NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” did a wonderful sketch last evening that in one fell swoop made fun of “Hardball” host Chris Matthews, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and the media’s sycophantic enthrallment with the former first couple from Arkansas (video available here).
The skit began with the mock Matthews gushing over finally getting the chance to interview Madame Clinton. After he finally composed himself, the first question he asked admittedly was “actually written by a member of [her] staff.”
Sounds about right, correct?
Then, the mock Matthews said that he’s got some questions of his own, and demurely asked, “Is it all right if they’re about Iraq?”
The mock Hillary said:
“That depends. May I see them?” Matthews gave her his index cards, and the mock Hillary said “No” to the first three, agreeing to allow him to ask the fourth.
Sounds about right, correct?
The question she agreed to answer was what made her suddenly change her mind and stop supporting the war in Iraq. Marvelously, she referred to a headline that came up on the screen stating, “Hillary’s Support of War Hurts Her With Party Base; Obama Surges to Lead in Latest Poll of Democrats.”
How delicious. But it got better, as the mock Hillary outlined her plan for troop withdrawals: “For every one point increase in Senator Obama’s poll numbers, 7,500 U.S. troops will have to be withdrawn. Of course, if his poll numbers should collapse, or he drops out of the race, the troops can stay in Iraq.”
Sounds about right, correct?
But it got better. The mock Matthews asked about Democrat primary voters that might be unhappy with her initial support for the war. The mock Hillary perfectly responded: "Chris, I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere.”
Marvelous stuff. Of course, the defining moment might have been when the mock Matthews said, “But, in fairness to Sen. Obama, until today when you’ve been asked if you’ve been running for president, you’ve always denied it.” With that, the mock Hillary unleashed a vulgarity filled rant that included:
Is there anyone in the f-----g country who didn’t know I was running for president? I’ve been running for president since I was five! Are you f-----g retarded?
Amazing. This skit has to make one wonder: if the writers for SNL are this aware of the bias that pervades the mainstream media, how can press representatives such as Matthews and Andrea Mitchell debate the point? Or, maybe more importantly, how can these folks operate as they do while believing that a majority of the nation isn’t seeing through the disingenous façade?
Bravo, SNL.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel Sheppard, conspirator?
March 2, 2008 - 19:04 ET by ThisnThatCan't watch this video anymore: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by NBC Universal".
Which leads me to wonder: Did this video ever exist? Did Noel just make it up? Will we all be arrested if caught reading Noel's [obviously] bogus description of an event that never took place? Is Noel a conspirator, trying to raise a rukus by spreading untruths about Clinton and Matthews? /sarc
I ask these questiions because I know that u-tube (and its owner, Google) is fair, unbiased, and balanced through-and-through, and would never, ever respond to pressure from a highly respected network organization like NBC to remove anything. Right?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TnT... ROFLMAO! Agree
March 2, 2008 - 19:09 ET by bigtimerTnT...
ROFLMAO!
Agree with your sentiments here.
How did you think to get back to this....excellent btw.
Getting back
March 2, 2008 - 19:12 ET by ThisnThatNoel just linked us to the latest SNL skit -- and I wonder how long it's going to be on u-tube? And whether the answer depends upon the releative bias towards/for Clinton? It it stays up on u-tube, then the copyright notation of the January SNL will be exposed as a lie.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
TNT
March 2, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Noel SheppardTNT,
The links to last night's show are from NBC and should last forever. ns
yeah, Sure Noel
March 2, 2008 - 19:28 ET by JayTeeYou Report, They Remove. . . .
TNT
March 2, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Noel SheppardTNT,
I think the bigger question is why this year-old post is getting so much attention. Folks must be Googling Clinton and SNL and ending up with this post. Pretty funny. ns
Thanks. I understand
March 2, 2008 - 19:27 ET by bigtimerThanks.
I understand now.
LMAO!!! That is hilarious!
January 21, 2007 - 16:41 ET by motherbeltLMAO!!! That is hilarious! You know, Rush Limbaugh always says that for something to be funny, there has to be a grain of truth in it. Well, there's a whole sandbox there!! The only thing I can think of right now that's funnier is Andrea Mitchell sitting there telling Bill O'Reilly that she couldn't name a liberal thinker at NBC. And denying that Chris Matthews is liberal.
Actually, I think the sendup of Matthews was better than that of Hillary. If they carried the parody any further, they would literally have had to have Matthews on the floor kissing her shoes!
This is good. I hope they k
January 21, 2007 - 16:43 ET by mattmThis is good. I hope they keep it up, but I doubt they will. Where was this kind of thing for that past two or twelve years? Will they revert to their Left-Wing bias a year from now, when the campaign starts in earnest? We'll have to wait and see.
It's abundantly clear that SN
January 21, 2007 - 16:47 ET by upcountrywaterIt's abundantly clear that SNL has officially, booted Shillery.
Make way for Barack-ack ack OOOOOOOOOOOOObomb ah!
ack - ack as in the movie :"Mars Attacks"
Stop we are your friends
SNL should make $ rerunning t
January 21, 2007 - 17:08 ET by 4arrowSNL should make $ rerunning their programme the next day. Who the hell with resp's is awake at eleven-thirty at night. Teens? OK. I would like to see their satire but sorry, I have responsabilities that require me to be up and awake in the early a.m. So your message is only for the midnight losers. Have fun with that.
Whoa! I guess those that work
January 21, 2007 - 17:18 ET by dvdaughtryWhoa! I guess those that work the 2nd or 3rd shift lack responsibility! Or SNL having a late night show on Saturday is obsurd.
The message is not for the midnight losers, it's for all of us that have been waiting for a reprieve of the onslaught liberal bias.
Put your high horse back in the stall.
Who the hell is awake at el
January 21, 2007 - 19:07 ET by Tom1969caAlcoholics, angry loners, the unemployable...
~~~
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
(It's easier than thinking)
What's a programme?
January 22, 2007 - 13:57 ET by walkWhat's a programme?
another prime example of neoc
January 21, 2007 - 17:52 ET byanother prime example of neoconservatives hypocricy...God forbid you make a joke about the president's lack of intelligence...but any liberal is fair game p>"
neocon logic:"Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false 'Afternoon Randy...wassa matte
January 21, 2007 - 17:56 ET by bigtimerAfternoon Randy...wassa matter your team losing and you got bored?
Have a good one...
Btw...you only have so many hours til check in time...or you turn into a pumpkin.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
I love this site...laughing i
January 21, 2007 - 18:04 ET byI love this site...laughing is great for depression...since Bush has screwed up this country!
neocon logic:"Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false '
All pain but no plan, and I h
January 21, 2007 - 18:12 ET by FastEdAll pain but no plan, and I happen to like my country getting screwed - I've got more money in my pocket, don't fear going on planes, trains or automobiles, have plenty to eat and am always entertained by the libs complaining all the time, just wish they'e turn down the volume.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Glad to see you still cry you
January 21, 2007 - 18:18 ET by Roger the ShrubberGlad to see you still cry yourself to sleep every night. And still on medication for your clinical depression.
Must suck to have your mom not let you use a knife at dinnertime.
it's even worse when mommy wo
January 21, 2007 - 18:25 ET by Conservative in the Artsit's even worse when mommy won't let him take his laptop to the dinner table.
"Awww but mom, I'm really trashing these wackos right now!"
"you can save the world from evil Republicans after dinner. Turn it off!"
...and stop wearing that sill
January 21, 2007 - 18:30 ET by rdave63...and stop wearing that silly superman outfit and cape to the table!
.....It clashes with your t
January 22, 2007 - 11:33 ET by SQL_Sam.....It clashes with your tin-foil hat
Good then rhayes
January 21, 2007 - 19:47 ET by SportPoliticsGood then rhayes, glad your depression is lifting. Sorry about that BD syndrome. Almost 8pm - med time - chipper up !
...since Bush has screwed up
January 22, 2007 - 02:36 ET by PeskyDane...since Bush has screwed up this country!
Yeah... look at all those breadlines, the 30% unemployment rate, and the enemy divisions on our beaches... its Armagedon... go take your prosac.
I love good political humor.
January 21, 2007 - 18:05 ET by Conservative in the ArtsI love good political humor. But there is good taste and bad taste in any type of humor.
hypocricy huh? How about that time when Bush came out with his own double at the press dinner?
Score: Cita: 3 rhayes: 0
Neocon logic: rhayes doesn't even know when he loses an argument, so why even bother talking to him?
"of course colbert was t
January 21, 2007 - 20:26 ET by"of course colbert was too racy...so this site went ballistic
hayes 5-neocon
neocon logic:"Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false '
rhayes said: of course colb
January 21, 2007 - 23:37 ET by MyKindaSpamrhayes said: of course colbert was too racy...so this site went ballistic
The White House Correspondants' Dinner has always been an occassion for light-hearted jokes about the President and Washington. Even in the midst of the most rancorous Clinton years, that dinner remained polite and good-humored--of course, the difference is, back then, a Democrat was in office. That dinner is supposed to be a journalistic version of the WWI Christmas Truce where people who are normally enemies get together for one night and put aside their differences in a congenial gathering; Colbert broke this unofficial rule. People weren't bothered because a comedian "dared" to make fun of a Republican President; they didn't like the disrespect and unnecessary mean-spirited atmosphere. It wasn't partisan; if any comedian, much less a conservative one, had said the same kind of things about a Democratic President, with the same kind of tone, there would have been even more disapproval.
When shows like SNL even try to be balanced in their satire and tone of humor, then there will be no need to complain. Have yo noticed that except for the Catholic League and one or two professional whiners, conservatives don't usually complain about South Park's political humor? That will never happen, though, because there are too many liberals in entertainment that are too partisan to treat the left and the right equally. If there were true diversity in entertainment, that kind of equality would be easier to acheive. Oh well, it is good to have dreams.
hayes
January 21, 2007 - 18:22 ET by misterbillthe poster boy for sporks!
um
January 21, 2007 - 18:29 ET by blackrain4xmasHow is that neoconservative as opposed to plain ole conservative?
Do you even know the difference or is it just that chya like the way neo sounds?
blackrain
January 21, 2007 - 19:59 ET by SportPoliticsWell blackrain if you saw rhayes pathetic attempt at avoiding offering a definition for "neocon" yesterday, you'd understand he doesn't know the difference. He then posted something from wiki - that said they are those who came up with support under Reagan and Bush. Heckuva a definition it was- lol - as empty as repetitive rhayes' insults.
If you go with rhayes denying it's an attack on jews, the result is neocons are former democrats who fled that party and became republicans. I suppose that's why democrat ranks are so thin, and so wussified, anyone with patriotic sense and a pair bolted and became republican. Rhayes, being the liberal idiot, put down his own party and wasn't even aware of it. Ya gotta love how stupid the libs are.
Submitted by SportPolitics on
January 27, 2007 - 19:45 ET bySubmitted by SportPolitics on January 21, 2007 - 19:59.
Well blackrain if you saw rhayes pathetic attempt at avoiding offering a definition for "neocon" yesterday,
if the ignorant racist sports politics wants to know and desiresgo further than his 8th grade education , morality and maturity, He might check out some books on the subject...apparently the neocons desire to stay ignorant is exemplied with the normal crude behavior of this creature that inhabits this site.
He then posted something from wiki - that said they are those who came up with support under Reagan and Bush. Heckuva a definition it was- lol - as empty as repetitive rhayes' insults.
wicki definition was not enough?? there of course was reference to the "jews" that supposedly started the movement. My argument is how Bush imperialism and desire for control of the worlds energy, the agressive military action is what 2/3rd of this country is tired of.
If you go with rhayes denying it's an attack on jews, the result is neocons are former democrats who fled
neocon logic:"Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false '
Just because us conservatives
January 21, 2007 - 19:15 ET by TexasOptimistJust because us conservatives find your jokes to be repetitive and unfunny doesn't mean we want to silence you.
We do laugh AT you, but not WITH you.
Merry Christmas 2007.
neocon logic =: "Perso
January 21, 2007 - 20:03 ET by motherbeltby rhayes:
"neocon logic =: Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false "
In the OJ trial, Mark Fuhrman tesitfied against Simpson. Mark Fuhrman allegedly used the "N" word back in the 70's. Therefore his testimony at the trial in 1996 was lies.
Conclusion: the black jurors were all neocons?
Not exacty right
January 21, 2007 - 20:13 ET by dagdaMark Furman swore on the stand that he never used the term. He affirmed that several times. When they showed that he used it not just once, but lots of times, he was branded a perjurer and his testimony was suspect. It was not that he "allegedly" used the term, they had him on tape after tape after tape, saying the "n" word.
And it was not just the black jurors on the juror who found OJ not guilty, it was the entire racially-mixed jury.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Dagda,The entire racially-mix
January 22, 2007 - 07:13 ET by fosstenDagda,
The entire racially-mixed jury? Are you sure about that?
Does the name Custer mean anything to you?
I'm not sure what you would c
January 22, 2007 - 08:24 ET by rdave63I'm not sure what you would call an "entire racially-mixed jury." It seems to me that from an original jury pool of 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian, the final jury for the trial had 10 women and 2 men, of which there were 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 mixed, and 1 white woman.
LOL, there's absolutely nothi
January 21, 2007 - 20:04 ET by Del DolemonteLOL, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a joke about the President's "lack of intelligence", especially since said President's grades turned out to be higher than those of John Kerry's, not to mention the fact that the ABC News 2000 election day "exit polling" showed that over 80 percent of all high school dropouts voted for Al Gore.
But when people on your side of the aisle actually condone a book being written about how to assassinate the current President, followed by a movie actually depicting him being killed, you will get called on it. That's not "satire". SNL is.
PS, can you clowns come up with something more original than that tired word "neoconservative"? Stale!
hey you have our permission
January 21, 2007 - 20:18 ET by Jack Bauerhey you have our permission to make jokes about that dimwit President Carter, anytime you like.
Except, of course, you couldn't make a joke to save your life.
neocommie logic: Person A is an objectionable non-person A who's a lot funnier than me, so he's up against the wall come the revolution
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
How many of these writers wil
January 21, 2007 - 18:13 ET by FastEdHow many of these writers will be around next week?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad
Reminds me of my favorite Shrillary joke
January 21, 2007 - 18:19 ET by rdave63Hillary Clinton goes to a primary school in New York to talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand. The Senator asks him what his name is. “Kenneth.” “And what is your question, Kenneth?” “I have three questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? And, Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?” Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess. When they resume Hillary says, “Okay where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?” A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is. “Larry.” “And what is your question, Larry?” “I have five questions: First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House? Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And, Fifth - what happened to Kenneth?
Not bad, not bad at all. Ex
January 21, 2007 - 18:22 ET by balboaNot bad, not bad at all.
Except question 2 isn't pertinent and 3 isn't true...but other than that, I gotta admit I laughed.
Are you sure question #3 isn'
January 21, 2007 - 20:09 ET by GalvanicAre you sure question #3 isn't true?
Number three is correct
January 21, 2007 - 20:15 ET by dagdaAccording to reputable sources, number three is correct. Those would be government sources. They raped the White House living quarters before they left. They were forced to return some items, but scooted with a lot more. A bunch of stuff had never been catalogued.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I've researched this, and can
January 21, 2007 - 20:30 ET by balboaI've researched this, and can find ZERO reference to Hillary stealing anything from the White House, or anyone else stealing anything.
Didn't she steal the Whitewat
January 21, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Jack BauerDidn't she steal the Whitewater files which then turned up in the Whitehouse in 1996?
Does that count?
I think the cops call that "suspicious prior behavior".
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
SNL Slams Chris Matthews
January 21, 2007 - 20:45 ET by CaliosThat's like saying the New Orleans Saints lost to the Chicago Bears, but not Sean Payton (their head coach).
Everyone has some meanness, and some goodness. It's up to us to make sure the goodness is what get's passed on.
Well, the specific charge was
January 21, 2007 - 20:49 ET by balboaWell, the specific charge was that Hillary stole stuff from the Whitehouse, and in reality there's no proof of that.
Bal,Well, she had to return a
January 21, 2007 - 20:56 ET by BlondeBal,
Well, she had to return a bunch of furniture. Egro sum....took stuff which didn't belong to her. Natch?
Having said that....this SNL video was hillarious.
The take down of Hillary was kind of cute.
But the satire of Matthews was beyond wonderful.....
It will only get better as the political season moves forward.
Chris better get a grip, or he's going to become the most parodied man on the planet.
As I understand it, the furni
January 21, 2007 - 21:07 ET by balboaAs I understand it, the furniture was a gift to the Clinton Whitehouse, which they took with them, not something that had been there and then they simply stole.
But, yes, the parody was funny. Poehler needs to work on the imitation.
Bal,As I understand it....it
January 21, 2007 - 21:11 ET by BlondeBal,
As I understand it....it wasn't a gift.
Until after the Clinton's moved it out of the White House.
Then, to avoid any, um, uncomfortable words....
Well, you get it.
Probably not...but I'm hoping that one day you may catch a clue.
So balby the liar
January 21, 2007 - 21:14 ET by SportPoliticsSo balby the liar, the $28,000.00 worth of stuff they took that was theirs, that the Park Police demanded they return since the records showed it wasn't theirs, and they returned it, means they didn't steal it to begin with ?
Oh, or is it that the Park Police were liars, and / or -is / was just all a misunderstanding, that the Clinton's decided they would make go away by giving back what was theirs anyway ?
Balboa, GO BLOW Sandy's socks.
Oh...for...crying...out....lo
January 21, 2007 - 21:17 ET by BlondeOh...for...crying...out....loud...Sporty....
It was a mistake!!!!
Kind of like the meaning of the word "is" is.
Like that.
An oversight.
By the Clintons.
Can't you freakin' take a joke, Sport?
~ respectfully, Clepto Hillary
Lol. THAT's funny. :-)
January 21, 2007 - 21:22 ET by balboaLol. THAT's funny. :-)
Yeah hilarious
January 21, 2007 - 21:26 ET by SportPoliticsYeah hilarious, it's your brain on clinton balby.
Actually Balboa, she someho
January 21, 2007 - 20:57 ET by terrigActually Balboa, she somehow "misplaced" some files from the Rose Law Firm where she worked. They amazingly ended up at the White House I believe after the Vince Foster suicide or was it a suicide. The Clintonistas took all the W's off the keyboards in the White House. Now there was proof of that but for some reason these loons were not prosecuted. Some White House memorabilia was missing as well as multiple things off of Air Force One. Now, whether or not they're in some secret drawer to be found out after their demise is anyones guess but the files were "misplaced" and showed up in the private residence area of the White House.
Hey terri,Since it seems to b
January 21, 2007 - 21:05 ET by BlondeHey terri,
Since it seems to be "freak the men out nite"...
As one woman to another....have you ever totally misplaced anything of importance...like your kids? Or forgotten something equally important....like a friend wanting to commit suicide?
Or accidentally forgotten which piece of furniture belonged to you, or to the landlord?
OKAY YOU MEN....A CLUE....WOMEN DON'T FORGET THIS STUFF!!!!
Yes, I shouted.
Just so the libs here, like Bal, would get it.
None of this was done accidentally. It was on purpose.
Grow up, learn that women aren't stupid, except when they choose the cover of obtuseness for a purpose. Think Hillary....think OBTUSE.
Blonde, no, I have once wan
January 21, 2007 - 21:10 ET by terrigBlonde, no, I have once wanted to "misplace" my son when we flew from Honolulu to DFW almost a year ago and he screamed all the way there but no, I really haven't. I did once take a plate that my late Grandmother had promised me from my cousin's house but I did that on purpose, just like Hill did.
Bad terri. Bad, bad terri.Y
January 21, 2007 - 21:13 ET by BlondeBad terri. Bad, bad terri.
You can't play Hillary the Liar in the school play.
But it's been my dream sinc
January 21, 2007 - 21:15 ET by terrigBut it's been my dream since I was 5. Pleeeeeeeeeze
I haven't seen anything to ba
January 21, 2007 - 21:08 ET by balboaI haven't seen anything to back up the charge of stealing from Air Force One, and again, none of this was reported as having been stolen by Hillary.
Balboa, you're one of the r
January 21, 2007 - 21:11 ET by terrigBalboa, you're one of the reasonable liberals & I'm not saying she's the one with peanut butter hands but when Air Force One took off from Andrews Air Force Base on January 20, 2001, there were certain things aboard. When it landed in NY, there were certain things that were "missing". That's all I am saying.
Do you have a link? I appreci
January 21, 2007 - 21:14 ET by balboaDo you have a link? I appreciate your patience with me. I've read a lot of stuff of reports of things stolen, but I've never seen concrete evidence.
Actually, I haven't looked
January 21, 2007 - 21:17 ET by terrigActually, I haven't looked for one but I remember reading about it in the Savannah Morning News about the week after the innauguration. I know they do charge to find stuff from their archives.
terrig
January 21, 2007 - 21:22 ET by SportPoliticsterrig, I know almost everyone but me has the impression that balboa is a reasonable liberal, but I'm afraid those terms are NOT jointly applicable.
What balboa is, is someone who doesn't always descend into rhayes like name calling. He's like a mumbling movie watcher with few words unless it's all about movies, or SNL ( TV) - who has the total and complete liberal lines for anything and everything packed and trash compacted into his brain, and solidified beyond any sort of brownsite cleanup possibilities.
On the rare occassion bably actually does give his opinion, you can rest assured it is as rabid and ravenously left as even rhayes, and the only problem is, it slipped out of the stupidity smarmy package it ususally remains encased in.
Case in point : Bably's beanbrained answer : " The clintons never stole anything, hitlery didn't do it, nothing was missing, it was theirs, it was alll a rumor, I've researched it everywhere, and you're all wrong, give me a link. The clintons are as clean as Sandy Bruglars underwear always were. My names balboa and I'm stickin' to it. That's the news for tonight. Jane ? "
It's like the usual left wing jackass, only bably makes the mistake when he sticks his gooseneck out and actually says something other than " That doesn't matter. Why is that here. Doesn't seem like anything to me. AND:> That was a great movie, and blah blah's hot, isn't she Noel ? "
I don't mind sticking my "goo
January 21, 2007 - 21:25 ET by balboaI don't mind sticking my "gooseneck" out at any point to mention that you are, in fact, deranged.
Well balboa
January 21, 2007 - 21:31 ET by SportPoliticsWell babloa, if nothing else you're consistent. It's the one of two replies you have, either I'm crazy or you are incapable of understanding what I said.
Congratulations, you're as boring as ever.
I am aware that since you are a liberal, you don't even know what you're doing, or that you're doing it. I quite understand, the clinton's never did it. Now get back to your smart aleck smarmy crap or some movie lore with Noel so I can ignore your lies, thanks.
Well babloa, if nothing else
January 21, 2007 - 21:34 ET by balboaWell babloa, if nothing else you're consistent. It's the one of two replies you have, either I'm crazy or you are incapable of understanding what I said.
Exactly.
To your fortune balboa
January 21, 2007 - 21:57 ET by SportPoliticsTo your fortune balboa, your fellow travellers are so much more vile than you, and that leaves the thin veneer of lies you perp out so acceptable to so many others here. Congratulations. The one liberal who it is said it is almost possible to have a discussion with. Then comes the actual belief balby style ala lib incarnate, and the slick willies are, of course, entirely innocent, and having researched it yourself you mentionm, after the guilty link has been posted, you demand someone else give you something to chew on.
Of course the ending phase is diversion and finally slinkage, or multiple excuse making and smarmy incoherence slipping in that "in dispute" line of probable viewpoint murkyisms that make any valid assessment in question and likely flawed. Congratulations, the slime level is amazing.
How about that blonde's cute face, now she looked to good for Hillary, don't cha think comrade?
[sigh] The joke said Hillary
January 21, 2007 - 22:02 ET by balboa[sigh]
The joke said Hillary stole stuff from the Whitehouse. I questioned that. And no one can say that's what actually happened. No one. You can have your subjective opinion that they stole the stuff from the Whitehouse. That's fine. Facts don't back you up.
Balboa,I understand what you'
January 21, 2007 - 22:10 ET by rdave63Balboa,
I understand what you're trying to say, but by the Clinton's own admission they took the stuff. See the CNN link below, "The Clintons have decided, they said, to send the furniture back." (my emphasis). I realize that CNN is repeating something the "Clintons" said and not just "Hillary." The "Clintons" though, naturally means "Bill and Hillary." Obviously, "they" took the stuff, or "they" would not be sending it back.
Good luck rdave63
January 21, 2007 - 22:36 ET by SportPoliticsGood luck rdave63, he obviously didn't disappoint, and said exactly what he was ordered to say, as predicted or decreed, however smart alecky he felt he was being.
It's plain liberal denial syndrome, with those terribly murky things called facts. What the clintons had there is the apple replacement mulligan, the one they were allowed to practice in 3rd grade when they stole something off the teachers desk. Teacher turns back, thief puts apple back, and all is well and good, and noone is supposed to mention it ever again. It's hilarious, the ******** liberals have never grown up, and want their freebie apple mulligan, and still claim it never happened and the facts aren't clear.
I don't know, I guess they have really, really bad mental problems, the type that used to be labelled " criminally insane".
I guess in the end all the blundering liberal liar has to say is something so devoid of anything, that it amounts to balby's pathetic phrase, " The facts don't back you up".
LOL - Don't expect any sort of coherent response from him. I'm very grateful I never meet these people in real life.
Last democrat friend I talked to said , " I know, aren't the democrats so bad, I love it. " We were discussing one of their recent gigantic fabricated lies and total BS spews. The reason I didn't deck him, is because he actually had the sense to admit the massive lying spew, and openly enjoyed it. Now, at least that I can laugh at, and understand.
This other type that exists in some sort of insane fog with the attendant arrogance and deciept flowing full throttle, I am happy to say I never run into.
from SportPolitics:Last dem
January 21, 2007 - 22:54 ET by motherbeltfrom SportPolitics:
Last democrat friend I talked to said , " I know, aren't the democrats so bad, I love it.
That is typical. They revel in their ability to deceive. When the Clintons were in the White House, some of the reporters would actually sound like they were in awe at the Clinton's dexterity in spinning stories. The spinning would become the news.
You nailed it motherbelt
January 21, 2007 - 23:21 ET by SportPoliticsYou nailed it motherbelt.
They revel in their ability to decieve.
Yeah, and the joke is they decieve their own kind with amazing regularity, the very same who enjoy attempting to pulling the wool over someone else's eyes. Enter Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's a freudian nightmare. It's all so low.
It occurs to me that the left's intellectual elite's can be said to hold the blame, yet I wonder if they haven't convinced themselves, after so many rounds of lying.
I guess the video that starts this thread says they know exactly what they're doing.
The Park police if memory ser
January 21, 2007 - 23:18 ET by bigtimerThe Park police if memory serves me correctly were the ones responsible in the whole situation boa...remind you of anything else that the WH and Hillary controlled....Fort Marcy park, may come to mind...here is a link, I hope it works this time, as MikeB said the three links I put in today only went to page not found, I tried to make sure hhtp was included, anyway, it is the thought that counts, and if it doesn't work, just google Hillary Clinton WH stolen objects.....lol!
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
SP said: Well babloa, if no
January 22, 2007 - 01:43 ET by MyKindaSpamSP said: Well babloa, if nothing else you're consistent. It's the one of two replies you have, either I'm crazy or you are incapable of understanding what I said.
That is how liberals generally "debate"; they marginalize conservatives and neutralize what they say by labeling and saying they are either crazy, bigoted or too stupid to really understand the topic. That way liberals don't actually have to address the issues. It's funny, that's a trick that 6th graders use--and liberals are supposed to be the sophisticated ones?
BTW, I kinda like the way SP misspelled Balboa's name. Written that way, it sounds like "Babbla," as in "babbler." I'm not name calling or anything, just making a linguistic observation. :)
SP, I guess I haven't had a
January 21, 2007 - 21:28 ET by terrigSP, I guess I haven't had a conversation with him yet that went that far off the track but I guess I am happy he doesn't call me names like Rhayes, Stumbler & a few others. Perhaps I misread but I haven't had the negative interaction with him that I've had with others.
Yeah , I hear ya.
January 21, 2007 - 21:44 ET by SportPoliticsYeah , I hear ya. Problem is all that negative stuff is just another wall to separate the truth. When you remove all that you have balboa, which is still so far from the obvious truth, that I find myself not capable of accepting it. I don't want to believe anyone is that ignorant, or gullible, and hope to believe balboa isn't. I suspect he's just another rhayes with a different method. My apologies if he is just so absolutely ignorant and underinformed, or so totally brainwashed that he can't help himself. See, I can't even figure it out. Whatever, it's another liar in my book. Sorry, I know everyone else finds him so worthwhile. All I know is the clinton's didn't do it. They didn't do it. They didn't do it. Didn't do it. Bush did.
They were "donations to
January 21, 2007 - 21:13 ET by rdave63They were "donations to the Whitehouse", not gifts to the Clintons. The Park Service is the legal custodian of gifts and donations that are made to the White House.
See the link posted below by Del:
"The Clintons have decided, they said, to send the furniture back. Not that they are in any way acknowledging that the records didn't suggest that they had a right to those furnishings, but since questions are made, they wanted to make sure, they told the U.S. Park Service and the head usher of the White House, wanted to make sure that they did not inadvertently take something that did not belong to them." (My emphasis).
Sure, they inadvertently took the stuff (my a$$).
So, bottom line, yes... #3 is
January 21, 2007 - 21:15 ET by rdave63So, bottom line, yes... #3 is correct, they DID take the stuff and it belonged to the Whitehouse, not them.
It's a JOKE, bal. Stick in a
January 21, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Indiana JoeIt's a JOKE, bal. Stick in a different question if it makes you feel better. Any one will do. The punch-line is "What happened to Kenneth?"
Now, THAT'S funny!
Sorry, IJ! Sometimes when the
January 21, 2007 - 21:21 ET by balboaSorry, IJ! Sometimes when these "facts" are thrown around, I like to debate their merit. It was a good joke. :)
S'okay, bal. Tell the truth,
January 21, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Indiana JoeS'okay, bal. Tell the truth, watching the debate over the relative merits of the charges was almost funnier than the joke! Heard it before, and the specific questions really aren't relevant, you know?
Just thought I'd put it in perspective, that's all... ;^)
IJ
Here's a piece, Bal, about th
January 22, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberHere's a piece, Bal, about the Clintons stealing from the White House.
And here's another.
And another.
Actually, number 3 isn't exac
January 21, 2007 - 20:09 ET by Del DolemonteActually, number 3 isn't exactly "false", according to this right wing news source:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/07/bn.03.html
Thanks for that Dolemonte
January 21, 2007 - 20:23 ET by SportPoliticsThanks for that Dolemonte. We both know how high crimes by democrats are excused as republican rumors. Sandy underwear accidentally slipped papers into his briefscase, and under a construction trailer outside, while eventually the scissorhands syndrome he suffers from chopped them to bits so the tale of their disappearance goes. But that's all as untrue as the 900+ FBI files and thousand tax audits the Clinton's perped upon their enemies list. Nixon would be proud, in fact Nixon was ten times outdone, but heck sloppy and VRWC covers it all, as the MSM does nothing but make excuses and bury the left corruption.
The dems are such lamea** liars I can't stand any of them. They're pulling their hand out of the cookie jar, and you have the polariod in hand developing with the crumbs falling from their lips, and they look at you and claim they didn't do it. It's like a four year old child. That's why they've outlawed spanking, because they all deserve one.
Del,Did you catch the bottom
January 21, 2007 - 20:56 ET by rdave63Del,
Did you catch the bottom of the story where is said,
"Of course, the home furnishings that the Clintons took with them have been controversial since they left the White House. As a matter of fact, they agreed to pay for about half of it out of a foundation." (emphasis added).
Now, first they steal the stuff, but when they get caught, they claim they wanted to pay for "about half" of it? And, they wanted to use a foundation's money to pay for it (so they can keep it for their own private use?). Based on their history of corruption, it makes you wonder if they were running a public, non-profit charity foundation for their own use.
Wrong again balboa
January 21, 2007 - 20:09 ET by SportPoliticsWrong again balboa. They did steal from the White House, and even had to return some of it. An expensive couch comes to mind.
Second, although you democrats pretend to have no shame, your low self-esteem betrays that ruse, but the former results in the deadpan stupid idea that sleazer's wife shouldn't be ashamed of what she and hubby wrought upon the USA, and that bowing out isn't a need.
It's funny though, that with all the MSM and the libdems diatribes against GWB, they have effectively neutered Hillary's I am war woman stance, and given BO Hussein top spot. Now that's hilarious. I don't expect it to last, as certainly the JKF'in one taught you liars how to reverse course the second your icon's bobbler had to look in another direction.
The Chris Matthews was dead o
January 21, 2007 - 20:12 ET by Jack BauerThe Chris Matthews was dead on. The Shrillary? Needs work. Like the real thing.
Call me cynical, but anyone believe that if the media herd hadn't switched allegiance to Crock Star Barack Obama they'd be skewering Lady McClinton so hard?
Maybe if they were to hit a coke snorting Obama with a pair of giant ears making up stories about his alleged poor African background?
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
"(Obama) seems to take
January 21, 2007 - 20:38 ET by Tom1969ca"(Obama) seems to take positions by studying an issue and then following his convictions. Can we really trust someone like that?"
Sounds about right. (Of course, it also sounds like the current President...)
~~~
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
(It's easier than thinking)
I think the reason that SNL
January 22, 2007 - 01:24 ET by MyKindaSpamI think the reason that SNL has targeted liberals this season is that Tina Fey left to do her own show, 30 Rock, and is no longer head writer and show runner. While SNL was never a conservative show, under Fey's control, it became much more partisan and the difference in the way the right and the left were treated was even greater. SNL portrayed conservatives in a very negative mean-spirited--but serious--way, as homophobic, racist, stupid, greedy, humorless jackasses who want to screw over the little guy while liberals were portrayed in a very light-hearted, convivial manner as fun-loving politicians who might have some flaws, but generally want to do good and save the world. For instance, Fey's SNL ignored William Jefferson's freezer full of cash and the ranking Democrat on the ethics committee being accused of ethics violations, but they constantly pounded on the supposed Republican "culture of corruption." Fey continues her partisan writing on her new show and sets up the lone known conservative (although, her slimy ex-boyfriend had the typical "conservative" traits ascribed by Hollywood) as the one-dimensial, ruthless, heartless boss of NBC, played by Alec Baldwin, who predictably, is a bit of a sexual freak and a hypocrite.
Based on several SNL skits this season that targeted liberals, I think Fey was why the show was so biased and at times, unwatchable. Even though, there still isn't balance, I hope the new leadership continues to satirize liberals the way they usually satirize conservatives. Now that Fey is gone and Democrats are more prominant in the media by controlling Congress and entering the Presidential race, we might see more skits with liberals as the target but without the usual "wink-wink" good-natured tone. It is probably too much to ask for liberals to be portrayed with the same disdain and overall negativity that conservatives face, but this is a good start.
Alec B
March 2, 2008 - 00:49 ET by Xango AnnieAh, I see ,Alec Baldwin is playing himself...
MKS, One can only hope, but
January 22, 2007 - 01:37 ET by JerryMKS, One can only hope, but I will have to see it to believe it.
I think it is more likely that they have determined that Baraka Hussein Osama Obama is the democrat's best hope in 08, so they are more than willing to pillory Hillary.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I also think that the targe
January 22, 2007 - 02:20 ET by MyKindaSpamI also think that the targeting of Hilary has more to do with Hilary's current disfavor within the nutroots and anti-war liberals than it does a sudden sea change in the way they treat the left, but it is still something that we didn't see under Tina Fey. The test is how they portray other liberals like Obama and Pelosi. Will they focus on Democratic problems like John Conyers admitting ethics violations right before assuming the chair of the Judicial Committee? If they don't think it's funny that Conyers had staffers babysitting his kids and picking up his laundry or Harry Reid made a series of magical land deals and has an entire familiy of lobbyists are worthy of mentioning on Weekend Update, then they aren't being honest.
Of course, if they actually expose any of the Democratic "culture of corruption," then the public might not buy into the propaganda that the Democrats are shoveling or vote for them. We'll see how they treat "authentic" liberals like Jefferson, Conyers, Obama, Pelosi, instead of the traitors easy targets who do not toe the party line. Dissent is verboten!!
First Chris Matthews calls he
January 22, 2007 - 09:50 ET by NeoCon JediFirst Chris Matthews calls her "Dukakis in a dress" then SNL lampoons her while promoting Obama. Think Hilary will get the point that maybe they (her own party as well as the MSM) don't want her as President?
Nah, probably not. Still, she will be good for a few laughs during this election season.
"At an end your rule is, and not short enough it was!" -- Yoda