News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Keith Olberman the NEW Edward R. Murrow

Started by Bledsoe, September 26, 2006, 08:35:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
User actions

rwarn17588

#150
October 04, 2006, 11:02:22 AM
I'm more of a Solomon Burke fan myself, iplaw. [;)]

Conan71

#151
October 04, 2006, 11:17:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

Feh. Buchanan's a nutjob, has been for years. The program couldn't have gotten someone a little saner?


Yeah, I'm sure you also said "feh" when it was pointed out that there were Democrats on Abramoff's payroll.  Or would your reply conveniently be something like: "Feh, there were far more Republicans taking money from him."

That's part of the point.  Scarborough was like watching a cartoon.  They find one of the biggest conservative cranks they can because it makes it easier to dupe people into believing Buchanan is somehow representative of the average Republican.

My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation.  I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat.  Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue.

Calling for Hastert's head on a plate is nothing more than Democrats trying to hi-jack more seats by trying to imply that the actions of one sick Congressman is a reflection of an entire party.  It's bogus electioneering.

If I honestly felt that changing party majority in both houses would change the pattern of corruption in Washington, I'd gladly buy in, but based on history, a change in parties won't change a thing.  I think we all realized that with the un-fulfilled "Contract For America" in 1994.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

rwarn17588

#152
October 04, 2006, 11:49:13 AM
That's because Abramoff *is* a Republican scandal, Conan. The ones in legal trouble are Republicans. None of Abramoff's personal money went to Democrats. Abramoff was a member of the College Republicans, he's a self-described Republican activist, and he hobnobbed with them his entire adult life (including 480-some contacts with the White House).

The so-called Abramoff money that went to Democrats came from his Indian-tribe clients, which got ripped off by him (thus leading to the indictments).

But to really grease palms, he did it with Republicans. Ask Bob Ney.

rwarn17588

#153
October 04, 2006, 12:00:00 PM
<Conan wrote:

Calling for Hastert's head on a plate is nothing more than Democrats trying to hi-jack more seats by trying to imply that the actions of one sick Congressman is a reflection of an entire party. It's bogus electioneering.

<end clip>

To be fair, there's a lot more than Democrats wanting Hastert to step down.

You have Boehner, who wants to be speaker and sees an opportunity if Hastert steps down. That's why he's been stabbing Hastert in the back through his press statements.

You have a bunch of Republicans, who see Hastert as a millstone around their necks in their campaigns back home. If Hastert steps down, it'll take a lot of the heat off.

Then you have Republicans who think Hastert screwed up royally with this thing and want him gone from the speaker's chair.

I think the outrage at Hastert is coming from A LOT of quarters.

papaspot

#154
October 04, 2006, 12:01:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

I was struck by the snarkiness, smugness, and shrillness of the liberals on the program, how they were allowed to get a complete point out without interruption, but yet when Buchanan would be half way through a point, he would be interrupted by Scarborough and the other two libs.

He wasn't trying to defend Foley, nor defend anyone else if, in fact, there was a cover-up but they wouldn't even let him complete a sentence.  

I find it fascinating how liberal journalists and pundits point out the folly's of the members of the GOP with such glee.


If you think that kind of behavior is limited to liberals either you've never watched a right wing talk show or you're wearing tinted glasses that filter that SAME behavior out when it's practiced by the other side.

Conan71

#155
October 04, 2006, 12:58:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

I was struck by the snarkiness, smugness, and shrillness of the liberals on the program, how they were allowed to get a complete point out without interruption, but yet when Buchanan would be half way through a point, he would be interrupted by Scarborough and the other two libs.

He wasn't trying to defend Foley, nor defend anyone else if, in fact, there was a cover-up but they wouldn't even let him complete a sentence.  

I find it fascinating how liberal journalists and pundits point out the folly's of the members of the GOP with such glee.


If you think that kind of behavior is limited to liberals either you've never watched a right wing talk show or you're wearing tinted glasses that filter that SAME behavior out when it's practiced by the other side.


Come on now Papa, be fair and balanced:

"My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation. I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat. Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue."

I will check my glasses for the color of the tint though.[;)]
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

Conan71

#156
October 04, 2006, 01:01:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

That's because Abramoff *is* a Republican scandal, Conan. The ones in legal trouble are Republicans. None of Abramoff's personal money went to Democrats. Abramoff was a member of the College Republicans, he's a self-described Republican activist, and he hobnobbed with them his entire adult life (including 480-some contacts with the White House).

The so-called Abramoff money that went to Democrats came from his Indian-tribe clients, which got ripped off by him (thus leading to the indictments).

But to really grease palms, he did it with Republicans. Ask Bob Ney.


It's well documented that Abramoff employed Democratic lobbyists as well who were channeling Abramoff's and his client's money to Democrat legislators.  I've posted the articles on the "Foley" thread- twice now.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

papaspot

#157
October 04, 2006, 02:04:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by papaspot

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

I was struck by the snarkiness, smugness, and shrillness of the liberals on the program, how they were allowed to get a complete point out without interruption, but yet when Buchanan would be half way through a point, he would be interrupted by Scarborough and the other two libs.

He wasn't trying to defend Foley, nor defend anyone else if, in fact, there was a cover-up but they wouldn't even let him complete a sentence.  

I find it fascinating how liberal journalists and pundits point out the folly's of the members of the GOP with such glee.


If you think that kind of behavior is limited to liberals either you've never watched a right wing talk show or you're wearing tinted glasses that filter that SAME behavior out when it's practiced by the other side.


Come on now Papa, be fair and balanced:

"My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation. I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat. Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue."

I will check my glasses for the color of the tint though.[;)]



Okay. Ya got me.

NellieBly

#158
October 04, 2006, 03:07:36 PM
"My point is, the liberal pundits last night approached this scandal with big toothy grins and made fun of of a serious situation. I've said it before when I've heard the gloating of right-wing commentators when a scandal has blown up involving a Democrat. Partisan gloating is childish, and refuses to acknowledge that our Congress in general is a playground for the rich, priveledged, stupid, and perverted and we as voters allow it to continue."
Now the 'liberal media' is identifying Foley as a Democrat. Fox (twice), the AP, and CNN all reported that Foley is a democratic senator. Freudian slip? Partisan subconscious mind meld?? Hellooo -- that's journalism 101 -- you learn to get their party affiliation right after you get their name correctly spelled.

Conan71

#159
October 04, 2006, 03:23:43 PM
The devil is always in the details...
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

papaspot

#160
October 04, 2006, 03:29:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

The devil is always in the details...


What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]

Conan71

#161
October 04, 2006, 03:52:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

The devil is always in the details...


What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]


Oh MODERATOR!?!?! [;)]
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

papaspot

#162
October 04, 2006, 04:10:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by papaspot

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

The devil is always in the details...


What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]


Oh MODERATOR!?!?! [;)]


Oh, I meant it in a GOOD way. [}:)]

aoxamaxoa

#163
October 04, 2006, 07:57:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by papaspot

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

The devil is always in the details...


What?? I thought YOU wuz the devil!! [:P]


Oh MODERATOR!?!?! [;)]


whaaa whaaa......run to mommy...

iplaw

#164
October 04, 2006, 08:39:00 PM
You've got to be kidding me...do you really think he was being serious?
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
User actions