Bill Maher Ups Ante on Vulgar Palin Attacks
After comedian Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin as a derogatory term for a vagina a little over week a ago, NewsBusters asked, "Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?"
According to the Dallas Voice, this happened on Sunday while Maher was "performing" at the Winspear Opera House (photo courtesy Reuters):
It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “cunt” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.
For those unfamiliar, the Winspear Opera House is indeed where the Dallas Opera performs.
Seems a metaphysical certitude that word isn't uttered on that stage very often.
The reviewer - writing at the self-described "Premier Media Source For LGBT Texas" - noted:
Maher spoke the truth for a nearly two-hour set, and, in my mind, established himself as the pre-eminent political commentator of a generation. He’s a comedian, too, of course. But really, he’s a voice.
And that's what makes him dangerous, not just to the right but to all Americans.
Maher is indeed doing political commentary. When he gets interviewed by CNN, MSNBC, or any of the broadcast network news programs, it's not to do one-liners.
It is instead for him to offer his political views about current events in a venue made for such a thing.
Yet, when he makes a comment that crosses the line, he'll conveniently hide behind the comedian veil and folks on the Left will wittingly give him a pass.
On Saturday's "Fox News Watch," liberal New York Post commentator Kirsten Powers said, "I have to say, he's a comedian and it's hard for me to get up in arms about comedians on cable shows saying things. It's not as if it happens -- it's not Chris Matthews that said it, for example, I would have a problem with it or somebody -- a member of Congress, maybe, but I really, I feel like this kind of stuff just gets a little out of control. He is a comedian who says a lot of crazy stuff."
In fairness, Powers walked this back a bit Monday night when Fox's Greta Van Susteren told her that Maher has defended women's rights.
In a recent "Real Time" installment after the riots began in Egypt, the host said that for lasting political change to occur in this region, there's going to have to be a sexual revolution that improves the treatment of women.
But apparently to Maher, such equality doesn't begin at home, for he has in the past eleven days called Palin a t--t, a bimbo along with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), and now the dreaded C-word which to women is like the N-word to African-Americans.
Once again, I point my finger at the National Organization for Women.
By not specifically admonishing Maher, "Real Time," and HBO in its weak defense of Palin last week, this hypocritically self-described women's organization was implicitly telling this so-called comedian and the network he represents it's just fine to make sexist attacks on this woman - and conceivably all conservative women - no matter how vulgar.
Welcome to the new and NOW-approved feminism, America - where liberal women's rights are to be defended while conservative women's rights are to be trampled on like a restaurant door mat.
(H/T Daily Caller via NB's motherbelt)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Maher looks
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:57am.
more and more like a decrepit albino every time I see him. He's now the epitome of the "dirty old man".
As for his continued use of anatomical slang, it's clear that he doesn't know what one looks like--must come from complete lack of familiarity. Not surprising, as I doubt there's a woman who would touch him with a 10-foot prophylactically equipped pole.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
All except
Submitted by mel21221 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:36pm.
Elanor Clift ... didn't she give bubba a pass on his, um, peccadilloes??
"Fearlessness", huh?
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:58am.
The pasty, tiny, stupid, hateful little troll should remember that Sarah Palin has a husband. I can see that a s s whipping coming from a mile away. I hope that the cameras are there to catch it!
He's not afraid of Todd Palin
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:16pm.
.... Maher has a phalanx of transgender bulls protecting him. He'll need it. What a small weasel.
It's a lose-lose situation
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:24pm.
It's a lose-lose situation for Maher.
Be afraid Mahr, be very afraid...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:00pm.
Actually, he should be just as afraid of Sarah. There's no doubt in my mind she could whip his sorry @ss in any contest, should she choose to lower herself.
The Left are ramping it up
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:02am.
The Left are ramping it up both in hypocrisy and their hatred for everything not Left wing.
GE pays no taxes. Silence from the Left.
Obama takes us to war #3. Silence from the Left.
Sarah Palin called a t***. Then a c***. Silence from the feminist Left.
Economy in shambles. Silence from the Left.
Foreign policy a disaster. Silence from the Left.
Gas/food/clothing prices skyrocket. Silence from the Left.
Over 30 Czars. Silence from the Left.
Obama loses Democratic party over 700 seats. Silence from the Left.
NPR busted in full bias. Silence from the Left.
GTMO still open. Silence from the Left.
2 wars still on, one with record death toll. Silence from the Left.
All Democrat Congressional and Senate representatives are millionaires, multimillionaires, or billionaires. Silence from the Left.
Obama ignores nuclear disaster now reaching our shores. Silence from the Left.
Obama delivers oil rig contract to Soros-owned Petrobas so they can drill for oil in gulf and sell it to us. Silence from the Left.
I'd like to go on record here
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:10am.
I'd like to go on record here - has anyone heard from the Republicans? What have they done, anyway?
They are acting as...
Submitted by ontheright on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:16am.
...the RINOs we knew them to be...this is absolutely, without a doubt, no surprise to those of us who are paying attention.
Unfortunately, the pressure of the Tea Party movement appears to have subsided and the RINOs know it. They continue to bide their time (really ours) in an effort to let the dust settle. Only going through the motions with some "window dressing" activities/cuts/bills/ammendments - like a .0006% cut here, a .0003% cut there...
Now that spring is here and summer is closing in all the sheople's attention will be on the beaches, lakes, mountains and vacations and fun, fun, fun - while the political hacks continue to ruin our country with their lackadaisical business as usual attitude(s).
This was wholly and painfully predictable.
And that...
Submitted by falcon on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:28am.
...is the most frustrating and annoying part of this whole debacle. Why did we assume that the GOP would ride to the metaphorical rescue? Yes, we voted out a bunch of Democratic incumbents and voted in a number of TEA Party-backed candidates, but we also re-elected a bunch of GOP incumbents, and most of them are do-nothings only interested in maintaining the status quo.
It's time for them ALL to go. Total housecleaning (or House-cleaning, and Senate, too) in November 2012. No more career politicians! And anyone who desires to be elected to public office is automatically unqualified for the job (with apologies to Mark Twain), so we need to find the leaders among us and draft them to serve in Congress. Two years (six for Senators), and that's it.
Oh, yeah, and repeal the 17th Amendment. Perhaps if we go back to having the States appoint Senators, we can exert a little more control over the process, because electing them popularly ain't workin'.
I am so frustrated with the state of the Union right now I could chew nails.
“I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership, that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.” – Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980.
While we're repealing...
Submitted by ontheright on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:47am.
...repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the tax code as it exists today. Then implement a "fair tax" where everyone who consumes any product or service must pay their equal share - not their "fair" share, but their EQUAL share. No more income taxes! Our current progressive taxation model is pure crap!
Only those of us who have the gumption, drive, knowledge and energy are getting out and bettering ourselves. And as a result of our blood, sweat and tears, we are being taxed out of existence. All the while those who hover under the radar and just out of reach of the iron fist of the Government, gobble up all the "freebies" handed to them by the very same Government who stole the money from the producers in the first place. Of course, these locusts/leaches/parasites are not expected to do anything to "earn" the hand-outs; only to continue sucking off the Gov. tit and continue to vote union/democrat.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!
Falcon
Submitted by CommanderTaya on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:42pm.
As frustrating as the situation is we all knew that one election cycle would not eliminate the RINOs. What these fossils need is a primary challenge. Here in Florida that's the focus for 2012. If you play by the old playbook you will be at risk. Tea Party is watching and keeping score while at the same time searching out talent for future elections.
Van Halen,
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:54pm.
Republicans at the national level are doing the same thing the GOP candidate for governor did here in the last election cycle. They are relying on people being so salty at Democrats that they can just sit back, poke around once in a while and ride the wave of discontent to victory lane.
We have a Democrat Governor (who won 3 out of 102 counties) and a Democrat controlled general assembly today.
A few "rogue" extreme TEA partiers went off the reservation and won, but all in all, the Republicans just did what they always do, the go along to get along - scared of rocking a boat when rocking the boat is exactly what people want them to do.
Silence from the Left? Er...No.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:42pm.
HuffPo has reported on most of these:
GE pays no taxes. Blogged about yesterday.
Obama takes us to war #3. Blogged about yesterday and reported on virtually every day.
Economy in shambles. Blogged about repeatedly.
Foreign policy a disaster. Frequent blogs criticizing foreign policy of administration.
Gas/food/clothing prices skyrocket. [See economy in shambles]
Obama loses Democratic party over 700 hundred seats. Subject of intensive analysis all over lefty blogosphere.
NPR busted in full bias. Subject of one of Breitbart's first page HIuffPo blogs
GTMO still open. Frequent subject of HuffPo articles
2 wars still on... Numerous articles and commentary from Left
Nuclear disaster reaching our shores. I guess it has been ignored because I wasn't aware of this imminent disaster.
Obama and Petrobas: Here's a recent article from Forbes debunking myths peddled by Beck
Jer
Interesting Jer,
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:02pm.
I see a lot of stuff about blogging, but not a lot about NY Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, etc.
If you honestly don't think that things would be different under a Reupblican president, you're living in a another plane of reality.
For 8 years the "media" screamed about Bush and how everything was his fault whenever something went wrong. Obama is given a pass on all of it. I've never seen anything like it.
I have no doubt that, if we ever have balanced and unbiased reporting again, people will look back at these times as the dark ages of journalism.
Game, set and match NC Cop
Submitted by Tomorama on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:31pm.
NC Cop, I see NO response back from Jer, hmmmmmmmmmm.
Jer, you know better than that, blogosphere instead of the NETWORKS, come bon, you used to be better than that.
Us folks talking about it is NOT ON PAR with the supposed media doing their FN jobs and reporting EVERYTHING no matter good or bad on any president.
Spare me the "game, set, match", nonsense, Tomorama....
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 5:58pm.
Noel's article is about Bill Maher [a Left-progressive/libertarian] and NOW (which VAN HALEN describes as the "feminine Left").
He introduces his "list" with this observation:
"The Left are ramping it up both in hypocrisy and their hatred for everything not Left wing."
He then follows each item on his list with the phrase "Silence from the Left".
In light of that, I thought it perfectly appropriate--in fact more responsive--to frame my reply in terms which primarily addressed whether or not the flagship website of the Left/progressive blogosphere [HuffPo] has been guilty of the alleged "Silence from the Left."
VAN HALEN made no mention of the mainstream media or alphabet networks. If he had, my post would have been worded differently.
Jer
Hard to believe, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:03pm.
that anyone could ever wrongly interpret your words about Huffpo.
Seeing as how they are consistently sycophantic.
MD
MD...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:12pm.
I don't think there was any misinterpretation.
Jer
So why the "Spare me" speech to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:25pm.
Tomorama?
MD
Because Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:46pm.
As much as I like NC Cop and Tomorama, I believe instant replay would show they both served up "faults" instead of "aces". The manner in which Van Halen worded his post called for, imo, a response addressing whether or not a prominent and recognized voice of the LEFT, e.g. HuffPo, had 'spoken' to the issues he itemized.
He made no direct reference to the mainstream media--after all, the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal is a part of the MSM. Consequently, I believe the objections of NC Cop and Tomorama were misplaced.
Jer
Oh. For a minute there, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:53pm.
I thought you were in your normal "full defense mode" when speaking of Huffpo.
The post was only your opinion.
That certainly changes things.
Never mind.
Carry on.
MD
Jer, Nice try therer
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:41pm.
Jer,
Nice try therer buddy...LOL
You are speaking in half-truths, as most Liberals do. The fact is that when Bush was in office the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, Washintong Post, Seattle Times, San Francisco Chronicle that is the main stream places where Center to Left Liberals go for news, did daily anti-Bush reports. Today, these are NOT reporting on Obama's utter failures. This is an undenial fact!
Huffington Post is not as well read as other Left wing sources and certainly it doesn't have the amount of viewers are Left wing news sources on television. Not even close!
Why don't you show us all the articles of how Obama is being held accountable for what is coming out about military killing teams shown on pictures, video doing pretty horrific things to individuals in Afghanistan. You and I both know that if Bush was in power, this would be a daily, nightly, 24/7 non-stop reporting on this. How many articles, on the front page of the NY Times, Washington Post, how many news shows on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, BBC have led with news about this holding Obama accountable just like they held Bush accountable for Abhu Graib?
Where are the countless of stories and the Left wing pressure on Obama for not asking Congress for permission before taking our nation to war? You must have forgotten the huge, incredibly pressure that the Bush administration received from the Left, right before taking the USA into Iraq, when it demanded that Bush ask Congress for permission.
there IS silence from the Left. Having a few blogs, read by a few Left wing radicals, talking about it doesn't equate to the incredibly screams, huge sounds that the Left made against Bush.
Simply put, as a Left wing friend of mine was honest enough to admit, it was never about Iraq, or about the war, it was about destroying Bush and the Republican brand! I vehemently disagree with this friend of mine on anything political, but the man is honest enough to admit what we all knew during Bush's 8 years. The Left never cared about Iraqis, the Left never cared about the rule of international law or domestic law, all the the Left cared about during Bush's 8 years is the destruction of Bush's, Republican's and Conservative's brand. Sadly, they achieved it and we elected THE worst President that American has had.
So, nice try, but as always, you speak in half-truths.
Okay, Liberallies....
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:13pm.
List some representative Right-wing news sources.
Next, tell me why even Bush administration spokesmen acknowledge they have little complaint about the MSM coverage during the first couple of years of the Bush presidency.
How did a president who lost the popular vote to his Democratic challenger possibly enjoy approval ratings around 90% after 9/11 and the praise of Democrats and Republicans alike if all the Left cared about during the "entire eight years" was the "destruction of Bush's, Republican's and Conservative's brand"?
Why was Chris Matthews applauding Bush's performance during the first months he was in office?
Face it, things went south for Bush when a very mismanaged war in Iraq went south.
It's ironic what your lib friend admitted to you. I had a couple of conservative friends admit the very same thing to me during Clinton's presidency. They didn't care about Whitewater, Paula Jones, or Lewinsky or any of the other ginned up "scandals"--they just wanted Clinton's head, and all of those sideshows were just a means to that end.
Do a little research, and then come back and we'll talk about half-truths.
Jer
And that, Jer, neatly summarizes Slick Wiilie's---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:20pm.
presidency.
Something about Clinton and his head, wasn't it?
MD
Head? You just don't get it,
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:31pm.
Head? You just don't get it, do you, Matthew?
Jer
It would appear, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:38pm.
that you are the one who actually doesn't get it.
Picture Lewinsky, and see if that helps you understand what Slick Willie Clinton will be forevermore remembered for.
MD
Duh...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:43pm.
It was a joke about you and head, Matthew.
Get it now?
Jer
Haven't lately, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:48pm.
That was uncommonly mean, reminding me of that fact. :o)
MD
Don't feel bad, Matthew, I'm reached the point where
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 8:12pm.
I don't know if I'm remembering fact or fantasy.
Jer
Jer, You seem the one in
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:37pm.
Jer,
Like always, you are incapable of supporting your "facts" and what do you do? attempt to divert attention by claiming the Right does/did it too! and asking questions. Sorry buddy, you don't get to answer questions until you answer mine. You know where they lead, thus why you always refuse to answer my questions.
You seem the one in need of research!
No doubt you forgot the Left's attack on Bush started even before he won the White House. Do you remember the interview in which he was asked about foreign leaders? And when he didn't mention them or seemed to not know who they were the Left went crazy!
You most forgotten how all we heard is how terrible the No Child Left Behind law was and how it was all Bush's fault, despite Ted Kennedy being one of the main authors of this law! The media NEVER embraced No Child Left Behind and attacked Bush for it!
Once again, you take ONE INDIVIDUAL, Chris Matthews, who gave him one or two complements, before doing everything in his power to destroy him and claim that the Left was nice to Bush during his first years in office.
I guess you never researched, Jer, the countless of stories in the NY Times, Washington Post, etc where the Left was crying about Bush supposedly taking too much time off and not working enough hours to be an effective President.
Where are the countless of stories about the supposed military Killing Team and placing it at the feet of Obama? NY Times, MSNBC, CNN, the whole Left, blogs, television news shows, etc placed Abu Graib at the feet of Bush!
You must have forgotten the countless of news pieces claiming that Bush did not do enough to stop 9/11. That he was asleep at the wheel. I will never forget when Nightline, sadly a nightly show I used to respect, did a story on this and how he "ineptedly" kept on reading to the children after Bush was informed of the 9/11 attacks.
You must have forgotten when the media blamed Bush for the dive that the economy took early in his Presidency when it was obvious that the dive had started under Clinton's years.
Yes, Bush had a 90% approval rating, but this was quickly destroyed by the Left in America who hated all the flags that were flying all over the USA. The "Support the Troops" magnets and anything that resembled patriotism.
You must have forgotten that the Left , with the USA merely two weeks in Iraq, claimed that the USA was in a quagmire in Iraq. Or how the Left went nuts when we bombed Afghanistan. The left constantly told us that Afghanistan was already in the stone age, thus why was Bush attacking it!
I could careless, jer, why some Bush representative have little complaints about the MSM during the first early years. Which this is NOT true! I wonder who they were...names perhaps?
Jer, obviously, you are the one in need of research. Why don't you do it and then come back and admit to your half-truths!
The Left news sources and opinions heads are giving Obama a pass on things that they NEVER gave Bush a pass on.
But nice try on your red herring and typical attempt to change the focus of the conversation.
Do what i asked you first and then I will do what you ask, deal? Still waiting for all those stories in Liberal newspapers and news shows on television in which they pin the Killing Military Teams on Obama. Anything on this, Jer? Or will you everything within your power to divert attention from the obvious fact....You are incapable of admitting to the truth, The Left wing MSM in AMerica doesn't care about the truth or facts and they are a bunch of hypocrites who enjoy the defense of individuals like you.
Bush enjoyed favorable media coverage in his early years? What the heck are you drinking and smoking. WOW!!!
Do YOUR research before you ask others to do what you obviously do not do!
Before I start my research, LA...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:51pm.
Let me just repeat what Cool Arrow found necessary to point out in a response to one of my lengthy comments about three years ago:
It should be "I could not care less."
Jer
Jer, That's what I thought
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:53pm.
Jer,
That's what I thought Jer. The facts prove you wrong. They prove that you lied and spoke in half-truths. You are caught doing so and all you can do is take a stupid cheap shot at me.
Typical Liberal, when the facts don't side with you, start attacking the person. Sad Jer, truly sad.
You make things up all the time to back up your half-truths and complete lies and you can't stand the fact that I constantly call you on your bull sh...t.
You should know by now, facts are never on the side of Liberals. You need to make things up, lie and speak in half-truths in order to get the "facts" to agree with you. You would do well as a revistionist historian.
Once again, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:30am.
You demonstrate why I and others are reluctant to engage you. It is virtually impossible to conduct cordial and productive exchanges due to your irresistible impulse to almost immediately reach for the liar card. I keep thinking "maybe this time it will be different", but it never is. And, by the way, I was not taking a "stupid cheap shot at you". I was joking about your using a particular cliche` in the same manner I prefer. [And, fwiw, I think you and I are correct about "I could care less". That happens to be the more currently accepted usage. So unwad your panties.]
Your claim that from the first moment of the Bush presidency, the Left, which presumably includes the "media", was determined to destroy his presidency and that it continued unabated for eight straight years. That is demonstrably and categorically false. In fact, continuing the pattern of press treatment of Bush during the closing weeks of the 2000 presidential campaign where he had received more favorable coverage than Gore, his first month in office was also well regarded by the media--notwithstanding the intense controversy surrounding his election. In fact, he was treated better during the first month than was Bill Clinton [although neither garnered the adulation subsequently given Obama.] During the second month and succeeding months leading up to 9/11, the media became more aggressive and there were fewer positive articles, but the coverage certainly wasn't brutal. And after 9/11 there was another lengthy period where the media was generally supportive of Bush. [source] The Iraq intervention and the developing quagmire in that country signaled the real deterioration in the relationship with the press which never healed during the remainder of his presidency.
Now you are welcome to present contra evidence if you wish, but there will be no further response from me unless and until you change the tone of your posts.
Jer
Jer, I am doing my own
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:48pm.
Jer,
I am doing my own research and I would urge you to do a lot of research on NB. Its archives are full of studies and facts proving that what I am saying is correct.
In the mean time, please address this.... Hmmm....the link that you used to prove that somehow Bush received more positve coverage than Clinton's first months...hmmm...actually....yeah....proves that i am RIGHT!!!! LOL Did you read it? Here is the first paragraph!
"Contrary to Democratic complaints, George W. Bush has not gotten an easier ride from the American media in his first 100 days than Bill Clinton did in his famously rocky start, according to a new study of press coverage. Despite a very good first month, Bush’s coverage overall was actually less positive than Bill Clinton’s eight years ago, the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found."
Honestly, did you read it before you linked it?
here is more from you link proving me right, "While overall the coverage of Bush’s early days is actually less positive than Clinton’s, many may sense the opposite because of the power of first impressions."
Here is more from your link....next time read it before you link me to it...LOL
In print, Bush had a much harder time than Clinton on the opinion pages. Half of all editorials have been critical of him, while only 20% have been positive. While these results come from the New York Times and Washington Post, reputedly liberal papers, the problem was roughly the same on the op-ed pages, where four-in-ten stories were critical and only 16% positive.
Clinton fared much better. Only two-in-ten editorials were plainly negative while more than 40% were positive. His op-ed pieces were more evenly mixed, with negative stories slightly outweighing positive (35% to 30%).
I can continue to deconstruct the very long study which at the end proves what I am saying is correct. ONe more for you...
Taking the first two months in office as a whole, Bush’s coverage has been slightly less positive than his Democratic predecessor’s (22% positive stories for Bush versus 27% for Clinton) 4.
What is it that you were saying? LOL
Don't worry, I am busy with work, but I have no problem proving you wrong with facts. But thanks for the link that proves my point.
I had read every word, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:01pm.
Unfortunately you seem to either ignore or deliberately misstate what I have posted as well as to conveniently forget your own words.
I have said only that Bush's coverage was more favorable than Gore's in the closing weeks of the 2000 campaign and that it was more favorable than Clinton's during the first month of the respective administrations.
Both of those statements are corroborated by the links I supplied. I never claimed that Bush's coverage by the media was "favorable" during his time in office, or even that it was "favorable" during the first couple of years. Nor have I claimed that Obama hasn't been given a pass by the press. In fact, I said just the opposite! I did say that Bush administration spokesmen--I was thinking particularly of Ari Fleischer--have expressed little complaint about the coverage over those first couple of years. I expressly acknowledged that it went seriously downhill from there.
Here is an excerpt from one of my earlier links:
A July report released by the nonpartisan Council for Excellence in Government examined the first year of three presidential administrations--Ronald Reagan's, Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's--and concluded that coverage was predominantly "negative" for all three. "BUSH IS BEING TREATED NORMALLY FOR A PRESIDENT, which is to say negatively," says S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, an independent group that conducted the study. "The media are tough on presidents." [emphasis and caps added]
Investigators analyzed the evening news programs of ABC, CBS and NBC (but not the cable networks) and the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and four regional newspapers--the Austin American-Statesman, Des Moines Register, San Jose Mercury News and St. Petersburg Times. They determined that TV and print favored Clinton's administration over Reagan's to a statistically significant degree, and Clinton's personal coverage did not diverge significantly from the two Republicans'. The national media had treated Bush's administration about the same as Clinton's "except for a slight tilt toward the Clinton team's domestic policies in the New York Times." However, the regional papers studied favored Clinton's administration to Bush's. The most pronounced pro-Clinton coverage emerged in the Des Moines Register; the Mercury News and the American-Statesman provided the most balanced White House coverage.
The study also found that although Bush was covered more favorably after 9/11, overall coverage of his administration became more critical. But the report, which purports to be objective because it crunches numbers, does not distinguish between appropriate skepticism--the role of an engaged press corps--and unjust negativity.
On the other hand, you claim that from the minute Bush first walked into office the media tried to destroy him. That statement is demonstrably, pathetically false.
If you intend to fairly and honestly debate issues, you need to do a much better job in restating your opponent's words and well as your own words.
Jer
Jer, Ok Jer, explain this
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:29pm.
Jer,
Ok Jer, explain this part of the study then….”Taking the first two months in office as a whole, Bush’s coverage has been slightly less positive than his Democratic predecessor’s (22% positive stories for Bush versus 27% for Clinton) 4.”
Your claim was, as cut and pasted from your post which I have challenged, "Next, tell me why even Bush administration spokesmen acknowledge they have little complaint about the MSM coverage during the first couple of years of the Bush presidency." THIS ARE YOUR WORDS!!! EARLY YEARS!!! not first month. Your claim is that the Bush administration didn't receive that bad of a coverage during his first years in office, as prove, you claimed, I am still waiting for sourcing, name of person, etc, that Bush officials did not complain about how the media covered his early years in office. Now you have gone from early years to using a link which you claim supposedly proves that Bush had favorable coverage during his first months in office, at least better than Clinton's. So which one is it, your original contention that Bush received favorable media coverage during his early years or that it was during his first month?
You also claimed, and I have no problem cutting and pasting your words, that everything went south for Bush after things went south in Iraq. Hmmm…interestingly enough, your own study proves this assertion wrong! Additionally, as one of the sites I linked you to , Pew Research, shows both Clinton and Obama received more favorable coverage during the same period of time in Office than Bush!
But you are doing what you always do. You grab unto ONE point that you believe proves you right, the ONE incident that you believe does not jive with what a Conservative is saying and you attempt to make it as if it was the whole Left, the whole media, all of the Liberals.
You have refused to even acknowledge the FACT that the media has been all hush-hush, about the military Killing Teams photos, video while with Bush, the New York Times and other super Left leaning rags did 20+ days of straight stories on their front page about Abu Graihb and hitting Bush with it. Why ignore this Jer? because it doesn't compute with your "facts".
Regardless, yes, BEFORE Bush came into office, the media was already doing everything within their power to destroy his Presidency. Once again, you have refused to acknowledge and address the fact that BUsh was hit over the head, over and over and over and over again with the interview in which he either couldn't name or did not know leaders around the world. You also have forgotten how the media waited for the weekend right before the elections to hit Bush with a hit piece about Bush's supposed use of cocaine. Remember that? LOL
Your contention, Jer, was that everything went south for Bush AFTER the Iraq War became a mess. I am sorry Jer, this is demonstrably not true. I am unsure why now you are doing everything within your power to move the goal post. So, decide....Where Bush's early years covered favorably by the media? Early years means more than one. As the link you put up shows, the media was already attacking Bush right after he proposed his first budget! You know that was months, not years, after he became President, right? Was it after the Iraq War that everything went south for him? Which one is it Jer? Your goal post moving is quite annoying.
And say that you are right, which you are not of course, one month of favorable media coverage doesn’t equate to all of his early years, early months or early in Bush’s presidency. You are doing your desperate dance, Jer. You grab unto one thing that you believe does not jive with what a Conservative is saying and you make it seem as if it was the whole. That might work with some Jer. This might work in a court of law with stupid judges, but sorry it won’t work with me. One month, as you claim is the case with your study, doesn’t equate to all of Bush’s early years, early months, early in his Presidency. Stop projecting unto me what you do.
YOU need to state your position better and what your contention is. You have moved the goal post at least three times. 1) Early years, 2) After everything went south in Iraq 3) First month in office.
So tell me which one are you deciding on. You also claimed that the New York Times, Washington Post ,etc are well researched unbiased news sources. Hmmm…even your linked study contradicts you on this. Let’s see if you take cover by claiming that you can’t debate with me since I am unreasonable or you start doing what you have asked me to do. Debate with respect, with honesty and my goodness man, stop moving the goal post so the facts fit your “facts”.
Jer, Here you go, the Pew
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:23pm.
Jer,
Here you go, the Pew Research Center proving that both Obama and Clinton received more positive news in their first 60 days than Bush.
Bush started receiving negative coverage long before the Iraq War became a lot more complicated than we all thought it would be.
But moving on. Here is more for you.
More
and let us not get started on the movie made about Bush's assassinations. Can you point me to the movie about Clinton's or Obama's assassination?
One of the reasons Newsbusters became so popular was due to the incredibly biased media coverage of Presidents, the pro-Liberal bias that exists in the media.
I am still waiting for the New York Times to run 20+ days straight in their front page story after story about the military Killing Team photos and actions. They did this with Bush and Abu Graibh, why not with Obama? It was also the New York Times who hid deep in their newspaper the burning alive and hanging of Americans in Iraq by Al Qaeda, giving the story a few paragraphs while running 20+ days of front page news on Abu Graibh.
I can go on and on and on and on. the facts, Jer, are not on your side. Reply or not, it doesn't matter. The truth is that the facts are not on the side of Liberals like you Jer. They never have been and they never will be.
Currently accepted usage
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:32pm.
Jer,
I disagree that your usage of "could care less" is in fact correct. That usage is one of my pet peeves.
Just because it is the "more currently accepted usage" (cite?) doesn't make it the correct usage. It is also more currently accepted for (primarily) teenage girls to insert the word "like" practically ever other word in their conversations, but it doesn't make that correct, either.
My opinion that your usage is incorrect isn't just mine.
; ^ D
AAAARRRRGH...Model850.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:37pm.
I looked into this, well, it must have been close to three years ago, just so I could prove Cool had his head up his ass. And, after an hour or so, I did indeed prove it. But, of course, all of my citations were wiped out (along with all of the other archived comments) last fall.
But this was the upshot: The British still prefer "I could not care less". In the last half of the twentieth century in the USA, the usage of "I could care less" began to gradually become more common and is now generally considered the preferred usage in this country--although the original [could not] is certainly not frowned upon and there are still staunch holdout grammarians who insist it is the only proper usage.
Jer
Jer, I suggest you read
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:40am.
Jer, I suggest you read Common Errors in English Usage by Paul Brians specifically page 49.
Also from Washington State University's website which quotes from Brians' book:
" 'Clichés are especially prone to scrambling because they become meaningless through overuse. In this case an expression which originally meant “it would be impossible for me to care less than I do because I do not care at all” is rendered senseless by being transformed into the now-common “I could care less.” Think about it: if you could care less, that means you care some. The original already drips sarcasm, so it’s pointless to argue that the newer version is “ironic.” People who misuse this phrase are just being careless.'
Still not convinced? Click here."
Beukeboom...I suggest you reread Model850's post
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:18pm.
including his linked authority and then explain your redundant sourcing.
Jer
Preferred usage doesn't
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 9:36am.
Preferred usage doesn't necessarily equate proper grammar, Jer.
Beukeboom...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 3:22pm.
I believe that most strict grammarians would agree with you and other dedicated adherents to the "King's English" that "I couldn't care less" is the more "proper" of the two expressions. But even the OED recognizes "I could care less" as an American colloquialism, and there are other very respected authorities who believe its usage to be entirely acceptable.
My view could be best summed up by the following observations from a commenter at one of the grammar geek sites (and, admittedly, most at the site insist on the propriety of "I could not, etc.}
http://MK on October 30, 2009 4:16 pm
"Of course, in terms of logic, “couldn’t care less” is the only one that makes sense. But it doesn’t change the fact that “could care less” is a recognized and understood expression. And it’s been around before most of us were even born.
So when you are ‘correcting’ people, you really aren’t. “Could care less” is a colloquialism, just the same as all the other ones that aren’t your pet peeves.
Obviously, it is okay to use “couldn’t care less”, too, because that makes sense as a normal statement (but really it just seems like someone who is messing up the expression). Still, no problem.
But to go the extra step and correct and lecture someone who uses “could care less” is silly (and obnoxious)."
source
Jer
Actually Jer, I would say
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:22pm.
Actually Jer, I would say most grammarians would agree with me on this and I further point out that an overwhelming majority of high school, community college, college and university English and composition professors would also agree with me on this.
This isn't limited to just "most strict grammarians" as you claim. This is just basic proper English grammar.
Just as the word "ain't" is considered a colloquialism, it's still poor grammar.
I think I'll take the word of academia on this over a commenter on a grammar discussion forum.
Beukeboom...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:43pm.
Simultaneously with your reply, I was attempting to edit my post to provide another source about which I would appreciate your feedback.
Thanks,
Jer
PS...Please read the "About" section regarding Karl Hagen. You'll note he is anything but a run-of-the-mill blog commenter.
Yeah, I've developed fast
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:00pm.
Yeah, I've developed fast typing skills in my current employment.
Also, Beukeboom...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:35pm.
I agree with your statement that it isn't limited to the majority of "strict grammarians". And, furthermore, my claim of "preferred usage" in an earlier post was a poor word choice.
Jer
Jer, let me be clear on this:
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:00pm.
Jer, let me be clear on this: I am speaking in terms of proper grammar only. Admittedly, in the grand scheme of things it's not even a blip on radar but I still stand by my statement.
Well...as Karl Hagen [former linguistics instructor
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:42pm.
Well...as Karl Hagen [former linguistics instructor to future teachers and the current Director of Research and Development for a company that prepares students for standardized testing] notes:
"I'm not claiming that you should use "could care less." If you prefer to use "couldn't care less" for whatever reason, whether it simply feels better to you or whether it gives you a little frisson of pleasure to believe that you are superior to hoi polloi, good on ya, mate. But in this case you should simply use it and not try to dictate your idiosyncratic preferences to others. Neither you, nor I, nor any other individual (even the author of a usage book) is entitled to decide what is correct or incorrect. Linguistic correctness, in so far as that concept has any real meaning, is not determined by a single arbiter. It is negotiated tacitly by the entire community of speakers, and the boat has already sailed on this point: "could care less" is firmly established now and unlikely to go away. Remember that attempts to impose a notion of what is correct from on high have always failed, and will continue to do so...."
Jer
Well Jer, you may have found
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 10:57pm.
Well Jer, you may have found a person whom supports you theory but he's wrong. It's still grammatically incorrect. Let's look at a grammatical parallel.
I could pay more.
I couldn't pay more.
Idiosyncratic preferences? Or grammatically different?
His point is fallacious. Appeal to majority makes his point, by definition, invalid.
Actually, Beukeboom...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 12:30am.
there are more than a few linguistics and grammatical authorities who agree with me. And, while Hagen's appeal to majority may be fallacious argumentation, it does not in and of itself invalidate his point.
Jer
Actually, Jer, by definition
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 1:31am.
Actually, Jer, by definition reliance on fallacious argumentation does invalidate the point. And I doubt seriously if you are going to find many legitimate people in the field of English grammar who are going to support your grammatical error. I've already given you a grammatical parallel to illustrate my point and a mathematical analogy going with your chosen linquist's logical fallacy would be to accept 1 + 1 = 3 when the majority believes it to be true. It doesn't matter that it violates long-established mathematical rules. Just a lot of people have to be in error but not accept their error thus the error become correct.
Sorry, Jer, but one cannot, by accepted, long-term English grammatical rules equate "I couldn't care less" with "I could care less" any more than one can equate "I couldn't pay more" with "I could pay more."
To follow your line of reasoning the following would also have to be considered equivalent:
I couldn't drive further.
I could drive further.
I couldn't give blood.
I could give blood.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I could agree with you more.
Jer, no matter how you slice it, a positive grammatical statement cannot equate a negative grammatical statement.
Your linquist is wrong and is basing his argument on a fallacy. This, by definition, it is rendered invalid (See: Fallacies by C.L. Hamblin)
And although you may or may not find "more than a few linguistics and grammatical authorities who agree with [you]" the absolutely overwhelming majority of those teaching English grammar and composition would vehemently disagree with you and those alleged linguists and grammatical authorities. Since you feel appeal to majority is valid, then you lose via that point.
Beukeboom...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 1:48am.
So if X tells Y he can hold, and has in the past held, his breath for 20 seconds, and Y responds "big deal", then Y in fact means--and can only mean--X's feat is an impressive accomplishment since Y is bound by the technical meaning of his words. Your analogies are weak, Beukeboom.
And you also misstated my previous comment about appeal to majority. I neither stated nor implied that it was valid. I specifically said it was fallacious argumentation, but that it did not necessarily invalidate Hagen's point.
Jer
Actually Jer, my analogies
Submitted by Beukeboom on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 2:38am.
Actually Jer, my analogies were quite solid and ones you keep avoiding. Your example isn't even close to be analagous to the grammatical construct at issue. I take your avoidance as indicative of your inability to address this issue directly and honestly. Frankly, I've made my point, backed it up and know I am correct on this. My analogies are solid and you just responded evasively.
Finally, when one bases their argument on fallacies as Hagen has done, then by definition it does invalidate his point (again see: Fallacies by C.L. Hamblin.
My points remain valid and unrefuted by you. I now choose to move on. You may have the last word.
I read your analogies, Beukeboom....
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 3:19am.
They are superficial statements of the obvious and add virtually nothing to the discussion. You didn't address my examples either other than to insist they are not analogous. I have addressed the issue very directly, explained why "could care less" is now regarded as acceptable usage, and provided links for you to review. Your entire argument is nothing more than an assertion of your correctness and my evasiveness. Conclusions aren't evidence. But I agree this dispute isn't worth our wasting any further time.
And I can't help but notice your increasing inclination to launch into personal attack mode, so I think it better we end this now and just agree to disagree. However, I do appreciate your input on the subject.
Jer
Now You Act Like An Attorney?
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 4:56pm.
Jer:
You are giving examples of colloquialisms which are not grammatically correct. Informal speech may become accepted usage by many but does not elevate that speech to proper grammar.
Beukeboom:
Jer will argue the sun comes up in the west for leisure sport.
strat...response at bottom
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:22pm.
of page due to thread skinniness.
Jer
Cool had his head up his ass three years ago, Jer?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:55am.
You had your head up your ass a few days ago with your scholarly dissertation and defense of Maher on the many definitions of twat.
If I recall, your conclusion was that the most accepted definition of the word had nothing to do with female anatomy.
SoL...My very clear denunciation of Maher could hardly be
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:06pm.
characterized as a defense. I simply cited authority which indicates that while the term may be used to refer to a part of the female anatomy, it is currently more often used as a derogatory insult, a pejorative for fool, etc.
Jer
→ No class Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:22pm.
Nice of you to drop my name, Jer.
And if it's such a versatile term, why didn't you say you proved I had my head up my tw@t?
Truly classless, Jer. I have no clue how many times you've snuck into this blog while I'm gone, crowing about your victories over me. But I don't care either.
Good grief, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:37pm.
I thought we were friendly enough that you could and would recognize what was intended as a good-natured needle--the same type I will insert on occasion about Matthew Dean--but I should have put a ;-) at the end of the comment.
In any event, I apologize for my remark. I promise you there was no malicious intent.
Jer
→ OK, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:43pm.
Does that still mean you think I have my head up my tw@t? (since it has so many meanings)
I'm still trying to remember having heard of "foolishness" referred to as "tw@ttishness" ;-}
Sorry, time to reconnect with reality, Jer.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:52pm.
Go into your post office, your supermarket, your Walmart or a HS girl's basketball game and call any age female a twat and see what happens.
It was a lame defense then, and as we've seen, Maher may have actually read your post, as the very next day he escalated the insult to cunt because some were unclear as to what he meant.
So unless you want to go back to the 11th century, Maher's use of cunt is 100% related to his twat comment... he merely escalated it because apparently some said he didn't mean twat twat.
Maher does not merit any defense like the one you floated, especially since you did imply he was out of bounds in the first place.
I would add that I truly do consider you a good guy and a (gasp) friend, but that type of thing just pisses people off, and rightly so. No place for it here IMO.
Better yet SOL
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:01pm.
call a girl/woman that name in front of her father/brother/husband etc.
Then try the argument about the multiple meanings of the word. He can let us know from the ER.
Hey Rad:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:13pm.
I had this same "discussion" with Master Thespian, who painted it in soft pastel colors as freedom of speech...
...as in he wouldn't defend his mother, wife, sister or daughter against such a heinous slur. (At least he didn't say he would when asked point blank about it.)
So much for the weaker sex.
EDIT: I am not lumping Jer in with Master Thespian at this time.
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:02pm.
Those who would insult my sister, wife, or mom by the use of any number of pejorative terms--bitch, fool, slut, liar, idiot, etc.--might be just as likely to find themselves in need of emergency treatment.
Jer
SoL...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:36pm.
Okay...maybe I was being unnecessarily and inappropriately fastidious, absurdly over-technical and obnoxiously pedantic in pointing out possible distinctions regarding the definition and use of what in any case is a very offensive term--especially when my doing so could be and was and obviously still is interpreted as a defense of someone [Maher] for whom I have consistently expressed my dislike.
While your acknowledgement of my view regarding the out-of-bounds nature of Maher's Palin insult is much appreciated, I would also add that it was more than a mere "implication" but a clearly and unequivocally stated condemnation of Maher and his disgusting slurs.
Your (gasp) friend,
Jer
I love you, too, Jer. I just knew you had scruples.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:21pm.
But next time, don't make me go to Rent-A-Tool for the heavy equipment.
So now I call upon you to join forces with me, the Xerxes of Newsbusters: to date, I have vanquished 300 of the evil army.
And yes, granted, 289 were sockpuppets of the Fallopian King Dead Zippers, but still, I think it's a hell of a track record.
My envoy will arrive by foot sometime this weekend, provided the forecast of 8" of snow does not materialize in my isolated mountain kingdom.
I am undeserving of such kindness. His Majesty's inclination
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:54am.
for the extension of grace is exceeded only by his capacity for extraordinary strength afforded by his marvelously proportioned physique.
I remain his Eminence's duly chastened, but ever loyal and most obedient and humble servant.
The lowly Jer
Oh my!
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:42pm.
Ok, not much time before it's 4/2, who's gonna call April Fool's first? The clock is ticking... : )
Gary...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 12:13am.
Shhhhh!
SoL didn't realize the date had changed to April 1 at the time of my post. He thinks I meant every word of that malarkey.
Jer
Oh my
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 12:44am.
Jer has the sneaky's he does. ; )
Jer
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 4:15pm.
Just yanking your chain a little. I will concede that "could care less" is likely more commonly used, at least here in the States, and no one misunderstands what is meant when it's said.
As I said it's a pet peeve, but perhaps in the future I'll be less quick to "jump" on someone who says "could care less" and "correct" them.
Still, though, I just think "could care less" sounds, well. . . Stoopid.
Cheers!
Model...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 5:19pm.
I think on purely technical and logical grounds, your view--as well as that of most grammarians--prevails. But it disregards the development and common usage of the expression as an acceptable American idiom, and it ignores the ironic and sarcastic elements associated with "I could care less".
For example, if I were to state "sure, Model, I want to hear all about your summer in Des Moines", you should reasonably conclude that I really don't wish to hear a complete accounting of your Iowa sojourn. By the same token, if I announced with gloating fanfare that Bill Maher achieved a perfect SAT score, and you dismissively replied that you "could care less", I would readily infer you actually didn't care one whit and believed such fact didn't make him any less of an idiot.
Jer
How about this?
Submitted by Rukus on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 11:51pm.
"I could(n't) care less." Bases covered? It will be fun to see if anyone picks up on that. : )
Face it, things went south for Bush when a very mismanaged war i
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:39pm.
Really Jer, I thought it because the dimwits knew there was an upcoming election?
Jer, so when did it go South for Palin, Bachmann, Tony Snow, Bolton, Walker, Tea Party, or any of the other dozens of Conservatives that have had their Character assassinated?
Boudin, Well said!!! the
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:55pm.
Boudin,
Well said!!!
the Left's favorite tool, character assasination. This is what they did to Bush LONG before the Iraq War!!!
But Left wingers have selective memory and I truly believe that they make things up that they end up believing to justify the dislike and in too many cases hate they have for indivdiuals like Bush, Palin, Walker, Tea Party, etc.
Individuals like Jer can't face the fact that the same Left wing media that did everything within their power to destroy Bush with lies and half-truths have given Obama a huge pass.
Look how Jer was incapable of addressing the facts, he just attempt to divert attention from them.
The Left demanded Congressional approval for the Iraq War. The Left has not made the same demand, with the same intencity from Obama.
The left screamed about the Iraq War. They Left never cared about the horrific humanitarian disaster in Iraq, which was much worse than anything that was going on in Lybia.
The Left has given Obama a pass on his constant vacations, golf playing...Bush could not go to sleep at 11pm because the Left would claim that Bush had not spend enough time working.
The Left gave Obama a pass with Obama taking over a week to address the American people regarding his action in Lybia.
The Left gave Obama a pass with the oil spill, we all know how the media treated Bush with Katrina.
The list goes on and on and on. And here we have Jer doing his best at being a revistionist historian.
Jer, Face it? Things went
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:46pm.
Jer,
Face it? Things went south for Bush for mismanagement of the Iraq War? What world do you live in?!
The Left was cheering for failure in Iraq BEFORE the war started. The Left and the media declared a quagmire in Iraq merely two weeks into the war!!!
Things went south for Bush with the media and the Left the second he was declared the winner in 2000. The left and the media NEVER accepted him as a legitimate President. You must have never researched that little incident in 2000, eh? LOL
Reading the Huffinton Post, Jer, doesn't really count as research! Sorry to burst your bubble, lawyer.
I am completing my MBA and we have a few left wing nut cases and some have attempted to use the DailyKos and Huffington Post as sources. Nicely, the professor, who is Left winger, clearly and soundly stated that the Huffington Post and the DailyKos are not places where anyone gets unbiased and well researched information!!! It is nice to run into the few, rare honest Liberal. The class was very happy to hear this from the professor.
So...that would imply
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:59pm.
HuffPo is a biased Lefty source, and the NYT, Washington Post, etc. are sources of unbiased, well researched information. VanHalen referred to the Silence from "the Left". I countered with references to HuffPo,.
Thanks for making my case.
Jer
Jer, You can't be serious,
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:48pm.
Jer,
You can't be serious, can you? NY Times, Washington Post, unbiased, not Left wing rags? LOL!!
How does me telling you that the Huffington Post is a pathetic Left wing radical rag imply that in anyway shape or form I helped you make your case?
The NYT, Washington Post, etc. are sources of incredibly biased, poorly researched information. It is obvious to any intelligent, unbiased, well learned individual, Jer. Thanks for proving that you are none of these. You are more interested in defending the negligence in our media than you are about the truth.
You were already informed that the NYT, Washington Post, etc, THE LEFT, is silent. A Left wing rag, The Huffington post, which is read by a small number of radical Left wing wackos, doesn't exactly equate to the Left, not even close. You seem to believe that the Left wing media is merely made up of the Huffington Post. I guess you have researched all "news" sources and have come to this conclusion, eh? LOL
Let me put it this way, Jer, reading the NYT, Washington Post, etc. isn't exactly going to make you a well informed individual. These newspapers along with the other newspapers and news organizations that I mentioned in my earlier posts are places where "research" consists of going into the Huffington Post, DailyKos, MediaMatters and doing stories that are put forth by these radical Left wing sites. Get it now? let's hope so. Now doubt this is the type of research you always talk about when you claim that you do a lot of research.
I can't even decipher that last paragraph...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:10pm.
You seem to be saying the NYT, Washington Post, etc. conduct research by going to places like the Huffington Post, DailyKos, and MediaMatters. There may be a story here and there based on information gleaned from one of those websites, but it would constitute just an infinetesimally tiny fraction of their overall research. And to suggest otherwise is absolutely laughable. Maybe I misunderstood your point, though. I hope so.
Jer
Ginned Up Scandals
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:11pm.
Being from Little Rock, I have always had a high level of interest concerning anything to do with the Clintons. I have always contended, that Clinton should have not been brought up on any civil charges concerning Paula Jones until after his term as President.
That being said, Whitewater certainly was not a "ginned up" scandal. People were prosecuted and went to jail.
On a side note, Hillary Clinton should have stayed out of politics and pursued her investment career as a Cattle Futures Trader, where she turned $1,000 into $100,000.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
What is the general tenor?
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:48pm.
Do they believe he betrayed progressive values and thus the problems? Or that he is not progressive enough?
JLin...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:06pm.
I'm not sure I understand the difference in your questions. As stated, I would answer both questions "generally yes" [betrayed progressive values and not progressive enough]
Jer
Hey Jer,
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:56pm.
Could you let me know when AOLHUFFPO reports on Obama's scandal called GunWalker?
Please?
Ashrak...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:08pm.
Give me a brief summary [or link] re GunWalker scandal.
Thanks,
Jer
"The most dangerous person in comedy"
Submitted by mustango on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:07am.
I guess they're making official what I've suspected for a while now: Bill Maher has become Andrew Dice Clay.
But
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:41am.
without the subtle nuances.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
good one!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:53pm.
.
I kinda liked Andrew Dice Clay
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:50pm.
That was a ways back. I don't remember him as ever getting political, though. All I remember was that he was very non-PC. Maher is very PC.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
VAN HALEN IS CORRECT........
Submitted by Herbster on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:31am.
Good point, Van Halen. Where are the republicans? Doing their usual thing......snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The usual suspects are all over the TV....McCain, Lugar, McConnell, etc. These are the "Aisle crossers," who go along to get along. If the republicans name one of the usual suspects to run against Obambi, they will lose - bigtime. Obambi must be licking his chops in anticipation. He doesn't even need a strategy....the republicans will, as usual, self implode. Let's see: Romney, Gingrich, Giuliani, Mitch (No one knows my name) Daniels, Mr. Good and Pawlenty, and a few I've (Fortunately) forgotten. Unfortunately, two stand up Americans who are running have no chance - John Bolton and Herman Cain. Be ready for four more years of golf, basketball, parties, vacations and pray we are not hit with a REAL disaster while this weak, anti-American, indecisive leftist is in office. PRAY FOR OUR NATION,
I'm really tired of people excusing offensive
Submitted by katiejane on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:31am.
behavior from comedians BECAUSE they're comedians. Why is it acceptable for Maher to call Palin a c**t but wrong for an anonymous person with no influence to call Obama a n****r?
I used to applaud Palin for taking on slime like him but it is apparentr he and his supporters have no class and nothing will convince them that they are the ones who are trash.
This pitiful ..................
Submitted by Patriot II on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:34am.
specimen is SICK! Get the scum off the air!!
Hmmm....how long before the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:37am.
Hmmm....how long before the females and female-wanna-be's at N.A.G. release an insipid and tepid press release on this incident.
How long?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:42am.
Could be any time.......wait for it..........wait for it.................wait for it..............wait for it..........
Wait for it.......
Wait for it...............
Um.....not gonna happen, it looks like.
-Jon
Changed my mind
Submitted by Dave81 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:37am.
I too used to be of the opinion that I didn't care what Maher said because he's a comedian, not a journalist. But you make an excellent point about him acting as a political commentator and conveniently hiding behind the comedian title whenever he gets vulgar or ugly. He's not held to the say accountability as other journalists or members of government, so he can literally say whatever he wants, and right or wrong (or outright mean and sexist), people accept it!
Thanks for the article!
Dave81, I'm glad you realize
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:19am.
Dave81, I'm glad you realize that, even if it took a while.
See what a couple of weeks at Newsbusters can do?
Maher wants to both be a comedian, and taken seriously as a political commentator.
Jon It's a fake news show!! Stewart and Stephen Colbert use the same excuse.
Their "Rally to Restore Sanity" was billed as kind of an unserious jab at rallies like Glenn Beck's.
But when the rubber met the road, they were dead serious.
The LGBT Texas likes Maher?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:44am.
Maybe the fact that he's a f**king a**hole has something to do with it.
Interesting comment from the original blog post:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:00am.
"To@Joe: I was at the show and I didn’t hear him use any of the words you listed in your first sentence. And the only person he called a “cunt” was Sarah Palin. But your calling him a “cocksucker” indicates to me that you have a problem with gay people."
Summary:
1) Calling Palin a c*nt in front of a paying audience in a public venue is A-OK. Because he only called her that once.
2) But an anonymous poster on a blog calling Maher a cocks*cker is homophobic.
I've yet to hear a better...
Submitted by ontheright on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:28am.
...example of liberal logic.
Priceless!
Re: Co*ksuckers
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:46am.
ABC quoted Dan Savage calling Antonin Scalia a "c*cksucker," so apparently (1) it's okay to use that term to abuse a conservative SCOTUS member, and (b) it's okay for a MSM network to endorse the use of cock*uckers. All of which was reported right here on NB:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/03/25/abc-fawns-over-hi...
You say "homophobic"...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:54pm.
like it's a bad thing. :-|
True dat
Submitted by JLin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:54pm.
After all, AIDS really is the Gay Plague. Homosexual behavior spread it around the world. Even heterosexual Africans helped spread it via anal sex as contraception. Not a clean lifestyle.
Not to say I agree with calling anyone any perjorative.
Bill Maher was chased back to his comfort zone....
Submitted by thescoots on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:51am.
The muslim left did not appreciate his recent anti-Koran humor....Me thinks the prospects of a fatwa was largely responsible for his abandonment of muslim-related humor....Now he's safe and sound again...in his kangaroo pouch comfort zone....bashing all things conservative. Seems to me Bill Maher packs the same apparatus of his target, Sarah Palin.
Maher is not a joker, he is a
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:20am.
Maher is not a joker, he is a jester. A professional fool.
On comments about Sarah's front, Maher attempts to ride her coattails from behind. He admits that she is his moral, ethical and intellectual superior by his own spoken word about her.
In order to hunt attention, negative attention at that, he has to become vulgar and as personal as an attack can get and the only explanation for that action is that he known himself that he cannot challenge the merits of her positions with the merits of his own.
As demonstrated in this article itself, Maher can't even keep his own positions in line with his own actions. I almost feel sorry for Maher, as he is now making a bigger fool of himself than he ever as.
On Kirsten Powers -
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:29am.
I am surprised nobody picked up on her saying she "didn't care" about Liz Taylor dying, laughing about it, finding it humorous when saying so.
Now, I actually agree with the reasons she offered in explanation, I didn't know Miss Taylor either and I too think that there are far more important issues to consider, but it is pretty callous to say "I Don't Care", and to laugh about while doing so, when the context is someone's death.
Had Rush gone there, Had Glenn gone there, had Laura gone there, Rachel or Ed or Chris or Anderson would have been touting it as a demonstration of how "uncaring" everyone on "the right" is. Sometimes the bias in media is demonstrated by a lack of reaction and lack of coverage and this Kirsten example is akin to the Maher example.
Folks deemed by media not to be "on the right" get a pass for just about anything they do and say.
"I don't care"
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 11:46am.
I hadn't heard about this.
That's kind of a typical liberal ideal about the value of life, as in not much. That speaks volumes about Powers which is one of the bigger reasons that she would be very unattractive as a person. And by attractive, I don't mean physical looks either. I wouldn't want to touch her with a 10 foot pole....or any pole.
She can offer all the reasons in the world, but when she says "I don't care," that explains a whole lot more.
-Jon
I saw this segment
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:32pm.
And I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Powers knew when the words were halfway out of her mouth that she was saying something incredibly stupid. She tried to say it about five different ways after that, in full damage control mode. You could see by the look on her face she knew she was making an ass out of herself. The rest of the panel had the classic "should we smile, or frown or puke" look on their faces.
Shock Jock
Submitted by BreckenridgeRea... on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:56pm.
Bill is just trying to get people to pay attention to him, and it is working to some degree. But who REALLY cares what Bill Maher has to say about anything?!
Maher is the epitome....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:01pm.
of a coward. Hiding behind his bodyguards like a little dog snapping and yapping. And, all the while, he knows as well as we do that he would never ever have the courage (or poor judgment) to make that comment to Mrs. Palin's face, whether the First Dude was there or not. She could kick his butt by herself.
I think we should bring back dueling, just for Maher.
Nahh...that would be too
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:22pm.
Nahh...that would be too quick.
Like any bully
Submitted by MissMinPhx on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:08pm.
Maher says these outrageous things for attention. Stop giving him the attention he craves and he'll stop. He's no different from Kathy Giffords, who uses the same tactic. Both get their power (and ratings) by getting the right all fired up. The constant attention to their comments give them power.The challenge for those of us on the right, especially for Bachmann and Palin, is to not respond to their childish behavior with more childish behavior. Ignore them, pray for them and let them know that their bully tactics have no impact. I get annoyed by these constant stories about Maher's crazy comments, because these articles are exactly what he wants.
I just wrote a comment on
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:25pm.
I just wrote a comment on this because I find it funny how even a D-lister like Kathy Giffords is getting a little career bump but I don't see anything of the kind happening for Maher. I wonder if he'll sink to a Britney Spears level of desperation in the coming months.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Stiff performance?
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:41pm.
Gee, if lil' Billie's stand-up performance (wonder what it's enhanced by?) lasts more than 4 hours, does he need to seek professional help?
Not sure what kind of professional would venture to touch him with a ten-foot pole, or a 6-foot czech, or a foot-long hot dog....
Maybe an inchworm -- at least picking on someone its own size.
Gotta love Bill's nobly rising to the occasion and presenting shining examples of civil rhetoric and soaring (or it is "souring"?) oratory for others to emulate (immolate?).
Pathetically predictable.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
A true sign your career has
Submitted by oldArmy on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:43pm.
A true sign your career has become Inconsequential....Just say something nasty about Sara. Ask Kathy.
That's probably where Maher
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:33pm.
That's probably where Maher got the not-so-bright idea in the first place.
While I generally don't advocate...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:48pm.
violence toward others, even a bottom dweller like Maher, I have to say that if I woke up one morning to hear that someone had beaten the holy hell out of him, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Bill Maher is nothing more than mass taking up space on this planet...He serves no useful purpose whatsoever, and I'd love nothing better than to see him off the air, and out of the public eye.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
I wish we could take a poll
Submitted by oldArmy on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:52pm.
I wish we could take a poll here about who we need to stop waisting anytime talking about and just let them be. Seems to me we help give these sorry excuses for human beings more attention. I know what this site is about...but I'm sure if you asked the members here...you'll find we can do without mention of certain people and just let nature take it's course on their failing careers.
Kathy G - Is my vote for someone who could just fall off this site. Nothing she is about concerns anyone but herself and it pains me with all that is going on in the world. That we have nothing better to talk about....Let her be dead to us....we'll be better off..and have more time to discuss people and things that actually matter to our cause.
I agree
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:23pm.
with your general principle, but Kathy G serves an important purpose here.
She keeps NB from putting Rosie O'Donnell on display.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Also Agree!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:21pm.
Sometimes I wonder what the purpose of continually reporting on the idiocies of certain celebrities (“celebrities” is used because there is no other description applicable and certainly, no professional qualifications can be attributed to them).
• Is our object to expose them? – Well, they have been exposed.
• Is our object to counter their cretinism? – With what: Logic, Reason, Fair-play (?)… None apply to them and certainly they or their sycophants (SICK-O phants) are not capable of understanding anything beyond toilet humor.
• How much credence (or time and effort) for ourselves do we gain by paying heed to (or getting upset over) fools? – None that I can see.
• Is our object to educate or ‘turn them from their indefensible viewpoints?’ – Well it’s like the old saying, “Never try to teach a pig to sing… It sounds terrible and annoys the pig.”
I would suggest that instead of long articles on the particular mendacities of these “celebrities”… a short weekly blurb on their most outrageous comments of the week. Of course, if they have anyone on their program of note (i.e.: anyone remotely competent) then it’s a different story.
Just say something quick...like
Submitted by OldJoe on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:15am.
Oh look, Billy soiled himself again... and move on.
Misogynistic Maher...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:38pm.
What's matter billy boy, you got an incurable case of 'C-Word' envy?
What a PUTZ!!
Maher is just begging Fate
Submitted by Van Halen on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:56pm.
Maher is just begging Fate for a slapdown.
Maher and "Media"
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:57pm.
When Maher says something asinine on his HBO show, I can understand how that's relevant towards NB's mission statement.
When Maher is doing stand-up in some comedy venue, I think NB elevates this guy to a standing he doesn't have, when anything he says is given any import in the slightest.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Also Agree!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:18pm.
Ooops... Posted in wrong spot (see above).
Desperate.
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:22pm.
It must be eating this guy up knowing that his anti-Palin jokes are doing little to boost his career while admittedly D-list stars like Kathy Gifford see a significant boost. What's below the D list? Bill Maher. If he slips any further he will be as famous as me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
I wonder if he will stoop to
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 4:35pm.
I wonder if he will stoop to doing something that even HBO execs find objectionable and offensive.
Performer Anxiety
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:46pm.
Seems a metaphysical certitude that word isn't uttered on that stage very often."
Agree. But I would not bet against that word being thrown around more often backstage.
People, people, relax!! The
Submitted by AngryInOhio on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:21pm.
People, people, relax!! The National Organization for Women will be issuing a blistering statement regarding the filth that comes out of albino man's mouth any day now!!
Mahr called George washington scum
Submitted by Robersire on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:30pm.
He once called George Washington scum What would you expect from THE MISSING LINK {I believed in creation but now have seen proof of evolution}.. .
Bill Maher the ultimate "COWARD".
Submitted by Hausmaus on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:31pm.
Bill Maher feels like a king when he hurls derogatory remarks towards women, especially Sarah Palin his favorite punching bag. But, this pretender to be king of comedy doesn't have an aiota of manhood in him. He hides behind the microphone, and the entourage of body guards he has to have close by.
This type of individual posseses a microbial size brain, and has to be constantly insulting the opposite sex to feel omnipotent. Speaking of Omnipotent, Bill Maher could swallow a metric ton of Viagra, and his wee wee would still be as flacid as a piece of Wriglies gum. I'll bet you if we could contact all the women that Bill Maher may had had sex with, the answer would be; they would rather finger screw themselves. Then again, Bill Maher would love to be in a Federal Penitentiary with long hard men ramming it up his rear, and showing down his throat. This guy has more secrets than the CIA, and the NSA put together, and has disapointed more women, and perhaps also men. On the stage he pretends to shine, behind the curtain he is just a lobotomy.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:13pm.
Did you bother to read the enitre series of postings on this subject, or did you simply drop by to take a quick swipe and then move on?
In any event, would you please identify what you find to be particularly disagreeable about any of my prior comments or what is most objectionable as far as my position on the usage of " could care less"? Frankly, I would submit that within the milieu of internet chat forums tolerance of certain informal speech is not only permissible but actually desirable. Or do you believe a commenter is inviting a public scolding if he or she should use "y'all" or "yeah" or even "Cool" in a post? After all, those are colloquialisms, too. I'll cast my lot with the author of the Language Log blog from which the following excerpt is lifted, and who, I will hazard the opinion, quite likely knows more about language, linguistics, grammar, word etymology and proper usage than do you, Beukeboom, I, and the rest of the NewsBusters community combined:
Speaking for myself, I don't take this to be a point of principle, that whatever is said or written reasonably often must ipso facto be part of the language.. Especially where negation is involved, there are plenty of common mistakes, like fail to miss used to mean "miss", or no X is too Y to ignore used to mean "no X is so Y that one should ignore it." It can be a complicated question, conceptually and practically, to decide whether such cases are constructions, fixed expressions, idioms or whatever, as opposed to natural mistakes that people often make in using a psychologically difficult combination of elements and structures. This is partly a question of linguistic analysis, and partly a question of psychological interpretation, and partly a question of social norms. In any case, the categories of "mistake" and "English expression" are obviously overlapping, psychologically, historically and socially.
However, I don't think there's much question at all about could care less, which has clearly become a well-accepted colloquial expression in contemporary American English. This conclusion can claim the sanction of the OED, which gives sense 4 of care as
4. In negative and conditional construction: a. not to care passes from the notion of ‘not to trouble oneself’, to those of ‘not to mind, not to regard or pay any deference or attention, to pay no respect, be indifferent’.
and then among the various subtypes listed (e.g. care a button or a fig) comes eventually to the specific phrase in question,
(c) Colloq. phr. (I, etc.) couldn't care less: (I am, etc.) completely uninterested, utterly indifferent; freq. as phr. used attrib. Hence couldn't-care-less-ness.
for which the earliest citation is from 1946, and then gives an explicit listing to the unnegated form:/ (d) U.S. colloq. phr. (I, etc.) could care less = sense (c) above, with omission of negative.
1966 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1 Nov. 21/2 My husband is a lethargic, indecisive guy who drifts along from day to day. If a bill doesn't get paid he could care less. 1973 Washington Post 5 Jan. B1
1 A few crusty-souled Republican senators who could care less about symbolic rewards. 1978 J. CARROLL Mortal Friends III. iii. 281 ‘I hate sneaking past your servants in the morning.’ ‘They know, anyway. They could care less. Thornton mistreats them horribly.’
with a first citation a mere 20 years later. The OED does tell us that (I, etc.) could care less is a "colloq. phr." -- but so is (I, etc.) couldn't care less. The only difference is that (I, etc.) could care less is a "U.S. colloq. phr." [Italics mine]
And, by the way, if you also review his addenda to the topic via the links posted at the bottom of the page containing his foregoing commentary, you'll note that--although he doesn't entirely subscribe to the "sarcasm" rationale--he admits to frequently employing the expression "I could care less" without any apparent embarrassment.
Jer
"... did you simply drop by
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 9:35pm.
That's especially rich coming from you.
What part of "proper grammar" do you not understand Jer?
I wrote about your confusion over colloquialism with proper grammar, which was Beukeboom's argument. Your reply to me was a reference to colloquialism, not what is appropriate grammar. Thank you for underscoring my point.
I could care less about this topic, and probably will shortly.
strat...The question seemed appropriate at the time.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/02/2011 - 10:32pm.
There was no confusion on my part. My argument was and remains simply that it is a widely used, commonly understood, and perfectly acceptable expression. What part of that assertion is causing you such discomfort?
I have never once challenged the grammatical correctness or, moreover, the superior logic of "could not care less", about which, you may have noted, the linguistics expert and language etymologist who co-authors the Language Log informs us of the similarly colloquial origins--only British instead of American.
Jer