any of this funny.
racist b*tch... cher wannabe, go back to the midwest white trash
Nice laugh track, d*****bag. You look like Cher when you do that stupid thing with your mouth.
Wow is this what conservatives consider comedy, god,yall are repressed. Try living you closeted gay b***ards
Conservatism...about as cool as taking a bath with your dad
I hate this b*tch everytime she says a lame as joke she has that little smirk on her facee
Theres something about her face ... just makes me wana slap her for some reason
This is simply horrible. I really wonder which old rich white man donates his money for this sh*t?
I'm sorry but there is only one tired old cliche'd phrase that I can use that might help save this show, (and I think everyone will agree with me when I say this) ahem... SHOW YOUR T*TS!!! This is further proof that right wingers are incapable of humor.
Jay Leno taking a sh*t is funnier than this.
stupid racist bullsh*t this was trash
I just barfed in my mouth and swallowed it.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
I think you're partially
March 5, 2008 - 17:22 ET by balboaI think you're partially right. The left tends to be more passionate, which leads to misdirected passion, the right tends to be more reserved. The right is always seen as "the Establishment," and the left doesn't want to be told anything by the Establishment, by varying degrees the more "out there" the liberal.
But it's false to say flat-out that liberals are all immature and that all conservatives are mature. Here's a comment about a Jon Stewart video on YouTube:
If Jon Stewart - like the rest of the liberal pieces of s**t on this
planet - had it thier way no civilian would ever own a gun again.
Liberal f**king suck!!!!!!!!!!
Wow Bal, you found "a"
March 5, 2008 - 17:34 ET by MrShyWow Bal, you found "a" foul-mouthed comment in the vast YouTube universe from a conservative! :p
But seriously, yes, I am not throwing at you a full-blown generalization, and there are ugly people of all stripes in the world. But again, I scanned the NB video posting for only about 5-10 minutes and found that many foul, gutter language-filled rants. You found one under Jon Stewart.
And yes, you are right about the birth of the liberal movement, being borne from a desire to "stand up" to the old, staid , "authoritative" "establishment". But like you're admitting, those are all out-dated, mean-spirited, false stereotypes. And they continue to be perpetrated more than any other stereotype, and still accepted and even advocated by the mainstream... media, music, you name it.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
The stereotypes are
March 5, 2008 - 17:38 ET by balboaThe stereotypes are outdated, but each side holds on to certain elements that make their side what it is. In general, liberals (IMO) have wanted to help people directly, so they're all for welfare. Conservatives would much rather people helped themselves. It's like the "teach a man to fish" saying.
I think the right still sees a lot of what the left believes in as misguided empathy, while the left still sees a lot of what the right believes in as cold.
I concur with that
March 5, 2008 - 17:51 ET by KhyrisI concur with that judgement whole-heartedly, so long as it says nothing about which one of those precepts is more accurate to reality.
Balboa - liberals don't want to help people directly
March 5, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Dee Bunkconservatives do. That's why they give much more time and money in relation to their earnings than liberals do. Liberals don't trust themselves to give and be disciplined enough to help people so they want to be forced by the government. The amount of waste that from going through the government vs going through a charity or just helping someone directly is exponential.
On top of the waste, people who receive money from the government start to feel entitled to it but people who receive from charities are thankful and want to help themselves so that they can in turn help someone else as they have been helped.
Liberals are the establishment - not Conservatives. It's the liberal laws that have imposed on all of our lives far more than any conservative ones. Conservatives want less laws and regulations.
Help me out, Dee. What do
March 5, 2008 - 18:02 ET by balboaHelp me out, Dee. What do you mean by direct and indirect help?
PUSH!!! I can see the head!!!
March 5, 2008 - 19:30 ET by tracheostomy:turning cartwheels w/joy:
Please Dee, I'm begging you to respond to this.
Or anyone for that matter. I'm not as good at explaining what she was referring to. But you're on the right track Bal!!!
A new baby conservative is about to be BORN!!!!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I'll take a stab at it
March 5, 2008 - 19:48 ET by Mica the MagnificentPeople who receive money from charity know it can be stopped at any time because the charity has a vested interest in doling out it's money prudently.Therefore, the reciprients show appreciation.
People who receive money from the gov't believe the money came from big corrupt corporations that stole that money anyway. So why not stick it to the BIG GREEDY corporations and simply claim what could have been rightfully yours anyway?. Besides, the government said it was o-k.
Am I close?
Trach & DB
March 5, 2008 - 20:02 ET by MrShyThe opening ("Push!!!....") is great! :)
Dee Bunk has a few gems. One being the direct-indirect thing, totally, and also this one:
Liberals are the establishment - not Conservatives.
That's perfect, and so true.
Back to conservatives giving/helping directly and liberals indirectly... this reminds me of a saying from the mother of an old friend of mine. It sums up perfectly the PC-but-totally-selfish climate of the left:
Save the whales, and f*ck you.
How people "care" about things all over the world, but are really ugly people to the person next to them -- not unlike those filthy youtubers. It's also a another great way of defining compassion that is "indirect".
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Sorry bal - I didn't have time to get back yesterday.
March 6, 2008 - 09:23 ET by Dee BunkDirect help is working at soup kitchens and many other things that churches do to provide assistants to the poor. It's also giving your money for the purpose of helping the poor rather than counting on the government to do it.
Hold on a second...
March 6, 2008 - 15:04 ET by SyriusDee,
The public & private schools in my area have mandates for community participation/ service in order for the student to graduate. The students must complete a certain number of hours to fulfill there graduation requirements. This "liberal" idea is to strengthen the bond between the individual and his/her part in society. So far, this "socialist" liberal program has had a dramatic positive impact on securing the thought in children to give back to society. So explain to me how conservatives are way ahead in community outreach programs? I'm sure you could provide facts and charts on how 'conservatives' have a more positive impact on society than the 'liberals'
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius - forced charity isn't charity
March 6, 2008 - 18:47 ET by Dee BunkWhat next - do you want to start forcing adults to provide community service in addition to taking their money? There is nothing wrong with having children perform community service and it's far from a liberal idea.
There have been numerous studies about charitable giving and conservatives always come out on top. I don't have time to look the stuff up for you. You aren't paying enough attention. Most liberals write it off as the religious right giving to their churches (which shouldn't be written off anyway because churches help people) but if you are really interested there is a book called "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide - Who Gives, Who Doesn't and Why it Matters" by Arthur C Brooks.
In his book he dispels the myth that conservatives only exceed in giving to Churches. He shows how they give more even with church taken out of it and they also contribute more time to charity. The book also talks about how the U.S. gives more than any other country proportionally. John Stossell did a special on this issue and that's where I heard about the book. If you don't feel like reading it maybe you can find that episode somewhere.
Conservatives give more at every level and even those who make less than people on welfare and govt assistance give to charity. Funny isn't it how people making less than people on welfare can afford to give money to charity? Think about it!
Weak arguments...
March 6, 2008 - 19:20 ET by SyriusDee,
Proof not conjecture. Just because it seems or feels that conservatives give more than liberals, doesn't make it so. As for the US giving more than any country does not mean it was the conservatives of the country bonding together and giving support to other countries. When you speak of the US, you speak for everyone meaning Americans not just conservatives. According to this site, giving to other nations seems to be a bone of contention for some conservatives.
As for Stossell, what a joke of a reporter...he should be working for a more fair and balanced network.
The only way to force adults into providing community service and taking their money is by way of the sentence handed down by the judge.
As far as I am concerned- Charity begins at home. Provide for your family first and foremost. Support your community as best you can with your time and/ or your money.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius,
March 6, 2008 - 19:33 ET by tracheostomySy: Proof not conjecture. Just because it seems or feels that conservatives give more than liberals, doesn't make it so.
Citing names is part of making the case for valid evidence. Dee cited two names (authors) and you disregarded one at the outset on an immediate; subjective basis yourself ("Weak arguments"). You completely blew it off.
No, it is your responsibility to disprove citations when cited. For example. . .
Sy: As for Stossell, what a joke of a reporter...he should be working for a more fair and balanced network.
It just so happened that Leon said pretty much the same to me when I also cited an author on this very thread.
Cut the crap Syrius, and bring in some of Stossel's statements and actually disprove them. Stop making such subjective judgements of Dee's citations and accusing others of doing the same.
It's not only a waste of everyone's time, but it can be seen as dishonesty on your part.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
thanks for the support trach - I don't have a lot of time to
March 6, 2008 - 21:11 ET by Dee Bunkdeal with these type of baseless claims by people like him so I'm glad when someone else can contribute so that his distortions don't go unchallenged.
Syrius - weak to the uninformed like you - you make no argument
March 6, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Dee BunkI told you a book you could read with the info and you obviously have no interest. I've read many different articles that have said this also (they're usually buried) but I'm not going to look it up for you because you choose to remain uninformed on the subject. Conservatives give in droves to people in other countries for the Sunami, earthquakes and many things. Conservatives prefer to give themselves and don't want the government giving because it rarely reaches the intended target anyway. Liberals expect the government to do it and then their hands are clean. They don't care that much of the money ends up being used by the powerful(not the poor) in the Country it's given to. Yes liberals give to charities outside the U.S. but conservatives give more proportionally.
The U.S. is the most conservative country and we give the most proportionally. We can give more only because of our conservative principals yet liberals want to turn us into poorer people who rely on the government like they do in other countries. It's crazy.
I'm responding...
March 6, 2008 - 19:57 ET by SyriusDee,
Give me a chance to look it up. The key to these threads, I hope, is to raise consciousness. Some stay put and never expand their knowledge. I try to gather as much information from different perspectives and hopefully understand differing points of view. I make mistakes-I'm human it's the way I evolved.
The attack mentality of this site is astonishing and only compounded by the anonymity of its bloggers.
Faith is just belief without facts or evidence. Go ahead and believe in conservatives giving more than liberals if it gets you through the night. Just be prepared for evidence to the contrary. I'm going to try and prove you wrong.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I'll be waiting syrius - I told you I have read several things
March 6, 2008 - 20:40 ET by Dee Bunkyou admit you haven't and are going to go searching only for info that contradicts. I'm not believing in anything because I've read things on the subject. You haven't and now you are going around trying to prove your baseless religion to be justified.
Make sure you don't go giving anything in total dollars because the rich elite are on the left and that would distort the numbers (another thing most liberals don't realize). You have to look at things that put it in terms of % of income - anything else is meaningless.
Just a question...not a dodge...(or a ford)...
March 6, 2008 - 20:14 ET by SyriusDee,
If a conservative was not able to write off the charitable donation as tax deduction, would they continue to donate?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
o_O OHHH!!! SNAP!!! You
March 6, 2008 - 20:22 ET by tracheostomyo_O
OHHH!!!
SNAP!!!
You should have saved that one for a new thread Syrius. More people would have noticed it that way.
:thinking:
Regardless of it's "oomph" value, it's still essentially an argument to motive fallacy.
I like it. It's certainly inflammatory enough.
But it doesn't hurt Dee's main point a bit.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Found a discussion on this topic w/...
March 6, 2008 - 20:25 ET by SyriusDee,
The link-
http://www.outsideth...
It also links to other discussion.
More to follow with a conclusion if time permits...Okay, Trach?
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
That's great. Keep 'em
March 6, 2008 - 20:31 ET by tracheostomyThat's great. Keep 'em coming. I'm headed for work now. Back in a while.
I just hope the whole "tax write off" argument-to-motive. . .thing isn't the main thesis for your side.
That would end it all real quick.
Later!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Syrius - that lame disucssion makes no valid points and
March 6, 2008 - 21:08 ET by Dee Bunkthe most it even tries to say is that the gap isn't as large as Brook's data say. It doesn't even deny that the gap exists. Their biggest argument is that they don't BELIEVE (not facts) that liberals make more than conservatives on average. All those Hollywood liberals and billionaire philanthropists and trust fund babies do add up. It's a complete fallacy that Republicans are the party of the rich elites. Conservatives just have more rich people who have to work hard for their wealth.
You sure are open minded. You can't read the book - only criticism of the book by liberals who provide no data of their own. I can tell that any discussion with you is pointless. You don't let anything penetrate that doesn't fit your dogma.
Syrius,
March 6, 2008 - 21:55 ET by tracheostomyRe: Steve Verdon's retorts in particular. . .
Retort #1. He needs to prove it's a straw-man argument. The original author explicitly stated “conventional wisdom” on his part. So no foul for Greg. He had his disclaimer at the outset and Steve conveniently ignores it.
Quote: “. . .but still the notion that conservatives are greedy SOBs who don’t care about the poor and less fortunate is a standard type of rhetoric used by the Left.”
And nothing but simply more rhetoric piled on by Mr. Verdon. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why he wasted his time responding to “conventional wisdom” with an equal amount of rhetoric is beyond me. Waste of time on his part.
Retort #2. Mr. Verdon acknowledges a true statement, “This is exactly right. . “ and then runs frantically for the definitions of “conservative.” Well, that would destroy the entire premise, wouldn't it? In order to even have such a discussion to begin with, you would need to agree there is such a thing as these two ideologies, “liberal” and “conservative.”
You can keep the entire liberal ship from sinking if you keep it floating on the airy ambiguity of the definition of “conservative,” or any other word for that matter. The strategy is to leave everything in a stasis of ambiguous doubt, so that nothing gets settled. Dirty pool indeed. Cowardly too.
Oh, that's the whole blog? Shorter than I thought from the scroll bar.
I was ready for something much longer and finished this up during my break. What a piece of crap link that was. Syrius is guilty of linking to someone that is practicing the very thing he criticizes conservatives of doing.
If they do in fact, exist at all. . .! o_O < ???
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Syrius - liberals are stupid enough to give for a tax right off
March 6, 2008 - 20:54 ET by Dee Bunkconservatives aren't. Conservatives give to give and realize that it costs them money even though they can deducted it from income. If someone in the highest tax bracket gives $1,000 to charity they only save $350 in taxes. They would save $750 by not giving.
As the statistics in Who Really cares prove - conservatives give more across the board (as a % of income) whether they are in the 10% tax bracket or the 35%.
Correct. Imposed
March 6, 2008 - 19:01 ET by tracheostomyCorrect.
Imposed "charity" is not true charity.
There's that old semantics problem again. The only way to have any honest debate Syrius, is mutual agreement on our mutual language and not arbitrarily re-defining it where convenient.
But then this would put liberals at a clear disadvantage.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Such as...
March 6, 2008 - 19:41 ET by SyriusPJ,
..."Liberal Fascism" defined by Jonah Goldberg.
There's that old semantics problem again. The only way to have any
honest debate Syrius, is mutual agreement on our mutual language and
not arbitrarily re-defining it where convenient.
The problem with "conservatives" is trying to pin them down on their own definition of themselves which is, so far, impossible. They try to claim to have a monopoly on morality when their actions are to the contrary. So, instead of trying to label everyone with some inane definition- define yourself or conservatism so I can have a better understanding on how to relate to you and the rest of this bunch-what I consider to be radical right wing authoritarian followers. As a matter of reference- "Conservatives without a Conscience" by John Dean.
Gotta love dscott and the tagline I use everyday.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Sy: "Liberal Fascism"
March 6, 2008 - 19:54 ET by tracheostomySy: "Liberal Fascism" defined by Jonah Goldberg.
Hey, that's also a valid citation. You can even make a great forum thread out of that one and run all the conservatives round in circles, like Shawn's doing in his freedoms thread.
If you decided to play fair about such a thread, it might bring some real facts to light. Who's game? :raising hand: Me!
Sy: The problem with "conservatives" is trying to pin them down on their own definition of themselves which is, so far, impossible.
Nahh-nah--don't give up so quick man. That would make an awesome thread in it's own right as well.
Sy: They try to claim to have a monopoly on morality when their actions are to the contrary.
Needs proof. If you got the ammo, use it, don't sit there holding it.
Sy: As a matter of reference- "Conservatives without a Conscience" by John Dean.
There's your third. Cite away, please. Go get 'em Tiger!!
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
And another thing Syrius. . .
March 6, 2008 - 20:06 ET by tracheostomyI noticed you abandoned ship on the topic of "charity" thyar.
So can I hand the "charity trophy" to Dee now? Since you appear to be taking this thread off-road to distract everyone and all.
EDIT: Nevermind. He's gonna take another crack and "look it up" as stated above.
That's fair. Just don't keep us waiting and remember the traffic is tight here. You might want to make it your own brand-new topic.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Interesting...
March 6, 2008 - 21:35 ET by SyriusDee,
For the sake of argument, Brooks studied behavioral responses to statisical studies weakly linking the two. From a sheer number of respondents in a self-indentification survey...
http://www.elections...
...the number of conservatives exceeds the number of liberals.
Averages over the 32 years-
1869 respondents,
29.06% conservative, and
18.69% liberal.
Just from a numbers game, I would have to concede the debate trophy if every respondent gave the same amount- the conservatives would have contributed more than the liberals. A weak conclusion about conservatives giving more.
So, until tomorrow...good night.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
wrong syrius - you don't make sense and you aren't trying to
March 6, 2008 - 22:09 ET by Dee Bunkunderstand. You are just throwing out garbage. He isn't talking in terms of total $'s given which is what you assume with your argument. I specifically told you to not give any data on that because it's meaningless.
He states things in terms of who gives more as a % of their income so if anything a larger sample could drowned out the bigger givers. More people identify themselves as conservatives than they do as liberals. Many liberals define themselves as moderate so you will never get as big of a sample with them. They are in denial. A true sampling would only make the difference even greater.
This table shows that in 2004 23% considered themselves in a liberal category whereas 32% considered themselves in a conservative category. This spread is not that different from the spread you see in his numbers. I can't link right now so you'll have to cut and paste
http://www.elections...
Bal
March 6, 2008 - 17:09 ET by RESTLESS 1While I understand Trach's excitement over the blessed event, I don't see how Dee could make it any clearer. I was thinking the exact same things Dee was while reading over this thread, right down to "liberals ARE the establishment". Back it my younger, rock-n-roll rebel days, I felt emboldened by righteous indignation as well. Glad to know I can hold on to that as conservatives are now the ones "fighting the power".
And if you can't see that giving to charities and volunteering to help the poor are directly helping others while government handouts are indirect and coerced, then I fear that Trach may have to put the cigar back in his breast pocket.
not passionate...!
March 5, 2008 - 17:44 ET by wizardjrLefties are out of control infantiles throwing childish fits when something displeases them. The potty mouth rantings most clearly demonstrate it.
Ronald Regan had passion. Bill Clinton had passion. Did you hear them ranting in four letter words in public? I think not. Passion does not require explatives for emphasis. Check in to the Sunday morning religious shows. There's some serious passion. I don't hear swearing.
"Passion" is just another rationalization and excuse for inexcusably childish behaviour in lieu of adult argument. A bit of riddicule from both sides is acceptable and expected. Foam at the mouth ad hominem attacks are not.
Passion can turn quickly
March 5, 2008 - 17:48 ET by balboaPassion can turn quickly into overzealous fits.
I think it starts with passion, then for some becomes fanatic raving, where you get the attacks and vitriol.
It's not passion - it's immaturity
March 5, 2008 - 17:58 ET by Dee BunkIt's not passion - it's immaturity
I get his point
March 6, 2008 - 13:01 ET by KhyrisYou're both right, so I'm not sure what the argument is...
Both are driven by passion, but I think what you term "immaturity" is a lack of some kind of control to direct that passion constructively AND considerately.
MrS... I left a little
March 5, 2008 - 17:46 ET by bigtimerMrS...
I left a little after navywife or whatever her user name was stating there was racism in the video...I saw the others too...
They are absolutely disgusting, immature, vile little mindless creatures.
The barf in my mouth and swallowed it was a real whiz-bang of a comment now wasn't it?
I cannot believe this country has raised these pathetic little wonderment's....what zombies.
Shameful.
bigtimer
March 5, 2008 - 19:40 ET by MrShyHey BT, yeah, it's really grotesque.... and you're right, the perfect word: shameful.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Oh please boa...how often
March 5, 2008 - 15:51 ET by bigtimerOh please boa...how often do you really go there and read the pathetic, disgusting, immature, filthy comments?
I've read them. Those
March 5, 2008 - 15:59 ET by balboaI've read them. Those people don't represent ALL liberals and democrats.
They ain't heavy...
March 5, 2008 - 16:44 ET by acumen"Those people don't represent ALL liberals and democrats."
I agree Bal. Based on the obvious lack of individual rational thought "those people" seem to more aptly represent bezerkeley middle schoolers that were given a day off to protest the US military.
Much like the silent majority of Muslims that are against Islamic extremists (except of course in...surprise...Iraq), I continue to wait patiently for all the "tolerant" liberals and dems to speak out against liberal extremists.
Hey I wish those people
March 5, 2008 - 17:12 ET by balboaHey I wish those people would shut up. I think extreme attitudes are needed for some things and in some situations, but they've got too much of a voice in our party, IMO. I think we need a new branch of RLs: Reasonable Lefties.
Reasonable lefties?
March 5, 2008 - 17:27 ET by futbolisgreat1Reasonable lefties? that's an oxymoron!
Even more "reasonable" lefties like Alan Colmes or those that work in Foxnews are butchered and hatefully attack by the left wingers. Even Alan Colmes, whom I considered somewhat of a more moderate Liberals defend left wing filth like William Ayers.
I mean, even so called well educated Liberals fall in lock step behind their hate and attack of Foxnews.
You know, I am sick and
March 5, 2008 - 17:24 ET by futbolisgreat1You know, I am sick and tired of Liberals using the easy copout..."These left wingers don't represent Liberals." Yet, you find these "tolerant", hateful Liberals in prestigious universities verbally and physically attacking Conservatives they want to silence. You find these Liberals all over the Liberal blogs, liberal websites and Democratic Presidential blogs....
I am sorry, I have heard Balboa's line from countless Liberals, yet funny enough, it is these "tolerant", hateful, filthy Liberals the ones that are in charge of the Democratic party right now.
I find it amusing how the Liberal media, left wing pundits love to paint Conservatives and Republicans with a broad brush and love stereotyping us, yet they are unwilling to do the same with the left.
Sorry, can't have it both ways.
Part of the Liberal mantra, regardless of how Liberal you are is being intolerant towards any belief or view that doesn't match Liberalism. True, not all Liberals hate and spew hateful filth towards Conservative, but I do believe that the great majority of Liberals involved in politics, involved in Liberal causes are hateful, are intolerant and love to spew hate and filth towards Conservatives and Republicans.
You just don't find the level of hate, intolerance and filth in Right wing blogs and websites as you find them in left wing blogs and websites.
You don't find the level of hate in pro-lifers that you find in pro-abortionists towards people that they disagree with. While 99.9% of pro-lifers do not attack pro-baby murderers, 99.9% of pro-abortinist verbally and physically attack pro-lifers. go to a pro-lifer march where pro-baby murderers are also at and you will be shock at the evil, hateful, speak and attacks spewed by pro-baby murderers. In fact, just go watch an anti-war left wing march...all you find is hate for the USA, for the military, for anyone that disagrees with the Liberals. Funny for "these people" not being main stream Liberals you do find them everywhere in the Liberal movement.
Its like so many of my Liberal friends here in Illinois, they find it impossible to believe that Liberals verbally, and physically attacked me in my Alma Mater for being the president of the Pro-life group. They are in shock when they hear Liberals in other college campuses physically and verbally attack Conservatives.
Liberals that only vote and complain are such naive individuals. They have ZERO clue to who their party is made up and who their militant members are. Liberals live in such tiny boxes.
Get off your couch, get off your meaningless life and see the world for what it is, a world full of hateful, intolerant Liberals that will do anything, and I mean anything to silence anyone that opposes them.
Sorry, those people that posted in YoutTube do represent a great majority in the Liberal/Democrat movement/party.
hey futbol - long time no see - You are exactly right
March 5, 2008 - 18:18 ET by Dee Bunkand thank you for having the courage to be President of the Pro-life group.
Liberals are much more hateful in every aspect. They like to point to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as hate on the right all the time, but our politicians don't act like that. Their own leaders spew much more hate than Coulter or Limbaugh not to mention the thousands of famous public hate mongers on the left. Most liberals have not even heard Limbaugh or Coulter, they take the word of their own hate spewers.
Ann Coulter is "Hateful"
March 6, 2008 - 13:11 ET by KhyrisAnn Coulter is "Hateful" because she says "Hateful Things" ....
... failing to mention that 90% of "Hateful Things" said are merely a mocking parroting of something hateful a liberal said the day before.
She wished Justisce Souter was dead! .... no, she was mocking a liberal for wishing Justice Thomas was dead the day before
She wished John Edwards was dead! .... no, she was mocking a liberal for wishing Dick Cheney was dead the day before
The other 10% of "outrage" is always manufactured out of whole cloth by misunderstanding innocent statements, like the whole "You're a jew-murdering nazi!" characterization which liberals assigned to her because she used the word "perfected" in a religious context.
Right now, I'm forcing a liberal friend of mine to read "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and find something "Hateful" contained therein.
Good job Khyris - I don't think I could get any of my liberal
March 6, 2008 - 18:51 ET by Dee Bunkfriends to read that. I haven't read any of her books only because I'm not really big on political books.
agreed, Bal
March 5, 2008 - 15:51 ET by sarcasmoHumor is a matter of taste. And I'm far from being a lefty, at least on fiscal issues, yet I've rated past episodes that weren't the least bit funny one-star. I call 'em like I see 'em...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc... Just how often do
March 5, 2008 - 15:54 ET by bigtimersarc...
Just how often do you go and read the comments from the lefties?
The COMMENTS sarc.
not too often, but
March 5, 2008 - 15:58 ET by sarcasmoI was not discussing (much less defending) the comments. I only said I rate the un-funny ones with one star.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
That's nonsense
March 5, 2008 - 15:56 ET by Matthew SheffieldOne star is a rating you should give to videos where the person is inaudible, the video quality is poor and the production stinks. Your position is utterly illogical.
So how should I rate
March 5, 2008 - 15:59 ET by sarcasmoTotally-unfunny videos??
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
That FCC letter video
March 5, 2008 - 16:00 ET by Matthew Sheffieldyou linked to earlier was totally unfunny and boring even though I agreed with it!
I still wouldn't have given it 1 star though. 2 at the worst.
I don't have it handy
March 5, 2008 - 16:03 ET by sarcasmoBut I found it hilarious...5 stars, IIRC. Again, humor's a matter of taste, and you haven't yet said how totally unfunny videos should be rated.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I wouldn't presume to say
March 5, 2008 - 16:06 ET by Matthew Sheffieldjust that ratings should reflect the overall production quality, intelligence (or funny/unfunny deliberate lack thereof), and your level of agreement with the jokes.
Your sense of humor is more toward rants than one-liners which is why you have trouble realizing why lots of libertarians and conservatives like the show.
Ok, and that's fair
March 5, 2008 - 16:09 ET by sarcasmoBut in the past some of my comments, which were NOT unduly negative & had constructive suggestions for "NewsBusted," got deleted here, despite direct relevance to media bias. I wasn't impressed, and that probably didn't help the ratings that day...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
One star can mean anything,
March 5, 2008 - 15:59 ET by balboaOne star can mean anything, not just the technical aspects of a video.
Matthew...hey thanks for
March 5, 2008 - 15:49 ET by bigtimerMatthew...hey thanks for the reminder, I got distracted yesterday and forgot to go over there like I usually do later in the afternoon, I have time today though.
Time for some laughter and reading the high intelligence of the little angry lefties.
Fun fun fun.
Results of years of proper training
March 5, 2008 - 15:54 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe many two to four word 'comments' are the result of years of training in keeping it short for fear of running out of spray paint.
Oh almost forgot
March 5, 2008 - 15:59 ET by Matthew SheffieldAnother classic lefty behavior: The fake "I am a conservative and I hate this." When it is obvious from looking at their profile that the person is a liberal pretending to be one.
The same thing happens on
March 5, 2008 - 16:41 ET by bigtimerThe same thing happens on the Washington Journal with the phone callers calling on the republican line...they may start off with..."I'm a republican but"....blah blah blah...the leftist diatribe starts.
bt, I think Matthew just described John McCain.
March 5, 2008 - 21:32 ET by R D HelmLOL-And yeah, I know, I'm a horrible human being.
But I don't care. :-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
I went to YouTube
March 5, 2008 - 16:30 ET by MichiganManand viewed a video of Barack Obama. It was basically pictures of Obama with some music and clips from his speeches. I commented to the people there who were swooning over this video that they should take some time and see what Obama really stands for before calling him President Obama instead of wanting to vote for him based on this video. I point out his liberal rating and that what I have read at his website about "doubling spending" on just about everything and how under Obama the government will be even more involved in our lives (which is something they complain Bush is doing). I am told that it must suck to be so cynical and other comments like that. Typical responses that I totally expected and much like the comments about Newsbusted.
Astute observations are not liberal traits
March 5, 2008 - 17:17 ET by spiderdanAsk a liberal, "Why Obama"?
The range of answers will not only amuse, but amaze you. Legitimate Americans take stock in issues -- liberals and the assortment of feckless YouTube contributors exposed here have no such capacity. So paranoid and intellectually corrupt are these people; they remind me of someone that lost a girlfriend because he passed gas during a romantic interlude, then blames the girl for not "appreciating the wholeness of self".
I despise liberals because they aren't smart, cool, or capable of saving their mom from drowning in a cup of coffee.
I don't know how you get to
March 5, 2008 - 17:27 ET by balboaI don't know how you get to a point where you actually despise nearly half of the population, or come up with these blanket "observations."
balboa, I don't know
March 5, 2008 - 17:39 ET by futbolisgreat1balboa,
I don't know about the person you responded to above, but I don't despise half of the population, I despise their level of ignorance, their lack of education, their lack of wanting to get informed. Also, I believe most self-ascribed Liberals do not know the meaning of being a Liberal in politics. They go with the meaning that has been spoon fed to them by the media.
Most Liberals are Liberals because they are poorly informed. They have college degrees, Masters degrees, even PhDs, yet I find Liberals to be some of the most poorly informed individuals on planet Earth, from current events to history. It is like they live in a bubble that has been created by the so called sophisticatd shows they watch and listen to in NPR and PBS. They have been brain washed by newspapers like the New York Times, USA Today by magazines like Newsweek, US News.
I work with college professors, and it never ceases to amaze me how many of them will defend a point by saying....well I heard on NPR, I read in the New York Times......or comments like, "The media policies politicians and government..." obviously when they are done with their Liberal soap box and you ask them, "so, who policies the media..." all you get is a blank stare and a repetion of the Liberal talking points they read in the Liberal newspapers or heard in NPR/PBS.
Being a Liberal is easy, all you have to do is sit infront of your television and watch the half-hour nightly news. Being a Conservative takes deep thought, it takes analyzing what you have heard, researching, etc. I find the Liberal mind to be lazy and cowardly. 99% of Liberals go with the flow and are terrified of going against it. Most Liberals are into the latest fad, whether it is clothing, movies, television shows, etc. They are terrified of going against the grain. Funny enough, they believe themselves to be mavericks, to be outsiders, they are too self-absord to realize that they are part of the masses. You find these all over Chicago, especially amongst the "sophisticated" Liberal Yuppies of Chicago.
Two types of Liberals, blue collar Liberals and white collar Liberals. Difference.....one paid tens of thousands of dollars to be brainwashed by Liberal professors, the other one was brainwashed by the nightly news. One thing all Liberals have in common, they are weak minded.
Being a Conservative takes
March 5, 2008 - 17:43 ET by LeonBeing a Conservative takes deep thought
As clearly evidenced in the post above with your DEEP, well-thought out vomiting of tired generalizations. Ha.
You must be joking with this tripe.
Balboa, I give you
March 5, 2008 - 17:52 ET by futbolisgreat1Balboa,
I give you evidence number one that backs up my thesis......Leon.
He is the type of intolerant, hateful Liberal that you find all over the Liberal movement.
They can't stand different point of views, they cant' stand the truth.
Instead of proving your thesis wrong, what do all hateful Liberals like Leon do? attack your character, who you are, etc.
Leon is but a carbon copy of millions of Liberals that are so rampant in the Liberal movement. You find his hateful and intolerant kind in universities all over the USA, as members of pro-baby murder groups, in anti-USA, anti-military groups.
The sad part is that people like Leon are so self-absorbed, so poorly informed, so selfish, that they honestly believe themselves to be unique, cutting edged, rebels.
It is quite sad to see. Leon is representative of 99% of Liberals in America. Hateful, intolerant, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israeli, anti-military, poorly informed.
Whoa you are
March 5, 2008 - 17:56 ET by LeonWhoa you are delusional!
Haha.
1) I'm on
the floor laughing at the idea that you actually call your post of
garbage a thesis! Wow. That is amazing. Truly amazing.
2)
You're complaining that the problem with liberals is that they are
hateful and immature....in the same post as you claim to hate 50% of
the population for...wait for it...immature reasons.
Incredible!
Your view of yourself is tragically
warped. I do really feel badly for you. So much anger with
so little to back it up. It must be brutal to wake up every day
seething over fictional strangers that don't exist
No personal attacks
March 5, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Matthew SheffieldBoth you and futbolisgreat are doing it here. Let's end this thread of the discussion.
Mr. Sheffield, With all
March 5, 2008 - 18:11 ET by futbolisgreat1Mr. Sheffield,
With all the respect that is due to you. I do not believe I have enganged in personal attacks towards Leon.
I do believe whole heartly what I have stated. At no point have I insulted Leon.
I am unsure since when pointing out that someone is hateful and intolrant become a personal insult.
I do believe I have been respectful. If stating truths about the left wingers like those who posted in YouTube, like those that post in Thinkprogress.org, DemocraticUnderground, HuffingtonPost, etc is hateful and making personal attacks on others, then I am more than willing to take credit for it. I do not believe that I have insulted anyone or been hateful. I can't help it if Leon decides to take what I have said personal.
... :-\
March 5, 2008 - 18:16 ET by balboa... :-\
Matthew
March 5, 2008 - 18:12 ET by MrShyCan we also reject all posts with the word "Whoa" ?
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Whoa, MrShy...I mean "hold
March 5, 2008 - 18:52 ET by JerWhoa, MrShy...I mean "hold on there, sport"...can you submit a list of acceptable alternatives?
J