Pundits you love/hate

[Vyce 0]

First, did you REALLY just call Hillary Clinton the underdog?

 

Indeed. I grew to admire her inspiring struggle against you liberals who were dead-set on forcing her out of a campaign she had every right to wage on. Your underhanded efforts are why a sizable number of Democrats like Marney are going to either sit out this election or vote for McCain. You poisoned the well against yourselves.

[godthedog 0]

^it doesn't work like that. the legacy candidate, who starts out with WAY more name value, political connections, and momentum does not somehow magically become the "underdog" in the middle of the contest when the other candidate finds a way to win more votes without banking on any of those things. when the superstar-loaded 2004 lakers faced off against the pistons in the finals, nobody started calling them the "underdogs" when they were down 3 games to 1. her status as an "underdog" is a fiction written by hillary's campaign to de-emphasize her weaknesses as "challenges" and her ability to barely keep up with what she was supposed to be doing anyway as "overcoming adversity."

 

biggest example: the PA primary when she said "he outspent me three-to-one, but i still managed to win by double digits!" as if she's railing against the dreaded *OBAMA MONEY MACHINE* to hide the fact that she, with decades of well-oiled financing connections, should've been raising far more money than him anyway.

 

obama won on a better message and a better-run campaign. period. he did it without attempting to game the contest to his advantage by overemphasizing the role of superdelegates, without trying to divorce the concept of "electability" from the concept of "person whom the will of the voters favors in the primary," without claiming the other party's candidate might make a better president, without trying to call into question the whole legitimacy of the party's primary process (like not counting the iowa caucus), and without trying to use "the will of the disqualified voters" to his own political advantage, ALL of which hillary did at one point or another in the primary.

[Gary Floyd 0]

^it doesn't work like that. the legacy candidate, who starts out with WAY more name value, political connections, and momentum does not somehow magically become the "underdog" in the middle of the contest when the other candidate candidate finds a way to win more votes without banking on any of those things. when the superstar-loaded 2004 lakers faced off against the pistons in the finals, nobody started calling them the "underdogs" when they were down 3-1 games. her status as an "underdog" is a fiction written by hillary's campaign to de-emphasize her weaknesses as "challenges" and her ability to barely keep up with what she was supposed to be doing anyway as "overcoming adversity."

 

biggest example: the PA primary when she said "he outspent me three-to-one, but i still managed to win by double digits!" as if she's railing against the dreaded *OBAMA MONEY MACHINE* to hide the fact that she, with decades of well-oiled financing connections, should've been raising far more money than him anyway.

 

obama won on a better message and a better-run campaign. period. he did it without attempting to game the contest to his advantage by overemphasizing the role of superdelegates, without trying to divorce the concept of "electability" from the concept of "person whom the will of the voters favors in the primary," without claiming the other party's candidate might make a better president, without trying to call into question the whole legitimacy of the party's primary process (like not counting the iowa caucus), and without trying to use "the will of the disqualified voters" to his own political advantage, ALL of which hillary did at one point or another in the primary.

 

^Listen to this man, he tells the truth.

[EricMM 0]

Democrats like Marney

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

a sizable number of Democrats like Marney

 

*edit* dammit

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Marney has her finger on the pulse of the Democratic electorate.

[snuffbox 0]

She claims to be everything else imaginable (and some actually believe it), why not be a Democrat too?

 

And, did you guys know that the New England Patriots were the underdog in the most recent Superbowl because they were the overwhelming favorite going in but lost at the very end?

[snuffbox 0]

Another plucky underdog: Mike Tyson in Tokyo circa 1990.

[godthedog 0]

a sizable number of Democrats like Marney

 

*edit* dammit

 

to be fair, a sizable number of democrats on this board and others do like marney. but most would never admit it.

[Vyce 0]

^it doesn't work like that. the legacy candidate, who starts out with WAY more name value, political connections, and momentum does not somehow magically become the "underdog" in the middle of the contest when the other candidate finds a way to win more votes without banking on any of those things. when the superstar-loaded 2004 lakers faced off against the pistons in the finals, nobody started calling them the "underdogs" when they were down 3 games to 1. her status as an "underdog" is a fiction written by hillary's campaign to de-emphasize her weaknesses as "challenges" and her ability to barely keep up with what she was supposed to be doing anyway as "overcoming adversity."

 

biggest example: the PA primary when she said "he outspent me three-to-one, but i still managed to win by double digits!" as if she's railing against the dreaded *OBAMA MONEY MACHINE* to hide the fact that she, with decades of well-oiled financing connections, should've been raising far more money than him anyway.

 

obama won on a better message and a better-run campaign. period. he did it without attempting to game the contest to his advantage by overemphasizing the role of superdelegates, without trying to divorce the concept of "electability" from the concept of "person whom the will of the voters favors in the primary," without claiming the other party's candidate might make a better president, without trying to call into question the whole legitimacy of the party's primary process (like not counting the iowa caucus), and without trying to use "the will of the disqualified voters" to his own political advantage, ALL of which hillary did at one point or another in the primary.

 

So, we have "godthedog" so far in the "doesn't get the bit" camp.

[godthedog 0]

dammit. i've been had. confusing seeing your "defense" after marney's real defense. the "democrats like marney" thing should've tipped me off, i assumed it was some kind of slip-up. oops.

[Gary Floyd 0]

^it doesn't work like that. the legacy candidate, who starts out with WAY more name value, political connections, and momentum does not somehow magically become the "underdog" in the middle of the contest when the other candidate finds a way to win more votes without banking on any of those things. when the superstar-loaded 2004 lakers faced off against the pistons in the finals, nobody started calling them the "underdogs" when they were down 3 games to 1. her status as an "underdog" is a fiction written by hillary's campaign to de-emphasize her weaknesses as "challenges" and her ability to barely keep up with what she was supposed to be doing anyway as "overcoming adversity."

 

biggest example: the PA primary when she said "he outspent me three-to-one, but i still managed to win by double digits!" as if she's railing against the dreaded *OBAMA MONEY MACHINE* to hide the fact that she, with decades of well-oiled financing connections, should've been raising far more money than him anyway.

 

obama won on a better message and a better-run campaign. period. he did it without attempting to game the contest to his advantage by overemphasizing the role of superdelegates, without trying to divorce the concept of "electability" from the concept of "person whom the will of the voters favors in the primary," without claiming the other party's candidate might make a better president, without trying to call into question the whole legitimacy of the party's primary process (like not counting the iowa caucus), and without trying to use "the will of the disqualified voters" to his own political advantage, ALL of which hillary did at one point or another in the primary.

 

So, we have "godthedog" so far in the "doesn't get the bit" camp.

What's there not to "get?"

[... 0]

DIE EZRA LEVANT

[SuperJerk 0]

According to Glenn Beck, this is conservatism:

 

So what are my core values, the things that I refuse to compromise on? To figure that out, I decided to try to define what I think a conservative really believes.

 

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

 

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.

 

A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.

 

A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.

 

A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.

 

A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.

 

A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.

 

A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.

 

A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.

 

A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.

 

A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.

 

A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

 

A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.

 

A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.cons...ives/index.html

 

In summary, Beck's conservatism sounds a lot like another name for social darwinism. I honestly don't even think Beck believes that, given how conservatisms usually have no problem running to the government and ask for protection from anything THEY don't like.

[Guest !!!]

Nice mission statement. Did he just finish reading The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People or something? Maybe he can work on being proactive now.

[BX 0]

So, anyone have any good Tony Snow jokes?

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Tony Snow walks into a bar?

[Atticus Chaos 0]

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

 

 

A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death

 

Don't those two contradict each other?

 

 

[SamoaRowe 0]

They totally do. Beck is a hypocrite of epic proportions.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Jesus, don't go to the Fark thread about Snow's death, as it has some of the stupidest comments on the net I've read in a long time. No wonder I usually avoid the place.

[snuffbox 0]

They totally do. Beck is a hypocrite of epic proportions.

 

Supporting a three trillion dollar nation-building effort & and hoping for a gigantic wall around the country also contradict conservatism.

[SuperJerk 0]

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

 

 

A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death

 

Don't those two contradict each other?

WHAT? Just because someone has the right to be alive doesn't mean they have a right to stay alive. Those are two completely different things!

 

Pffft. Crazy talk.

 

 

 

 

So, anyone have any good Tony Snow jokes?

 

No, but I have a bold prediction: Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, et. al., will decry liberal media bias when Snow doesn't get the same treatment Tim Russert got last month.

[SamoaRowe 0]

They totally do. Beck is a hypocrite of epic proportions.

 

Supporting a three trillion dollar nation-building effort & and hoping for a gigantic wall around the country also contradict conservatism.

 

Agreed. Why anyone takes Beck seriously is beyond me.

[NoCalMike 0]

Not to pile on Beck or anything...well yes, to pile on to Beck....his tv show is the epitome of a circle jerk, at least a show like Hannity & Colmes pretends to have opposing opinions by throwing Colmes and random quasi-liberal generic blonde chick on to argue. On Beck's TV show, he just brings on a guest on the topic that is in a 100% agreement and they basically jerk each other off until it is time for a commercial break. I have never heard his radio show so I can't comment on that.

[Timmy8271 0]

I can't stand Beck either but after watching Rachel Maddow sit in for Olbermann, she' much, much worse. She's got an annoying voice and smiles at everything.

[SuperJerk 0]

I like Rachel Maddow when she's a guest or a contributor on MSNBC, but as a host she seems really by-the-numbers.

 

Olbermann's show can be a circle-jerk most of the time, but I find him amusing most of the time.

 

I'll say one good thing about Beck's show...it's obvious at all times its an opinion-driven talk/interview show. He's not trying to pretend it's a legitimate news show the way Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, or Lou Dobbs do.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Way to report on a story that's 22 years old

 

Seriously, Huffington Post is full of pussies. This is coming from a fellow liberal/Obama supporter.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

In summary, Beck's conservatism sounds a lot like another name for social darwinism.

It sounds like the parody of himself in Grand Theft Auto IV. Talking about this clip. Jump to 4:19 and it basically sounds like Beck entirely.

 

"That dream is America, and I tell you what man, that's the dream hard working people all over this country want. To see their lazy neighbours die because they didn't go to work, and get a job, and get health care. Time to remove the teat and say DINNER'S OVER BABY, GO BUY YOUR OWN PAIR OF TITS!"

[Jobber of the Week 0]

WHAT? Just because someone has the right to be alive doesn't mean they have a right to stay alive. Those are two completely different things!

 

Pffft. Crazy talk.

You don't understand, man. You have the right to be born (by your mother squatting down in a field if you have a lazy family who can't afford modern facilities) and then nothing else. Your body is practically guaranteed to be banged up and exposed to disease, but if you want to counter that you need to do well in life! Succeed or prepare yourself for a life of pain and suffering.

 

Also, a conservative believes that someone shouldn't be able to purchase an assisted, respectful suicide. Right to life means protecting your life from, uh, you. So, if you can't afford to protect your body from the wilds it's no fair to take an easy way out!

[SuperJerk 0]

WHAT? Just because someone has the right to be alive doesn't mean they have a right to stay alive. Those are two completely different things!

 

Pffft. Crazy talk.

You don't understand, man. You have the right to be born (by your mother squatting down in a field if you have a lazy family who can't afford modern facilities) and then nothing else. Your body is practically guaranteed to be banged up and exposed to disease, but if you want to counter that you need to do well in life! Succeed or prepare yourself for a life of pain and suffering.

 

Also, a conservative believes that someone shouldn't be able to purchase an assisted, respectful suicide. Right to life means protecting your life from, uh, you. So, if you can't afford to protect your body from the wilds it's no fair to take an easy way out!

I think my sarcasometer is broken.