Dick Armey and Cokie Roberts Make a Fool of Arianna Huffington
Liberal internet publisher Arianna Huffington on Sunday went on ABC's "This Week" to spout some of her typical left-wing nonsense about the significance of the previous day's Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert rally in Washington as well as what a Republican victory on Election Day means.
Fortunately, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and ABC's Cokie Roberts were there to refute her inanities (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Let me go to Dick Armey, who is joining us from New Orleans. Dick Armey, thank you for joining us. You obviously a big supporter and organizer of the Tea Party. Do you think that there's anything wrong with common sense and civility? Because a lot of people have said that the Tea Party is really helping the extreme end of the spectrum.
DICK ARMEY: No, obviously we need civility. I agree with George Will. You don't be confused between having sharp and sincere differences of opinion and being civil with one another.
I thought yesterday was a fun day. I was quite amused at watching these very important national comics stand up and decry with such sincerity that which they do every day on their shows. And, you know, I said -- I thought it was so remarkable, I want you all in America to quit acting like we do on our show every night with our militant vilification of everybody with whom we have a disagreement.
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Actually, Dick, I don't know when was the last time you watched the show, but that's precisely what they are not doing. And I would highly recommend -- I'll send you a reel of their last good shows just to see how they don't do that.
What they vilified in a civil, reasonable way, was the fact that the media have stopped being what they call -- what Jon Stewart calls (ph) the unity (ph) of our democracy, and that is something that goes back to Jefferson. That--
ARMEY: Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
HUFFINGTON: One second, Dick. What we choose to do with our magnifying glass in the media matters. If we only magnify the extremism, that's going to be amplified.
AMANPOUR: Let me turn to --
ARMEY: And I am so certain that makes all the sense in the world to you, Arianna. But the rest of us don't believe it.
D'oh!
Fortunately, that was just the beginning, for a few minutes later, Amanpour asked Armey another question:
AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask Dick Armey, though, because obviously some of the candidates that you're supporting are challenging the establishment. That's the whole point. And former Republican Leader Trent Lott has said that once the election is over, we have to co-opt the Tea Party. Is that going to happen?
ARMEY: Well, I think the paradigm shift that you see, for too long the American people have said we're tired of having Washington squabbling with one another and telling us what we're going to get. We have decided to assert our citizenry, be involved, and tell Washington what we require of them and what we must have or they will lose their jobs. This is a great day where America is returning to its foundation root of the citizenry telling the government what we will tolerate from you, what we expect from you and what we require from you. It is an enormous return to the foundation roots of this great country.
HUFFINGTON: Dick Armey is making the mistake that a lot of people are going to make on Tuesday night, which is over-interpreting the results. This victory by Republicans, which I fully expect -- I fully expect them to take over the House -- does not mean that the nation is rejecting Democrats and affirming Republicans. It means that they are rejecting the way our institutions are working, that they have deep mistrust of all establishment, that basically our system has not worked for them.
Roberts was having none of this:
COKIE ROBERTS: We hear this every time we have a president of one party and a Congress of the same party. The people in that party say, oh, this isn't a rejection in the midterm election. And it is, of course, a rejection.
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS: A midterm election is a referendum on the president.
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS: That's what it is.
HUFFINGTON: -- positive view of Republicans is to (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
AMANPOUR: How did the Democrats --
ROBERTS: It is a disaffirmation of Barack Obama.
HUFFINGTON: Absolutely, I said that. But this is not an affirmation of Republicans or a smaller government or of cutting spending, all this stuff that Dick Armey wants you to believe it is. It is not.
ROBERTS: Well, certainly the polls say people want smaller government and cutting spending.
Indeed. Nicely done, Cokie.
Now, for dessert, George Will moments later explained for what seems the millionth time why gridlock isn't a bad thing:
AMANPOUR: George, Senator Cornyn pretty much told us that they didn't expect to win the Senate. Made some news here.
GEORGE WILL: Doesn't matter, though, because if Mitch McConnell has 48 senators, he will always have 41 senators for whatever he wants to have 41 for.
Let me just say this. The Republican Party is being told to be the party of no. No more stimulus spending. No cap-and-trade. No card check. None of this other stuff. Gridlock is not an American problem. It's an American achievement. The framers of our Constitution didn't want an efficient government; they wanted a safe government. To which end they filled it with slowing and blocking mechanisms. Three branches of government, two branches of the legislative branch, veto, veto override, supermajority, judicial review.
(CROSSTALK) ROBERTS: And we added to that the partisan rate (ph) so that we not only have institutional gridlock, we have partisan gridlock, which the voters overwhelmingly voted for.
WILL: What I'm saying, Cokie, is that when we have gridlock, the system is working.
ROBERTS: No, I understand, I understand that.
Now THAT'S entertainment!
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
English Please
Can someone, anyone , tell Arianna to please speak English.
She's been in the country long enough to drop the accent.
When she talks fast she is not understandable.
Zsa Zsa Gabor she ain't.
Significance???? WHAT
Significance???? WHAT significance, Arianna???
I do not think it means what you think it means
As for the rest of it, God bless George Will's stamina. It must be exhausting to have to correc these idiots over and over.
They really think the purpose of government is to create laws and run things, and that interfering with that is a bad thing. They really think the effectiveness of Congress is directly related to the number of new laws they pass. \
They just don't get it.
Noel.. bingo - that's exactly what the polls say!
I was on my way to type this.. in response to Huffington, just as Cokie Robert's said it:
ROBERTS: Well, certainly the polls say people want smaller government and cutting spending.
Indeed they do, Cokie. Polls also say that the 70% of the voters support the spririt of the AZ illegal immigration bill - you know, the ones that our dear President Obama called the "enemy" last week, when he urged the Latino community to go out and "punish" them.
Civility begins at the top. Instead, we see the top inciting division, dissent, and now perhaps a call for violence.
(;~/ gary
Civility
Arianna Huffington interrupts Dick Armey to "inform" him of the truth (about which she is entirely wrong). Armey patiently listens to her comment and then says, "Absolutely." To which Huffington says, ""One second, Dick."
When you assume that you can interrupt others, but they can't interrupt you ... you lose the right to opine on civility.
Whey doesn't she just go back to Hooterville...
...and get more relevant political insight from Sam Drucker and Arnold the Pig?
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
It is not hard to make her
It is not hard to make her look like a fool. I think any one of us here could do it.
Zsa Zsa,
er, I mean Arianna, if that is, indeed, her real name, looks like a fool just about the time they pin the mic on her, Rick. She then opens her mouth and confirms that she is, indeed, a fool.
Imagaine you're one of Zsa Zsa's investors
...and the HuffyPuff just blew somewhere near a quarter million dollars on busses for that monsterously overhyped waste of time.
Arianna does NOT need anyone to make her look the fool!
She's perfectly capable of doing it for herself.
"Dick Armey and Cokie Roberts
"Dick Armey and Cokie Roberts Make a Fool of Arianna Huffington."
How hard was that to do?
Arianna Hypocrit
Folks lets not forget two things about Ms Huffington:
- she used to be a conservative until she seen there was money to be made in the left wing blogosphere. She has no convictions except to those centered around dead Presidents. She'd quickly switch back to our side if she seen there was more money to be made on our side.
- Notwithstanding Ms Huffington's plea for civility, her blog, The Huffington Post, is notoriously a character assasin and full of anti semitism.
Nonsense. Your first link is
Nonsense. Your first link is to an apology to Glen Beck. HuffPo is not "full of anti-semitism". A broad cross-section of religious views are expressed and encouraged.
And for the umpteenth time, comments are fully moderated...there are scores of regular conservative/contrarian commenters, and while there may be passionate criticisms exchanged, flaming isn't tolerated.
Finally, as I just noted yesterday, while it clearly is a predominantly lib/progressive site, articles by conservatives are also published, as well as conservative-friendly articles, as well as pro and con articles on current topics.
Jer
Dear Jer, You are as
Dear Jer,
You are as delusional as Arianna.
Dear Mr. knowitall...
As my favorite President would say "facts are stubborn things".
Mine was not a comment on Arianna personally, nor about lib/progressive blogs in general. But, it was an accurate statement about HuffPo.
I guess you really don't know it all, after all.
Jer
At the end of the day...
..... Jer, it is a leftist blog. You can try to put lipstick on it, but is is still a pig.
At the beginning of my post...
I acknowleged that HuffPo is predominantly a lib/progressive blog. So what is your point? That it should be avoided at all costs?
Jer
Which is it, leftist or balanced?
You just told us it is both a leftist blog and is balanced. Which is it? Your logic is pretzel-like.
My personal problem is that I cannot read it without shouting, because as my favorite President said, "It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Dennis Prager
For goodness sakes, Historian...
I have NEVER said HuffPo is "balanced". It is not balanced. That fact is inherent in the very phrase "predominantly lib/progressive".
But, if it will make you feel better, I'll drop the word "predominantly". It is a lib/progressive site. But what I have previously stated about conservative input remains completely accurate.
Jer
Here is what you wrote, Jer
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/31/dick-armey-and-cokie-roberts-make-fool-arianna-huffington#ixzz13zCXbQQT So I quote you where you try to represent it as "evenhanded". It is not as you later admit. I suggest you drop all adjectives except flaming when you talk about HuffPo as being a lib/progressive site. The sad part is, it is NOT a liberal site. The REAL meaning of liberal is "showing or characterized by broad-mindedness". Unfortunately, no one on that site can carry on a rational discussion; it very frequently devolves into name calling. Remember this is the site that used to call President Bush Chimpy, Shrub, and Hitler. Just scan it by looking for these words with Google on that site. That is why I spell the politics of the left LIEBERAL.
Dennis Prager
Historian...
Your link (following Read More) goes nowhere. So why don't you "read more" of what I posted and italicized immediately after the excerpt you quote above:
"Finally, as I noted yesterday, while it is clearly a predominantly lib/progressive site,..."
and then, in the post to which you directly responded, I again noted:
"I acknowledged that HuffPo is predominantly a lib/progressive blog. So what is your point?"
So, please...I hope that issue is resolved.
Now, as far as your claim that discussions frequently devolve into name-calling, I challenge you to provide examples of same. Take a week and come back and post the most egregious instances of flaming of conservative commenters at HuffPo, and we'll compare them with examples from this website.
Jer
So Jer...
...Are you a member of the Progressive Underground Bloggers and Editors Society (P.U.B.E.S.) yet? If not, why don't you spend some time petitioning your employer to allow unionization of your class of workers? You need a iving wage, retirement, healthcare, better working conditions than your mom's basement, part of your salary paid to union stooges to represent 'your interest'. Are you with us or against us?
Good night! Irene...
As Groucho use to say, I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
Plus, the conditions are quite satisfactory in my wife's basement. Three squares a day...leg restraints loosened every six hours for fifteen minutes of exericse. Not a bad life.
Jer
Three hots and a
cot, Jer? She's way too kind to you. And, she actually lets you move your legs around? What's the world of dungeons coming to?
Poor thing....
...Her, not you. I'm glad I'm not her.
Irene...
Trust me...I'm glad you're not her either.
Jer
So Huffpo is moderate
It's only the founder thats nuts, correct?
Hey, Jer
Couple of comments: the apology to Glenn Beck was for offering $100,000 for a sex tape of him. It's a mistake, I think, to blow off that attempt to smear Beck as not being a significant indication of the flavor of the site. The apology doesn't change anything.
The second link, which you apparently ignored, dealt with the significant amounts of anti-semitism on HuffPo and other sites. It, in turn, linked to another site with a lot more detail about the accusations. If you didn't look at that site, it's here. Despite your opinions, it appears from other observations that HuffPo does carry a significant number of antisemitic opinions. The idea that it doesn't matter because other religious opinions are also expressed doesn't make sense.
Finally, that the HuffPo site is moderated and publishes some conservative stuff doesn't really mean anything. It's the overall thrust of the site that matters.
26CX...
I expect better from you. Your case is extraordinarily weak.
The very fact that the article was withdrawn and the author issued an apology because of the negative reaction is indeed "a significant indication of the flavor of the site." Is it also your position that the apologies Glenn Beck has issued for some of his past inflammatory remarks should be disregarded and dismissed as "not changing anything" about what he had originally stated?
No, I did not ignore the second link. It was not particularly persuasive in making a case for HuffPo anti-Semitism however. Having said that, I didn't open the embedded link, and perhaps it will include more compelling examples.
Maybe it doesn't mean anything to you that the comments are moderated, or that many conservatives post at the site without being flamed, or that there are occasional conservative-friendly articles--or essays authored by conservatives--which are published [is there a predominantly conservative site which is comparable with respect to liberal input?], but it apparently means something to many others--HuffPo gets more traffic than any other political website on the internet.
Jer
Au contraire, Jer---
Once again your knee-jerk reaction kicks in.
You know, the one that causes you to defend all things liberal; up to and including Huff n' Puff Fluff Stuff.
You lay out all your reasons for how fair they are, how conservative tolerant; even conservative supporting in many ways, according to you.
26CX was right on target.
Just because you, as a liberal, see things entirely different than conservatives here do reference the harlequinish Huffington claptrap, don't make the mistake of thinking you are correct.
That is sooo liberalish.
Capisce?
MD
Hey, Jer
Thanks for your response.
Let me begin by saying I don't care at all whether I disappoint you or not. Your opinion of me doesn't matter to me.
I also recognize that when you begin a response with a personal affront, it shows that you are struggling to build a strong answer to something written to you. It would be nice if you could avoid those kinds of responses, but I understand it's just how you react sometimes.
Your opinion about HuffPo is just that: your opinion. You may assume that by stating the things you do you are proving your opinion in a way that converts it into a fact, but often the way in which those things are interpreted is based on opinion, too.
Neither you nor I are under an obligation to prove that one opinion is better than the other; we are here to exchange ideas. If you disagree with me and I can't change your mind, that's fine with me. I certainly don't feel any need to insult you because you don't agree with my point, and would appreciate the same consideration from you.
As to apologies, it depends on what I know about the person who has created a need to apologize. If they are truly sorry for something they've done, the apology should be accepted. If, however, they are apologizing because they were compelled to by outside influences, I don't believe it's a sincere apology.
It will probably come as no surprise to know that the fact that a lot of people like HuffPo doesn't matter to me.
Thanks again for your response. Have a good evening!
Please, 26CX...
Spare me the two-act victimization play and encore. For heaven's sake, I am confronted with far more trenchant effrontery just about every single day that I post here than was conveyed by my frankly rather mild--and implicitly complimentary--opening comment to you. [You might note how Matthew Dean begins/ends practically every response to one of my posts.]
It should have been clear that it was not a personal disparagement, but rather a reflection on [what I perceived as] the weakness of your argument--a weakness which I would not ordinarily expect from someone of your customary ability for solid advocacy.
True, my comments about HuffPo are in part my opinion, but only in part, because they also reflect facts. And those facts as I have stated several times include the following:
a. There are numerous conservative commenters at HuffPo;
b. All comments are moderated. As such there is no flaming of posters. (That latter statement is admittedly to some degree subjective; TheHistorian claims there is considerable name-calling and I've challenged him to produce evidence of same);
c. There are occasional articles submitted by conservatives and published by HuffPo (Tony Blankley and Pat Buchanan come to mind); and,
d. There are pro and con topical essays published as well as conservative-friendly articles [JWF linked one as a source just yesterday. There was another one recently blasting NPR over the Williams firing.
e. None of which alters the undeniable reality that HuffPo is a lib/progressive website [predominantly or otherwise]
Finally, I think it no more fair to cherry-pick some blogs or essays or commentary published at HuffPo and conclude the site is anti-Semitic, or promotes it, than it would be to point to an NB forum topic [e.g. seceding from the United States because of Obama] and conclude that this website supports sedition and/or revolution. And as objectionable as the Glenn Beck blog may have been--it was taken down by the time it was linked--the very fact that it was removed and the author issued a profound apology should be applauded rather than simply dismissed as meaningless.
Jer
Jer
Sometimes it's interesting to get into a discussion with you. Sometimes your inflated ego makes it a waste of time.
In this case, I am going to stop wasting my time.
Have a good one!
Well, maybe next time will be
Well, maybe next time will be better.
Hope you have a good one, too.
Jer
No, no, no
Arianna HuffNPuff makes a fool of herself. Dick Armey and Kookie Roberts point it out for the folks in Rio Linda.
TFIFY
Great Line
If there was no gridlock it would allow one person/party or group to rule like a King. The roadblocks are intertwined in the system and can not be removed without changing the whole system. The left have been trying to remove all roadblocks for the last 100 years with no success as in two days the biggest roadblock to ruling like a kingdom will happen. Once the citizenry loss the right to vote by fraud or intimidation the winning side can rule like a King.
Can't someone find...
...those intimate photos of Arianna and George Soros cavorting somewhere?
Why does ABC employ this Greek socialist to set the tone for anything in this country? Is Greece doing that well that we should take advice from her?
This country needs valid IDs to vote.
Gridlock
See, it scares the bejesus out of liberals for Republicans and Conservatives (note I don't confuse the two words :-) to be in power. A huge reason is, gridlock.
It's not because liberals fear gridlock. No, they fear the political ramifications of gridlock, if they are the minority causing it, because of what they are normally obstructing to be able to cause it.
Example. Liberals and progressives want to expand government, continually, until it runs everything. They want to tax, tax, and then tax more. If there is gridlock, they cannot ram these things down the throat of America and take control away from citizens. When conservatives are in power, they want to cut taxes of the American citizen, give the American citizen back the control they lost to liberals. (perfect world, I know, as only TRUE conservatives look to do this).
Liberals creating gridlock, for example, means they are blocking lower taxes for Americans. Conservatives creating gridlock means they are blocking higher taxes for Americans.
Liberals causing gridlock is a political albatross around the neck of liberals, and they know this.
George Will is a rock star!
George Will just silences the oppostition with the truth, spoken with clarity.
I saw this - loved it
Arriana has already written her Wednesday column and has her stupid web-page ready to go. This has nothing to do with Obama! And the laughing and body language from Cokie - someone get this to Bill O'Reilly and his "expert".
There may be liberals within
There may be liberals within certain defined areas of expertise who can hold their own with Will, but there is not a single pundit on the left who matches up with him across the board. Dammit.
Jer
Maybe because there is nobody
Maybe because there is nobody who is intelligent, eloquent, and erudite enough who can argue with the weak material liberalism provides. Moreover, if the person was intelligent enough to argue the liberal side effectively against George Will, that person would be intelligent enough not to be a liberal. :)
"---intelligent enough not to be a liberal"---
WINNAH !!!
MD
Oh, shut up, dean...
Who elected you judge and jury?
Jer
I nominated him
Tuesday, we will elect him
:-) Good one,
:-) Good one, Boudin...
And in 2012, we'll impeach him.
Jer
Jer,---
You liberals ain't got the "stones", as it were, to im-"peach" anybody. :^)
MD
And once I have my supreme judgeship---
in hand, I shall give all liberals a fair trial, then have them taken out and flogged, deported en masse (with empty pockets) to the land to the south, and then watch with glee as they attempt to barter their way, somehow, with coyoteros, back into the country they so obviously look down on while comfortably ensconced within its borders.
I was going to say, with an h/t to Judge Roy Bean, the Law west of the Pecos, 'l'll give 'em a fair trial and then take 'em out and hang them", but ol' Jer would have been highly insulted.
Can't have that, eh?
MD
We could swap them
For the Ilega---er undocumented aliens
Chris...
I think it's because intelligence is distributed more proportionately--democratically, so to speak--throughout the liberal ranks, whereas the brainpower of conservatives seems to be concentrated among a very few at the top. Kind of an oligarchy of intellect.
At least that's my theory.
:-)
Jer
Well, considering your a lib
I think it's because intelligence is distributed more proportionately
This is understandable thinking. I do agree that all libs have about the same intelligence, hovering somewhere around what Big fat Ed and Janeen Godawful have.
: ) see my smile face?
Boudin---
WINNAH Numbah two !!
MD
Yeah, I see your smiley
Yeah, I see your smiley face...and I just punched it. Did you feel it?
;-)
Jer
Violence,,, inherent to the system
I am being oppressed
Jer, Well, there must be a
Jer,
Well, there must be a limited amount of intelligence for all those liberals to draw from, because, spread around through the rank and file as you state it is, it seems to be a little - er - thin - proportunately... :)
Chris...
I've noticed that, too. That's why I'm petitioning Soros and the other party poobahs for a moratorium on any further dilution. I use to be a lot smarter.
Jer
Jer,
Jer,
I'm afraid your petition will be emphatically denied. It's a tenet of liberalism that everything - wealth, health care, even intelligence - must be shared equally - no matter how cruddy the results are.
Jer, you left yourself wide open for that one.
But seriously, Why is it that in the Liberal mindset, people are too stupid to understand things, so government has to help them out, and they have the attitude that "we know what's best." But in the conservative mindset, people are smart enough to understand things, and people know how to run their own lives, and we don't need gov't to micromanage our lives.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny...
Well, only part of your premise regarding the liberal mindset is accurate--the part about government help for people. It is based on a belief that there are some of our citizenry who, for whatever reason, have been or are now unable to participate in the pursuit of the American dream, much less share in its fruits. And for those less fortunate in society there is an obligation of the general public to provide at least mininmal standards of subsistence--which standards can be best maintained and most fairly administered by and through government entities. Fulfilling that obligation not only benefits the specific recipients, but strengthens society as a whole.
The concept has nothing to do with presumed stupidity, and everything to do with providing basic needs to those in need. But the nobility of that purpose has been corrupted by the venality of politics and the frailty of man. But that's a whole other, and much bigger, story.
Jer
Jer, I have to disagree with one point
The idea that there is an obligation there. The thing is, there doesn't need to be an obligation, because most people are more than willing to voluntarily help those who are less fortunate. Yes, there are people who refuse to help those in need, but there are many more people who would choose to help. The fact the people had the choice to help others at no benefit to themselves is what makes it, for lack of a better word, good. When the choice is taken out of it, it loses something. But that's just my view on the subject.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Phryj1
My problem with depending solely on voluntary charitable assistance is that depite the benevolent intent and the truly selfless efforts of so many involved in such work, whether giving their time or their money or both, there is an inevitable and unavoidable selectivity--a benign discrimination--which ultimately leaves someone or some group in the cold.
Jer
Phryj1, just one???
point of disagreement with stupid Jer(by definition)?....Your "less fortunate" comment needs more research on YOUR part...talking point of the left...explain please!!!
"Socialists eventually run out of other peoples' money...Margaret Thatcher
gfrrman
Just to clear things up....
Less fortunate, as in people who are struggling by no fault of their own.
I wasn't using it in the more generic sense that some on the left use in order to make emotional appeals. People who refuse to help themselves in any way and expect handouts are something else entirely.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Agreed Phry1
just didn't want the perpetuation of the thought to go unchallenged. That term has GOT TO GO!!!
G
Jer you are partially correct
But I guess what I meant to say was the liberal leaderships mindset.
The people the Democrats have put in charge.
Do you really think it's the governments job to help people pursue the American Dream? The only thing the government needs to do is stay out of the way. Provide basic security, ie army, police, fire.
As far as providing a minimal standard of sustenance, the liberals have taken that so far extreme it's scary. Why do the progressives continually subsidize poverty? When you subsidize something it generally gets bigger! I guess my point is it's not the Federal gov't job to do any of this. Local and State? OK. But as far as providing for the "poor", I think the government gives way too much. Why is it that people can afford big screen TV's, cable, internet, cell phones, but are still using food stamps, and receiving a welfare check? There are numerous charities out there that help the poor and for a fraction of the cost, because 1) they don't have to deal with government bureaucracy and 2) they have to make sure every penny is spent well. Can you say that about any government program? I have read that waste and fraud in Medicare acounts for as much as 12% of it's budget. And it's still worse than it's private counterpart.
which standards can be best maintained and most fairly administered by and through government entities.That is just plain funny!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL "Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny---
Do you think Jer really believes what he typed out?
"--and most fairly administered by and through government entities."
Jeez, if he believes that, next thing you know we will have a government run by people with the same kind of weird think and then where will the U.S. of A. be?
In trouble, I'll bet.
Jer and his like-think buds ought to check out the benefits of things eleemosynary.
Cool word, huh?
MD
Very cool word MD
I had to look it up, it's not something that comes up in conversation very often.
I'm actually wondering if he cut and pasted it from somewhere, because I don't think he is stupid enough to actually type out such stupefaction.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Agreed, Denny---
I know Jer, personally, is way too smart to buy into that '"government is the bestest" tripe, but I think on occasion the liberal Mr. Hyde completely overwhelms Doctor Jekyll Jer and the result is always underwhelming.
MD
Denny Crane...
You asked me a serious question to which I gave you a serious response, noting that the implementation of the "concept" doesn't always comport with the nobility of the purpose.
You can take the knee-jerk low road like gfrrman if you wish, but don't expect any more efforts by me to engage you in serious dialogue.
Jer
So, Jer---
You answer a question, as always, with your liberal perspective thumping louder than la musica coming out of a gang-bangers quad speaker stereo set up in his low rider street machine, and when conservatives disagree with you, they are knee jerk low roaders?
You funny guy.
Besides, what makes you think any conservative expects "serious" dialogue to ensue when a liberal starts with his talking point monologue?
MD
Oh heavens...another misconstruance by Mr. Dean to deal with
I don't mind disagreements. I expect them. I enjoy the sparring.
I don't particularly care for the "stupid" card being dealt out so carelessly. gfrrman does it routinely, which doesn't surprise me. Denny has done it a couple of times recently, which does.
Jer
Jer---
If you don't mind disagreements, even expect them, and actually enjoy them, then you can not, in all fairness, bemoan what is said by parties involved in the disagreement.
You can do so, but it is so unmanly.
Complaining about "the stupid card" is the male equivalent of "Oh, I broke a fingernail".
Battle!
With bravery, honor, integrity!!
Or, like a liberal who bruises easily, ride the sidelines, wear a short dress, wave pom-poms, and rather than attempting to carpe diem, just carp. :^)
MD
Jer, I'm hurt
I responded to you. MD made a comment, and I responded to him.
I was really shocked that you actualy said what you said. I can name 3 charities that do a hell of a lot better than the government and are better about not letting people fall through the cracks.
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/
http://www.redcross.org/
http://www.unicef.org/
Notice that 2 of them are non religious orgs, so even the far left atheists can't complain about them.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny...
I see. You make an asinine statement that liberalism is based on a belief that people are "too stupid to understand things"--which I let pass and proceed to give you a brief but honest summarization of my opinion of the "liberal mindset" in an effort to seriously address your post.
You then announce to Matthew that I must have copied and pasted it because I couldn't be that stupid to post such stupefecation. And you're hurt because I complained about the remark? You wanted me to toss bouquets to you?
Actually, I don't see it at all.
Jer
Really Jer?
You let it pass? I don't think you did. And I followed up with a change to "liberal leadership mindset" Did you miss that?
The Democratic leadership continually treats us like children that can't make decisions for ourselves. Do you disagree?
I typed out a nice long rebuttal, and at the very end put a little note about something you said that made no sense. You haven't addressed all the other things I have taken the time to say.
Do I really have to put a /s tag every time?
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny...
Denny, if I hadn't let it pass I would have noted at the time of my initial response that I thought it was an asinine characterization of the liberal mindset for you to claim it was based on the belief "people are too stupid to understand."
Also, as a matter of fact I didn't notice your reply last night. The next post of yours I came across today was the "stupid:" comment to Matthew.
As far as the necessity of putting an s/ mark, it depends. You'll need to give me an example of when you are being sarcastic and when you are not. Frankly, it is pretty hard to determine your intent.
For example, was the LOLOLOLOLLOLOL concerning my comment about the government "fairly adminstering" programs serious or sarcastic? When you said a couple of days ago that [my incredibly mild] defense of ona-whim made me look "stupid", were you being sarcastic or serious. When you accused me of posting trollish comments lately, were you being sarcastic or serious. When you commented to Matthew that I couldn't be "stupid" enough to make stupid remarks about the government, were you being sarcastic or serious?
Give me some guidance with respect to discerning your intentions, and then hopefully there won't be any need for symbols. But, as it stands now, you're all over the map.
Jer
Jer
Fair enough.
Sometimes I forget that intent isn't as obvious in the written word.
But I am still waiting for a rebuttal.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Jer, the poor guy is hurt
Jer,
the poor guy is hurt because the Truth about Liberalism and today's Democratic party is shoved down his throat.
Oh, "Moderate" Jer, do you want a Obama to hug you so you feel better about your radical beliefs?
Yes, it was spot on.
Liberalism is based on the believe of a few elite that the American people are too stupid to make reasonable and good decisions for themselves.
Liberlas like you, which you clearly pointed out, believe that somehow government brings equality, justice to the masses. LOL
Liberal radicals like you are completly unaware that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to reign in and control the Federal Government. to make it as small as possible and to allow the American people to make their own choices.
Liberal freak shows like Obama believe that it is their duty to tell me how to spend my money, where to eat, what to eat, where to eat, where to smoke or not smoke. etc, etc, etc.
Asinine comment? it is only asinine to a radical Liberal like you, "Moderate" Jer because there is NOTHING more than a Left winger hates than a mirror being shoved infront of their face. Liberals can't stand to be told the truth about their radical ideolgoy which the American people are resoundly rejecting.
If you do not believe that Liberalism is about telling us what to do, how to spend our money, how to teach our children, what to teach our children, whether or not we should smoke, whether or not we should eat with salt or no salt, whether we should drink soda, etc, etc right here, right now condemn these actions and believes of Liberals. I dare ryou to prove that you are the Moderate that you claim you.
Denounce Barack Hussein Obama for the radical Left winger that he has proven himnself to be. Denounce his radical healthcare bill which has already caused by healthcare insurance primeum to go up. Denounce this radical healthcare bill which Obama lied to America about.
Otherwise be the man you refuse to be, shut-up and take the beat downs that you are receiving for your radical Liberals believes.
Denounce Bill Maher, Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, denounce Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, denouce all the Left wing radicals who tell us to our face that the American people are too stupid to make our own decisions. If this is not what Liberalism is all about why is it that Liberals tell us as much and act in such a manner? LOL
Your NDS break down from the other forum is not allowing you to think clearly. Take a few days off, Jer. I know how much you must hate it that your Obama won't be able to do as he pleases anymore for the next two years. I know how much you hate that with the Republicans winning a true checks and balances will come to our Federal Government.
Liberallies, between ---
NDS & EDS, Jer is having a rough go of it.
EDS being Election Day syndrome.
He even jumped on Denny.
What a meanie !
MD
Hmm where in the constitution
Hmm where in the constitution does it say that we MUST by government mandate, provide for those less fortunate? Right - IT DOESN'T. We do however have the right to choose if we so desire to participate in that charity by our choice. The notion that the "unable" are better off with the gov't taking care of them is just not supported by any fact. I'd much rather see my church, who can efficiently manage charity with-out the massive bureaucracy that is our fed or state gov't.
How does it strengthen our society specifically? By providing incentive to keep people on welfare perpetually, extending unemployment periods, food stamps, bridge cards, WIC...There is so much abuse of these programs because the people have found ways to exploit the programs and survive on being unproductive since the gov't policy just allows it. I see it first hand all the time. It is rarely that these programs just help to get people "back on their feet". They are content to have the monthly check. Those programs are wasteful and do not help those "unable" citizens.
It is a weak liberal argument that has no basis of fact...like many of the liberal arguments.
Putting....
..... Arianna on the show is a little like putting the head cheerleader on the Harvard Debate team, You never really know what kinda really vaporous answer you are going to get. But she never fails to give us all a good laugh.
Cokie, is...
.... sitting there thinking, "I put years into being a journalist, and along comes Arianna, becomes the trophy wife of a politician, and then suddenly becomes a commentator. WTF. Snookie might as well be on the panel".
Mrs Arianna Huffington Crist
Both Charlie Crist here in Florida and Arianna apparently have the same principles -- none -- and will one day I'm sure be together. Neither will be quite sure at any given moment whether the other is sincere, telegraphing a next move, or just suffering a brain fart. It will be Kismet.
Arianna Huffington-Crist
Well, she certainly has a "type" doesn't she?
I beg to differ.
They did not make a fool of her. SHE WAS ALREADY A FOOL! They simply pointed out the foolish things she said during this particular show.
PS
Why is she even part of any serious discussion?
All I ask of living is to have no chains on me,
And all I ask of dying is to go naturally.
Blood, Sweat, and Tears
A better question. Why does ABC 'toss away' one half of ...
their potential audience in the Country by allowing an ultra leftist like Amanpour host a show on their network?
Saintknowitall; Now that's funny
That is so on the mark. I can almost see Cokie's head shaking, and her thinking "You have got to be kidding me."
I can't quit laughing with Cokie not at her. Pretty classy of the panel to tolerate Huffy the way they do.
Saintknowitall; Now that's funny
That is so on the mark. I can almost see Cokie's head shaking, and her thinking "You have got to be kidding me."
I can't quit laughing with Cokie not at her. Pretty classy of the panel to tolerate Huffy the way they do.
Whenever....
..... she opens her mouths, she removes all doubt of the level of her intellect. I thought the liberals were all rocket scientists. Guess she didn't get the memo.
PS - Having her on these commentary shows is fantastic in my opinion. You need to have some comic relief.
Ain't that hard to do...
Ain't that hard to do...
Brevity=Soul of Wit
"I was quite amused at watching these very important national comics stand up and decry with such sincerity that which they do every day on their shows... It was so remarkable, I want you all in America to quit acting like we do on our show every night with our militant vilification of everybody with whom we have a disagreement."
Bingo. Nailed it. Nailed it BIG time.
These 'comics' made fame and fortune by hosting shows where they are constantly snarky, disrespectful, irreverent, vulgar, vile, insulting and petty.
And they DARE to attend these rallys and lecture ANYONE about being civil and decent and sane?
'Thou hypocrite - first cast the beam out of thine own eye - and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of they brother's eye.'
No one should pay any attention to anything either of these so-called comedians said at those rallys. Not until they quit their jobs, take every penny of the money they earned at those jobs, sell all the posessions they bought with money earned at those jobs, and give it all away to a foundation dedicated to taking every late-night comic show off the air once and for all.
Unless they live by the standards they're demanding for everyone else, they have NO RIGHT to speak of it.
You don't follow your own 'bumper sticker' advise.
Now I'll read your long comment.
I'm back.
Good comment; bad 'subject' title. How about: 'Hypocrisy exposed', or in the words of Sarah Palin: 'Corrupt bastards!'?
save
looks like "home" this morn, sorry
I disagree. Arianna Huffington made a fool out of ...
Arianna Huffington.
Dick Armey, libertarian before it was cool
It's just great to see Dick Armey alive and well and making a contribution to America's future.