Video: Greg Gutfeld talks liberal blogs on Fox
posted at 3:53 pm on November 12, 2006 by Allahpundit
Their newest regular contributor? The Gut?
The screencap says it all. Captain Ed and Moran will, no doubt, be outrageously outraged.
GreenRoom
- McDonnell: Romney’s Hatchet Man?
- AFT Tripled Its Donations to Advocacy Groups
- Athens, Europe, America: The inverted triumph of Marxism?
- LA V.I.P. yacht ‘renovated’ with stimulus money
- Move over AttackWatch: Obama wants you for his ‘Truth Team’
- Democrat hypocrisy on religious liberty
- Syria, Russia: It all looks different from out there
- Hot Air Survey Results: CPAC Edition
- ‘Playboy’ bunny who cabby thought was vampire sues NYPD for abuse
- Embalmer penalized for speaking ill of dead sues to get license back
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Aaahhh… smell the insanity. Right wing extremists don’t have to worry about blowing the election any more, so why not let it flow?
Constantine on November 12, 2006 at 4:06 PM
Uh, if you don’t know the difference between Ali Khamenei and Ruhollah Khomeini, then you probably ought not be speaking on what others might think of them. Oh, and minus 50 DKP for using the word “dude” when speaking on the subject.
spmat on November 12, 2006 at 4:06 PM
Oh, major content warning on the DKP link.
spmat on November 12, 2006 at 4:07 PM
One can hope. He’ll be great!
EF on November 12, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Hm. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Marge tries to sell Homer’s “Ayatollah Assaholla” t-shirt and he complains that it works for any Ayatollah.
aengus on November 12, 2006 at 4:27 PM
The Gut is the only reason to visit The Huffington Post. It’s been a while since he posted there, but it’s always worth the read. I’m glad they are allowing him to use his sardonic wit on FOX. He’s better at it than even Ann Coulter.
Kevin M on November 12, 2006 at 4:35 PM
I agree EF… I’m not familiar with his work, so I don’t know if there’s a reason to hate him, but I know he’s damn right about the terrorists and Democrats cheering simultaneously. As I’ve mentioned before, you could carry it further and mention that every time a UBL tape comes out, it’s as if he’s reading the DNC’s daily talking points, then Hamas, Al Aqsa and others endorsed Dems before the election, and now the enemies are cheering the victory and making virtually identical statements to lefty bloggers and MSM paper columnists.
By the way AP, this guy was on Fox & Friends this morning too.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 4:36 PM
With friends like the liberal bloggers, who needs enemies like France?
Considering how Spain and Italy went socialist on us, wouldn’t it be nice if France when center-right?
Well, here’s “The Most Amazing Story Ever”.
Corruption in France.
No really, it’s not that bad of a story.
The French blew through £18 million worth of a secret intelligence war chest designed for emergencies on “dancing girls” and such. Worse, they found out about it by investigating center-right politician and main leadership rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister who supposedly had received secret payments from the intelligence service. This has been shown to be false.
Now, judges are trying to determine if our favorite leftist Dominique de Villepin, French prime minister, invented those false charges to discredit his chief political rival.
What way could this scandal lean and how would our liberal-blogger friends react?
Christoph on November 12, 2006 at 4:36 PM
He summed up the Ayatollahs to perfection, you know one, you know them all…
I had hope that the yapping Chihuahuas are now going to have to act like German Shephers; alas, the NYT editorial has lower standards, because it’s all Mr. Bush’s fault and responsibility. When I thought that the Dems wanted oversight, responsibility, and with it accountability…that’s only for the Right, though…
Entelechy on November 12, 2006 at 4:41 PM
No BSG thread this week(2 in a row now)?
There’s no message board here so I can’t start a thread on it, hopefully one of the moderators/admins will.
spacecrystal on November 12, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Note to Constantine:
I’m just off the phone with my European connections. They believe the world will instantly be:
- Green and clean
- Free of terrorism
- Full of love, hugs and kisses, nuance and multi-culti
- Free of anti-Americanism and anti-globalisation
Don’t worry – be happy!
Entelechy on November 12, 2006 at 4:46 PM
No fields of wildflowers?
Aw, that’s okay. Gimme a hug.
Constantine on November 12, 2006 at 4:51 PM
Like FDR and Uncle Joe Stalin, liberals have gotten into bed with a serious enemy of America— proving once again that they fundamentally hate this country.
Valiant on November 12, 2006 at 4:59 PM
The differences between those Ayatollahs are of great interest to a specialist in Middle Eastern studies, or historians of intellectual intrigue underneath the minarets of Q’om, but of vanishingly small import to the American public or policy makers. Khamenei admitted at Harvard that he wants gays to hang. I expect his foreign policy is equally “moderate”.
With the possible exception of Sistani in Iraq, the Homer T-shirt had it exactly right, dude.
see-dubya on November 12, 2006 at 5:00 PM
Khatami, not Khamenei.
Allahpundit on November 12, 2006 at 5:01 PM
my sentiments exactly.
One Angry Christian on November 12, 2006 at 5:01 PM
Constantine, you got it – cornflowers and Coqueliquots
All the girls’ last names w/b Halliburton. Ah, Europe’s lights are dimming, and the parties are in full swing…
The last laugh on Dominique de Villepin is yet to come. I love the weasel’s name.
Entelechy on November 12, 2006 at 5:06 PM
Al Sistani! Oh… I thought we were just naming as many Ayatollahs as we could…
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 5:11 PM
I’m sure there is a
dorksci-fi fan site somewhere to talk about it.RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 5:12 PM
Sharp, biting! I like him.
SisterToldjah on November 12, 2006 at 5:21 PM
…bingo, sp…end the sentence there. “…probably ought not to be speaking…”, PERIOD.
The guy used to write for Maxim magazine…I’ve never read it, but have seen it, and — somebody correct me here — isn’t that mag sort of have a “t*tties and beer” outlook on life? Nothing from the way he presented his argument or even strung together his sentences lead me to believe that he’d actually ever written professionally…so, he very well *may* have been a writer at Maxim. Dangle a few participles and split a few infinitives, add a dash of hip arrogance, and I’ve pegged him for Newsweek….
…his point, though, that the “right side” of the last election cycle won in the eyes of our enemies — and I’m still waiting for that side to catch on to the irony — needs to be grooved into the dialogue nationally. That, and that the election was a win, and houses changed sides, but it wasn’t the *OVERWHELMING* win, with *HUGE* buckets of unqualified mandate that the Dems seem to be trumpeting.
…and, Connie…I still *WHUVVVV* you…my little apricot of treason…*SMOOCH*…*twinkle*….
Puritan1648 on November 12, 2006 at 5:29 PM
…and the band they engage needs to brush up on “Nearer My God To Thee” for a final number…
I know that it’s a religious tune, and might “offend” more than a few of the chablis socialists among attendees…still, there’s historical precedent….
Puritan1648 on November 12, 2006 at 5:34 PM
Puritan1648, I’m sure others here will agree, Maxim is actually a great magazine. It’s billed as a “titties and beer” magazine, but it is much more than that. In fact, if anything annoys me about it, it’s the long boring new release DVD, CD, and Video game section. I like all of those things, but for some reason I find those sections extremely boring. In fact my most recent Maxim turned me on to a story that I’ll be blogging about soon and I guarantee you’ll all be interested in… Didn’t have time before the election, and have since just not blogged at all… but it’s a interesting story that we’ll all know about in a few months anyway.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 5:34 PM
…and I read Playboy for the home electronics reviews….
I’ve seen a few issues, and it strikes me as a young guy’s rag mag. All the girls on the few covers I’ve seen don’t strike me so much as sexy as they do snotty…I must be getting old.
Puritan1648 on November 12, 2006 at 5:39 PM
Ouch–that’ll teach me to watch the clip first. But my point stands; there’s even less daylight between Khameini and Khomeini.
see-dubya on November 12, 2006 at 5:41 PM
Guttfeld has been a professional writer/editor for years. His column and especially his secret bio is the only reason to visit Huffpo. He has put up numerous humor blogs on the internet, too. He has been interviewed twice by AoSHQ and those shows have been re-aired because he is witty, funny, articulate, and insightful.
EF on November 12, 2006 at 5:43 PM
Left wing blogs=democrat base=terrorist talking points.
The math is very simple.
SouthernGent on November 12, 2006 at 5:44 PM
Valiant, in fairness to FDR I don’t think he fundamentally hated America – that’s a bit of a stretch. In any case, Truman, Marshall and Nixon (and others) understood crystal clear the nature of the Communist threat and succeeded in convincing the American public from 1945 onwards. I don’t have any sympathy for anyone who was still an apologist for Communism after 1956
aengus on November 12, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Uh huh, on the insanity scale when it comes to ideology, let’s be honest here: Who has more in common with Osama Bin Laden?
Cindy Sheehan, a simple cliche hippie woman who spends all her time moping for attention?
Or Reverend Osama Bin Dobson, whose claim to fame is claiming that the Spongebob Squarepants cartoon was a secret attempt by liberals to program children into becoming homosexuals and who seeks to outlaw all forms of gay rights, abortion rights, eliminate evolution from the school curriculum, mandate prayer in school, etc…
Sorry, ain’t buying the analogy. Terrorists have much more in common with American conservatives than American liberals. Something makes me doubt Bin Laden is hopping up and down in his cave hooting and hollering that the people of South Dakota gave conservatives a bloody nose on Tuesday when they repealed the abortion ban.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 5:52 PM
Ever heard of not judging a book by it’s cover? I’m not running PR for Maxim, but again I suggest actually reading it rather than “seeing” a few issues, before knocking it. The pictures of chicks are a very small portion of the magazine.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 5:53 PM
The fact is FDR’s bungling at Yalta allowed Stalin and Mao to make Communism the security problem for America for 50 years. His courts and socialist agenda permanently embedded the moonbats into our culture. Like Communists after 1956, we should have zero tolerance for Islamofascists and their enablers in government after 2001. The only saving grace is that the PC proponents of Sharia Law in this country and terorists have incompatible long-term goals with the exception of Death to America. I question their patriotism.
Valiant on November 12, 2006 at 6:20 PM
You can’t have a great magazine based on titties and beer?
Christoph on November 12, 2006 at 6:26 PM
Heh.. funny that Maxim would like nothing better than to be judged on the quality of its cover.
spmat on November 12, 2006 at 6:30 PM
Terrorists have much more in common with American conservatives than American liberals.
Let’s assume you really believe this is true, Grebrook. Then why the HELL don’t you people want to fight them? If you think Saddam and Osama are George Bush Squared, shouldn’t the spreading dominions of radical Islam actually occupy your mind more than the evils of the Bush administration? We are now at war with a worldwide theocratic fascist totalitarian ideology. If the American left can’t get behind this war–including killing Al Qaeda in Iraq– then no war will ever be the right one for them and they are absolutely useless.
see-dubya on November 12, 2006 at 6:40 PM
I could be completely wrong about this, but this guy’s gotta be Jeff Gannon’s boyfriend or something. Either that, or this is the most effeminate straight guy I’ve ever seen in my life. I don’t mean to put anybody down, but that was like watching the right wing version of Will and Grace. And come on? He used to edit Maxim and Stuff? I guess that would make him something of a soft core pornographer. I don’t care how many GOP talking points he can rattle off. This isn’t the kind of person we need on TV representing the Republican Party.
John on November 12, 2006 at 6:52 PM
Grebrook can simply ignore the fact that if you ripped quotes from terrorist tapes you’d think they were directly from the DNC (this has been documented many times), can ignore that prior to the elections Hamas, Al Aqsa and others endorsed the Democrats, and now our enemies are cheering along with the American Democratic Party. Facts are facts, but then, Grebrook is a liberal so he won’t let them get in his way.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 6:55 PM
1.) Most of the violence being perpetutated in Iraq is now being done by sectarian militias, not Al Queda
2.) The invasion of Iraq created nearly an entire generation of NEW terrorists. For example, more than 20% of Fallujah was destroyed beyond recognition, and hundreds of thousands of people now live in tents in the desert. As a result, you’ve now created a Palestinian-like environment where their homes were destroyed and Al Queda now has a permanent base of fresh recruits from miserable, pissed off Muslims living in tents in the desert, as is the case for Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza
3.) Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda, as Bin Laden had called for his death multiple times. He was a dictator, there are lots of them, why don’t we invade China while we’re at it? They’re certainly totalitarian. Oh, wait, I forgot. The Grand Ole Party of freedom-loving liberators is too busy exploiting slave labor trade with China to actually give a rat’s ass what they do to their citizens.
4.) If Islam has created a “worldwide theocratic fascist ideology”, and I presume you’re referring to the Caliphate, then why is it that there are millions of Muslims living inside of the United States, and not a single American-born Muslim have ever committed a terrorist act against the U.S.? Padilla was an immigrant, and obviously the hijackers were mostly Saudis, none of them born and raised here.
You are severely overhyping the threat posed by idiots running around in exploding taxi cabs. If these are the people you fear could “destroy” us, no offense, but you’re a coward. They’re morons. China is a real enemy. Mohammed Dirka Dirka Jihad who straps bombs on himself and blows up cafes can certainly create a lot of grieving families, but to honestly equate them with the thread posed by the Nazi war machine or the Soviet Union is an utter joke.
They-are-idiots-who-use-exploding-taxi-cabs.
Let the Israelis deal with them. That’s what they’re there. They take in so much of our tax dollars and military equipment. Here’s an idea. Make yourselves useful and assassinate the head of Iran and bomb their facilities. I’d be happy to watch while eating popcorn.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 6:57 PM
Trace just hit the nail on the head. The Dems will be looking at the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance measures – all of it – much differently now. The suicide bombers in Iraq aren’t suddenly going to vanish just because the Dems are now in power in America. In fact, look for them to continue unabated. And let’s start pushing for that “timetable” and that “exit strategy” they kept whining about. I’d like to see some sweat dripping down their foreheads over this for a change.
thedecider on November 12, 2006 at 6:59 PM
The majority of the American public is cheering the demise of your party. So I guess America hates America, right? Press releases from the RNC regarding our involvement in Kosovo probably matched those of Milosevic.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 7:02 PM
This is a silly argument backed up by silly points. OBL has, really, nothing in common with either of them. However, a solid argument can be made that Cindy brought herself into the realm of being a terrorist sympathizer the moment she started calling them “freedom fighters” and denouncing the President. As for James Dobson, I can’t recall a single story about him training men to go out and kill or behead people in the name of his religion, or his ideology.
thedecider on November 12, 2006 at 7:10 PM
Exploding taxi cabs.
Exploding taxi cabs.
Exploding taxi cabs.
Exploding taxi cabs.
Exploding Taxi Cabs.
You, sir, are a moron.
see-dubya on November 12, 2006 at 7:11 PM
No, but a lot of your buddies at the Free Republic forums openly applauded Iran for executing two homosexual teenagers in the summer of last year. I believe many of the comments left were, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day!”. They just couldn’t contain their snickering about two young teenagers being hanged by Islamic fundamentalists.
So, no, do mainstream conservatives have a lot in common with terrorists? No, but there are enough that it makes any comparisons between the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-secular American Left and Islamic Fundamentalists a complete joke.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 7:18 PM
I suggest you stay off Kos. Admittedly our side doesn’t hype this enough, but there were plenty of connections, and it was further confirmed with some of the documents recovered in Iraq (I’m drooling waiting for the millions of others to be released…)
I also suggest you do a little research on how much of a threat radical Islam is to the world. Start with Obsession, and then go from there.
Probably? Wow, some liberals are stupider than I thought. Haha, probably? So I give you a fact, and because you have absolutely nothing you give me a “probably”? Even if your “probably” was right, which it’s a safe bet it’s not, it doesn’t excuse that idiotic argument…. Probably.
And I’d like you to show me where the majority of the American public are cheering the “demise” of the Republican Party… You do realize, first of all, that most elections were pretty close? The end result gave Dems the power, barely in the Senate by the way. And by all accounts had they not pulled it out (by the way I give virtually all credit for their win to years of the media turning the liberalism and Bush hate up to record levels), it would have truly been the “demise” of the Democratic Party. But NOTHING about this election spelled the demise of the GOP, and you’re a retard for saying so.
But again, that’s not the point. People, I believe misinformed largely, voted for a number of reasons on of which because they aren’t happy about the situation in Iraq. They aren’t cheering a defeat of Bush or a victory for the Democrats by any means. There isn’t some anti-GOP revolution boiling over. You are such a fricken clown. And Malkin puts the nail in your coffin here.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 8:03 PM
Ever hear of gerrymandering, jackass? The overall popular vote, was NOT close. We crushed you by 10 points, perhaps as much as 12. The final election results should be in by tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest. In 1994, you only defeated us by 8 points. Gerrymandering saved about 20 Republican seats in this election.
Yeah, funny how you ignore the fact that the majority of the public sees the defeat of your party as a good thing, how we crushed you in the youth vote by 22 points, among Hispanics by 50 points, and how the majority of the public supports every single initiative on our platform, including investigations, minimum wage hike, negotiating with drug companies, etc…
Translation: People didn’t vote for the party of Katrina failures, Terri Schiavo fanaticism and general corruption, so they must be stupid. Can we elitist?
The popular vote for your defeat in the senate was 11%. That’s not very close. The fact that it was close in absurdly red states such as Montana is a testament to how pathetic your party has become if you can’t even win there. What about all that talk all year long about Michael Steele and how he was going to pull off a shocking win in Maryland? Cardin crushed him by 11 points.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 8:12 PM
Alright, well I see you’re a complete waste of time… You’ll insist that this is the “demise” of my party, now you’ve toned it down to “defeat”.. I’ve done this to death with liberals, I’ll let someone else waste their time with you. The fact is it wasn’t the demise or defeat of a party, like it or not. Mainly because it wasn’t a victory for your party. Dems won by default. Voters didn’t run to them because they liked their ideas… they never put a single one forward.. oh wait, I’m sorry they did… “Change of course”… “Time for a change”… “A new directioN”. Great plans.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 8:17 PM
Grebook, there’s a serious argument to make that the initial invasion damaged too much of the Iraqi infrastructure but that alone doesn’t mean the whole effort was necessarily wrong or doomed to failure.
As for the worldwide threat, there have been over 6,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. As for homegrown jihadists: John Walker Lindh, the Washington sniper and his accomplice, the Muslim man who randomly shot Jews in Seattle, Azzam the American (charged with treason), several CAIR members arrested on terrorism charges.
The threat is constantly downplayed by the media. If the threat is so small then why isn’t it being reported accurately? To prevent another fictional wave of Islamophobic attacks?
What makes you think Islamic terrorists are morons?
Saying that Mohammed Dirka Dirka Jihad is too stupid to seriously threaten Americans is subtle cultural imperialism.
aengus on November 12, 2006 at 8:19 PM
No I haven’t, it’s the long-term demise of a party that was crushed in the Hispanic vote by a ridiculous 50 points and the youth vote by 22 votes.
If the next generation votes Democratic by 22 points and the fastest growing segment of that generations – Hispanics – votes Democratic by 50 points, just what chance in hell do you honestly think you have? Especially once we get our amnesty bill passed and legalize another 20 million who will bring a good 8-12 million family members over to the U.S. with them?
So no, THIS election was a DEFEAT, but the damage you suffered in the youth vote and Hispanic vote is the long-term DEMISE of your party.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 8:23 PM
I’m sorry if you’ve mistaken me for some sort of Noam Chomsky worshipping liberal college activist who uses that kind of rhetoric. I don’t, and it doesn’t annoy me. Don’t mistake my disgust for the invasion as being out of some sort of sympathy for Arab-Muslim culture and don’t believe the conservative propaganda that liberals practice moral relativism. We don’t. I think Arabs live in a stupid, backwards culture. I also think most people in Dixie live in a backwards, stupid culture, although obviously not as much so as those in the Middle-East.
I’m an atheist, I have equal distaste for both of your religions.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 8:26 PM
What’s sad is that you are openly supportive of such a thing. I’m sure you’re with Hillary on allowing felons to vote to huh?
Anyway, bravo on the diversion. You really roped me, and I’m done now. This started out as an argument where we presented facts showing how terrorists and Democrats agree on so much, you asserted that the terrorists were more like the GOP without any support, and then somehow spun it in to this ridiculous side issue. Again, I’m done, everyone else have fun. Chasing liberal diversions and knocking them down just to have them divert again is a complete waste of time.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 8:30 PM
Okay, one more quick thing..
“In Dixie”? I gather you’ve probably never been… I’m from the most liberal place in the country, and just lived in Nashville for the past 5 years and I can’t even begin to describe how idiotic your uninformed comments are. You are such a stereotyping retard. “Both of your religions”? What religion (other than Islam) are you talking about? Christianity? I suggest you take a look around you and then look up stats on what percentage of the country consider themselves Christian.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 8:34 PM
Actually you were the one who challenger my assertion that this election was the beginning of the demise for your party. I presented facts to back it up and you didn’t like those fact so now you’re running away.
Yeah, don’t see any reason not to. Don’t get me wrong, if you want to seal the border, go seal the damned border. I don’t care. In the long term Hispanics have a higher birthrate (Roman-Catholics of every ethnic group have a higher birthrate, something is often overlooked by conservatives who are paranoid that white Americans are going to go extinct, lol) so it’s not as though they need illegal immigration to help fuel the fire. I support legalizing my fellow Roman-Catholics. I grew up with illegal immigrants’ kids going to the same high school as me in Jersey. Everyone went to the same Church. They didn’t join gangs or murder people. They just worked the blueberry fields in Hammonton, NJ. Peaceful people.
So yeah, I support amnesty. Don’t like it? Shove it, protestant. It amazes me the arrogance that WASPs and Protestant Southerners have nowadays to demand that Roman-Catholic illegal immigrants not be given citizenship.
Who the hell are you to demand anything? We’re the ones who built this country. The Irish. The Italian. The Catholic. Not you lazy Protestant bastards. That’s why the state of Mississippi is still the poorest, most miserable state in the entire country. Because it’s 90% Protestant, no Irish, no Hispanics, no Italians. Just a bunch of lazy, mopey WASPS that sit around all day bitching about the glory days of the Confederacy.
We’re the ones who decides who gets to be the next immigrants. Not you worthless evangelical, Protestant idiots.
Not really.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 8:44 PM
Hope to see a lot more Gutfeld on Fox.
“….oh yes you can…”
Clark1 on November 12, 2006 at 9:21 PM
Now I see the problem.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 9:54 PM
How quaint. The moral superiority through unverifiable personal experience argument.
As a worthless Protestant, I am curious how you support your position -
and
Roman-Catholics are not atheists, nor are atheists Roman-Catholics.
AZ_Redneck on November 12, 2006 at 9:58 PM
Somebody please send this to the White House, John McCain, Mike Pence, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Btw, Grebrook, I’m not going to engage you in a debate on this because you’re so obviously a raging (literally) idiot, but you might take note of the fact that the youth vote has always tended toward Democrats, but that people change as they get older. There is no guarantee that this latest crop won’t also come to its senses and vote more Republican in the future, as past generations have.
Cato on November 12, 2006 at 10:13 PM
I’m an Irish-Catholic. We indeed can be atheists just as much as Jewish people can be atheists. You do realize that about half the Jews in this country don’t even believe in God and still call themselves Jews? Why? It’s an ethnic thing, not a religious thing. Hence when I refer to myself as a Roman-Catholic, that is to say, I am an Irish-Catholic, which is an ethnic identity. It’s in our culture. I’ll always refer to myself as an Irish-Catholic, regardless of whether or not I really believe in God.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 10:17 PM
No it hasn’t. During the years of Ronald Reagan it was actually slightly tipped in favor of Republicans. Weren’t you even paying attention to the NYT graph of youth voting trends posted by AllahPundit a week ago?
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 10:19 PM
The Gut totally rawks!
In a rawking kinda way.
spacemonkey on November 12, 2006 at 10:23 PM
‘nuf said.
Oh and thanks for the lesson on (haha) New Jersey’s immigrant status. A few hispanics go to your church and you’re an expert on immigration’s impact on the country? I think your mullet has latched on to your brain bud.
“We”? What are “you”? You told us you were an atheist earlier retard. And I’ve got Irish blood, and my dad’s side is extremely Catholic as are all the old school French folks up here. I can’t even begin to explain how retarded your entire comment was.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 10:26 PM
Proper translation:
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 10:33 PM
Ah … but that is the exception rather than the rule.
The quote is disputed, but Winston Churchill is sometimes credited with saying (loosely quoted):
If your young and not a liberal, then you don’t have a heart, but if your older and not a conservative, then you don’t have a brain.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 10:39 PM
What the hell does that even mean? My French Catholic side has been on the continent since 1656, and I’m not sure about the Irish, but since at least the 1800s.
Whatever retard, what does any of this have to do with the fact that Democratic statements are virtually identical to terrorist statements and they all cheer on the same day. The American people didn’t “cheer” the other day, they handed Dems some seats by default, plain and simple, so don’t go back in that circle. Now you can simple deny the similarities of the terrorists’ statements and those of the Dems, and I’ll just accept that you’re a delusional idiot (which I think we’ve seen is well established).
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 10:47 PM
You are insecure and confused.
I’ll pray for you.
AZ_Redneck on November 12, 2006 at 10:53 PM
…quite true, except for the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” equation.
If you consider what they dislike about Western culture, one of their grievances in all of this, you can see who — liberals or conservatives — stand to lose the most should the jihadis get what they want. One would think that self-preservation, if nothing else, would be a spur to redecision…but the Left would rather win the argument, even if they don’t long survive.
Puritan1648 on November 12, 2006 at 11:10 PM
I’m sorry, but you’re a moron if you think “Fuck Bush” is somehow relevant in that Democrats and terrorists are using it. I realize, being you are a right-wing conservative (i.e. stupid by default) that you fixated on logical fallacies and don’t understand basic American rhetoric. So, let me break it down for you:
Republicans, during the term of FDR, were saying “FUCK FDR” because FDR expanded the size of the government. Adolf Hitler was also grumbling, “Fuck FDR” when the U.S. entered WWII.
Republicans, during the term of JFK, were saying “FUCK JFK”. Fidel Castro was also saying “Fuck JFK”, and so were the Soviets.
During the 1990s, Milosevic was grumbling, “Fuck Clinton, Fuck Clark”. During the 1990′s, Republicans had also gone bat-shit insane about Bill Clinton and had come completely unhinged, resulting in a loss of 5 seats in the 1998 elections, nearly a first time in history an opposition party actually lost during the infamous “sixth year itch”, and subsequently lost the popular vote in 2000, garnering a pathetic 46%.
Now, do we conclude from this that Republicans are therefore:
Nazis
Communists
Yugoslavian dictators
No, we conclude that RightWinged and Greg Gutfeld are morons. When Al Queda is preaching something a little less basic like, “All Americans deserve lower healthcare costs and reduced college tuition” “higher minimum wage”, etc… then I’ll care.
At this point, they aren’t, and the summary of their talking points is “Fuck Bush”.
Grow up, the American electorate threw you pathetic Republican weasels out of office precisely because you’re acting like a bunch of spoiled, whining facists that are unable to hold a civilized debate about foreign policy and would prefer to compare your opponents to terrorists and Nazi appeasers, which is ironic, since you clowns were the actual ones calling for the appeasement of Hitler.
You lost the elections. Get the hell over it. If you insist on acting like a bunch of spoiled brats all the way into 2008 by screaming, “TRAITORS TERRORISTS DISLOYAL UNPATRIOTIC APPEASERS TRAITORS APPEASERS TERRORISTS!” at the voters, then by all means, sink your own ship.
You nearly did in the 1990′s. The only reason you won was because of Nader. This time around, the Greens won’t be able to there to help you. Especially since the political demographics of this country are now changing rapidly. 18-24 are tired of your religious fanaticism and your moaning and whining about “gays abortion gays abortion gays abortion”. Oh yeah, flag burning, forgot that one. Keep it up and they’ll just vote straight D tickets for 20 years.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 11:13 PM
You use the f-word eight times and WE are the ones that can’t hold a civilized debate ?
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 11:27 PM
I like The Daily Gut.
Jim Treacher on November 12, 2006 at 11:39 PM
This is my favorite thread ever.
Constantine on November 12, 2006 at 11:39 PM
Here’s your first and last notice, Grebrook: change your tone immediately or depart. You want to rant about right-wing morons? Go crawl back to dKos.
Allahpundit on November 12, 2006 at 11:45 PM
…pretty much nails it, Maxx…I haven’t been here long, but he seems to be one of a coterie of malcontents who come here to throw bombs, and this guy’s using the “f-bomb”.
His mind’s made up, so discussion is out of the question. You can only talk *AT* his sort…or use him as a straight-man.
…mind you, his hateful and usually rather bitter ripostes take some the fun out of the cleverest commedy. Best to neuter him, keep him from breeding….
You hold him still…I’ve got a claw hammer….
Puritan1648 on November 12, 2006 at 11:47 PM
So the profanity and insults can only go one way? Just looking for a clarification.
Constantine on November 12, 2006 at 11:52 PM
LOL … But can’t do it. I don’t have any ear plugs.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 11:54 PM
I’ll own up that my tone and name calling has probably been uncalled for as well here AP. I’m just frustrated by the idiocy sometimes.
And Grebrook, it’s a lot deeper than “Fu** Bush” and you know it. Again, you can choose not to accept it, but you’re only lying to yourself. Am I saying that the left are terrorists? No… Enablers? Remains to be seen. But we should definitely point out the similarities in rhetoric in hopes that they’ll take a look at themselves.
RightWinged on November 12, 2006 at 11:54 PM
Last time I checked, tough guy, there were only two open supporters of terrorist organization who are elected members of the U.S. Congress.
Republican Peter King of NY, the IRA’s American spokesman, who condemned Reagan for telling the Irish that “Irish-Americans don’t support the IRA”, saying, “He wasn’t speaking for me!”
Republican Darrell Issa, Hezbollah supporter (or at least before 2006, when he probably cringed during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict)
So why don’t you clean out your own closets before accusing us of anything? Terrorist enablers? Even right-wing hack Dick Morris has admitted that the reason this country lost 3,000 citizens on 9/11 was because Republicans went on a witch hunt against Clinton during his last years in office and he had no time to deal with Al Queda because he was too busy surviving the impeachment.
Enablers? Yeah, they’re called 1990′s Republicans. And you’re certainly doing a lot more “enabling” right now in Iraq by forging iron-support among refugees for Al Queda and sectarian militias.
Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 12:07 AM
The fact that I own an establishment at the mall food court called Allah Snackbar! doesn’t mean anything.
Constantine on November 13, 2006 at 12:23 AM
At least one Congressman elected last week openly supports terror and that’s Democrat Keith Ellison from Minnesota.
Peter King has worked to support the IRA, but as a Republican, he doesn’t speak for me, but President Bush refused to have Gerry Adams at the White House, whereas Clinton was more than happy to.
The things that the Dems have said in public and on TV and the laws that they’ve caused to be enacted or that they’ve worked to strike down have all helped our IslamoFascist enemies and we’re talking Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, Biden, Murtha, Schumer, Biden, Feingold, Reid, both Clintons, etc., etc.
Do we really have to spell it out for you, Grabrook?
Oh, sure, Clowntoon failed to get OBL because he was too busy with impeachment for Monica–some excuse. He knew about OBL before ’98 and the impeachment, because he told us he did, that Bin Laden was behind the Black Hawk Down incident (1993) and that he had Monsur Ijaz talk to the Sudanese about extraditing OBL to the USA before he moved HQ to Afghanistan.
Nice try, though, blaming it on the Republicans.
I thought you Dems were gonna love everybody now that you’re back in power…what’s the problem?
You have a real attitude problem in talking to we people that love our country just as much as you do, if not more, and who want to preserve our security and safety, as well as our freedoms.
Lighten up on your tone, please. We’re all supposed to be on the same side of this war, aren’t we?
Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 12:25 AM
…oh?
* Keith Ellison (Keith X. Ellison, Keith Ellison-Muhammed, Keith E. Hakim, Keith “Pleeeeeeeease notice I’m a black guy in Minnesota” Ellison)…support from CAIR (the Hezzi’s and Hamas’s “special friends in low places”), down with Farrakhan (he of the well-loved Jews)…
…no?
* How ’bout Barb Lee, friends with the erstwhile lien-holders of Grenada before Mr. Reagan’s Caribbean vacation, and a special amiga of ol’ Fidel.
No?
* Howse ’bout — and I admit that this is both an obvious and low one, but I can’t resist — Robert “Happy Kleagle” Byrd…the Klan’s not a terrorist organization? Alert Mo Dees and the SPLC to lighten up and refund dat money!
…but, then there’re all of those hateful, foul-mouthed, fixated, spit-when-they-talk Republicans…guess we better take ‘em all out and shoot ‘em.
…then, we can begin building the worker’s wonderlaaaaaaaaand…with its universal healthcare…and free public transportation…and merry-go-rounds in every living room…and candy-coated Korans for eeeeeeeeeveryone!
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 12:27 AM
…why? You serving deep-fried Jews?
Wouldn’t you have to be *able* to be an enabler?
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 12:29 AM
This coming from the guy whose party calls Americans traitors for not voting for them? Yeah, we’re the ones who have the attitude problem.
No, you simply have an irrational hatred of Muslims. Ellison barely discussed his faith during his campaign. He has not said he supports any terrorist organization.
And don’t play dumb about Gerry Adams. Bush didn’t deny Adams the right to visit the White House, he cancelled the man’s invitation after a stabbing in Ireland involving in the IRA. If not for that, they would have been dining together. So don’t take the moral high ground here and claim Bush is above it. He isn’t. If not for the killing, they would have gone forward with the meeting. Adams is a politician now anyway. Democrats never dealt explicitly with terrorists.
King did.
No, that’s Casto, a dictator, not a terrorist organization. If you’re going to extend the debate to include dictators, you know where this is eventually going to lead.
Hint: Rummy’s infamous handshake.
Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 12:42 AM
I’m curious, why is it you stuck up for Peter King but not for Issa?
Could it be because… Issa is an Arab?
Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 12:44 AM
The GOP never supported the appeasement of Hitler. When Wendell Wilkie lost the election of 1940, he was the one who put partisan politics to the side so that both Dems and Repubs could unite to fight the war.
Only Charles Lindbergh and the Bund wanted to work with Hitler.
I’m sorry, which party is it that hasn’t wanted civilized debate about foreign policy, or rather they have civilized debate about it, vote and then go about changing their minds and crowing about it afterwards? “I voted for it before I voted against it” ring a bell?
The rush to go to war in Iraq took 18 months and was voted on by a bipartisan Congress at least twice!
And the Dems didn’t win control of the House and Senate on a “F*ck Bush” platform; the time to have done that was 2004 and guess what? Bush was re-elected.
The Dems actually won the majorities because quite a few of them ran on anti- “gays and abortion” values. Amendments to back traditional marriage or to ban homosexual marriage passed by large majorities in all states they were presented, except Arizona (and that one had some reason for it not to pass).
Several Dem Senators and Congressmen ran on pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, pro-immigration reform platforms.
Tuesday’s vote was neither an anti-Bush vote or an anti-war vote, viz. Lieberman over Lamont.
You should cool down a few days before coming back here, Grabrook.
Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 12:47 AM
I don’t know Issa’s story. If he ascribes to violent jihad, because he’s a Muslim, then I’d have a problem with him.
Given the fact that he’s still in government and stands behind the President and the Party on the war, I’d say he was a moderate Muslim.
And IslamoNazis don’t usually name their sons “Darrell.” I’d venture to say he’s Christian.
Not so Keith Ellison.
Don’t suppose you’ve seen his “Takbir!” “AllahAkbar!” victory speech on TV that was posted here Grebrook?
I’ll bet you $100 Darrell Issa’s never given one of those!
Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 12:52 AM
…what! He didn’t shake hands with Barb Lee, did he?! He’s friends with all the wrong people!
…sorry about Castro not being a terrorist…merely a tyrant…they both begin with “T”…you can imagine my chagrin.
…but, yer point’s been made…shoot all the Republicans…yessir!
Bush first, of course…then that glad-handing Rummy…then slightly less than half of Congress…then we’ll have pie and calm down.
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 12:55 AM
…and you stuck up for Barb Lee…or was that Castro?…not much difference, really…
…but didn’t address the remarks about the Kleagle….
…is it because you secretly pine to wear a 300 thread-count overcoat to a cross-shaped barbecue?
Cards on the table time! You show me yours…and I’ll run fer the hills….
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 12:58 AM
Bush didn’t have Adams at the White House on St. Patrick’s Day because of the McCartney murders; instead, he had the McCartney family.
He shunned Adams last year and the year before, too.
Are you trying to be funny? Clinton not only happily hosted Adams and the IRA crew, but he did even more for Arafat, one of the worst terrorist killers ever and just about the only head of state to frequent the Clinton White House.
Don’t even get me started on Jimmy Carter and the Iranians…
And they sure do love running down to Cuba to pay homage to Castro.
Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 12:58 AM
Puritan, GMTA
Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 1:00 AM
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 1:01 AM
…this is getting silly…Barb Lee’s shaking Castro…Klansmen are dancing with Arabs…somebody’s barbecuing a cross…Billy Carter’s just burped at some guy called “Takbir”…and Grebrook’s looking good in spandex….
….I don’t know *WHERE* that last one came from…I’m goin’ to bed.
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 1:04 AM
jen, I believe he is right there. Clinton chose not to deal with Bin Laden on numerous occassions, as has been documented.. and he even admitted to turning him down!
RightWinged on November 13, 2006 at 1:06 AM
RW, LOL–that’s the ticket…Clintoon couldn’t touch OBL because he might be accused (by the überDemLord Grebrook) of “dealing explicitly with terrorists.”
Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 1:21 AM
Actually, no they didn’t. About a half dozen did. The majority, 24 or so who won in OH, PA, NY, NH and CT are all liberals. Especially the anti-war activists that swept out both GOP incumbents in NH.
Claiming after your defeat that the Dems who beat you are conservatives just a rhetorical tactic to hide your own shame because you lost. You didn’t lose to conservative Democrats. You lost the three Indiana seats and the North Carolina seat to conservative Democrats. You lost EVERYTHING ELSE to liberal Democrats. All of the Dems from CT, NY, PA – all liberal except for Altmire. Even Boyda, out in Kansas, fairly liberal.
You can try to spin your defeat any way you want. In the end, you lost a net of 20 seats to liberal Dems and another 9 or more to conservative or centrist Dems.
In the senate, it doesn’t matter since there are more red states than blue states and thus the House is beholden more to the will of the majority.
You also seem to ignore your defeat at the polls in Missouri, where we successfully enshrined embryonic stem cell research into Missouri’s constitution, and South Dakota, where we defeated the GOP-instituted abortion ban.
Two pretty big losses for social conservatives on their own turf.
Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 2:23 AM
The cloning amendment barely passed, G., and I predict it will be overturned by the USSC in the near future.
Sadly, S.D. didn’t pass the abortion ban, but thankfully, we have the Federal Partial Birth Abortion ban in place.
Abortion-on-demand is on its way out, you know. Thank God!
It’s more than obvious that you hate God and those who worship Him, but the love of God and family values is a solid American tradition that goes back to our founding.
I’m not going to argue how conservative the Democrats were who won on a state-by-state and candidate-by-candidate basis, but I daresay almost all of them (except for the Socialist in Vermont and Ellison in MN who ran unopposed) ran as Democrat centrists and moderates and not extreme Leftists.
Good night, Grebrook–I’ll leave you to your sour stomach and vitriolic speech. It must be awful to be you, full of so much hate, envy and bitterness.
I’ll pray for you, too.
Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 2:47 AM
Constantine writes: “Aaahhh… smell the insanity.”
Yep, and it is wafting across the room from YOUR party.
Grebrook: “Who has more in common with Osama Bin Laden?”
Non-elected officials: 3-way tie between Medea Benjamin, Ramsey Clark, and Noam Chomsky. Susan Sontag would be in the mix but she’s dead.
Elected officials: Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha.
Grebrook: “Sorry, ain’t buying the analogy”
I don’t think we conservatives even give a shit if you do or not. You’re moonbat moron, a liar, and a troll. And nothing we say will ever change your mind (what little there is of it). But it is fun to expose you as the vicious, vitriolic, stupid little git you really are
Grebrook: “Terrorists have much more in common with American conservatives than American liberals. Something makes me doubt Bin Laden is hopping up and down in his cave hooting and hollering that the people of South Dakota gave conservatives a bloody nose on Tuesday when they repealed the abortion ban. ”
Typical strawman argument from the ADD suffering left. The point is that they are OPENLY dancing in the streets that the Democrats took over Congress. They openly declare that YOU will bring THEM victory.
They are YOUR allies. They’ve take YOUR side. They CHEER FOR YOU. Aren’t you happy?
Grebrook: “1.) Most of the violence being perpetutated in Iraq is now being done by sectarian militias, not Al Queda”
Only because America has decimated Al Qaeda as an effective force.
Grebrook: “2.) The invasion of Iraq created nearly an entire generation of NEW terrorists. For example, more than 20% of Fallujah was destroyed beyond recognition, and hundreds of thousands of people now live in tents in the desert. As a result, you’ve now created a Palestinian-like environment where their homes were destroyed and Al Queda now has a permanent base of fresh recruits from miserable, pissed off Muslims living in tents in the desert, as is the case for Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza”
Outright lie. Bullshit from Grebrook the liar.
Before he was killed, Zarqawi was openly complaining to Zawahiri (and through him to bin Laden) that his ability to continue the fight was exhausted.
Here is HIS report. He exposes YOU as the lying fool you are:
Al Qaeda is currently running on empty. If we cut and run the way you traitors want us to do, that will change. But then YOU are on THEIR side, after all.
Grebrook: “Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda, as Bin Laden had called for his death multiple times.”
Outright lie. Saddam not only financed Abu Asyyaf in the Philipines, but offered sanctuary to bin Laden in 1999.
And even if it 100% true that Saddam never broke bread with
Al Qaeda or even acknowledged their existence, SO WHAT?
You lying moonbats seem to think that without a link between Saddam and bin Laden that there was no justification to go to war with Iraq. Not true.
There are 23 casus belli in Public Law 107-243, the authorization to use military force against Iraq. Two of them concern ACTUAL ACTS OF WAR that Iraq committed against the United State: The attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush, and the repeated firing on US aircraft on UN approved missions in the no-fly zone.
A direct tie with Al Qaeda is not the only reason to take down Saddam.
Grebrook: “If Islam has created a “worldwide theocratic fascist ideology”, and I presume you’re referring to the Caliphate, then why is it that there are millions of Muslims living inside of the United States, and not a single American-born Muslim have ever committed a terrorist act against the U.S.? Padilla was an immigrant, and obviously the hijackers were mostly Saudis, none of them born and raised here.”
Tell us WHY this negates the 23 valid reasons to go to war with Iraq that Congress listed in PL 107-243?
Grebrook believes that we are overly concerned with Mohammed Dirka Dirka Jihad blowing up taxicabs. Grebrook has no clue that the real fear is that Mohammed Dirka Dirka Jihad’s taxicab will have a suitcase nuke, and the city he blows it up in is New York City.
Grebrook: “The majority of the American public is cheering the demise of your party.”
Perhaps, though as RW notes, they were bamboozled by your lying allies in the media and party spin artists. I think, when they realize that you will lose the war on Global Terrorism, they’ll kick your asses out of power so hard and so fast that you’ll be walking around dazed for months.
In other words, when (not if) America is attacked again, on the order of 9/11/01 or worse, instead of cheering the demise of the Republicans, they will be calling for the HANGING of Democrats. You should think on that.
Grebrook: “once we get our amnesty bill passed and legalize another 20 million….”
It is the only way you’ll ever get a majority in this country, and we all know it. But it is not a sure fire method of gaining permanent supremacy. In fact it is going to backfire on you big-time. Francine Busby told the illegals that they don’t need “documenta” to vote for her. That utterance cost her both the special election and the rerun on 11/7.
RW writes: “Anyway, bravo on the diversion. You really roped me, and I’m done now.”
That’s because Grebrook is a professional agitprop artist. He wins Sunday’s award for the Joseph Goebbels’s Distinguished Propaganda Whore. Sorry Constantine. His truly “over the top” performance outshone your opening argument. Better luck tomorrow.
Grebrook: “I’m sorry, but you’re a moron if you think “Fuck Bush” is somehow relevant in that Democrats and terrorists are using it. I realize, being you are a right-wing conservative (i.e. stupid by default) that you fixated on logical fallacies and don’t understand basic American rhetoric.”
Our Democratic Party Propaganda Troll has never heard of the Arab Proverb: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Or perhaps he has and he’s simply trying to “hide the banana.”
You ARE the enemy’s friend. THEY say so. That means your party can justly be called the TREASON PARTY, as our enemies consider you their allies who have given them aid and comfort while adhering to their cause.
Just as in 1864, where Democrats worked to undermine and sabotage the Civil War, nothing has changed in 2006.
Yelling “TRAITORS TERRORISTS DISLOYAL UNPATRIOTIC APPEASERS TRAITORS APPEASERS TERRORISTS!” at you is simply telling the truth.
I’ve heard Pelosi claim that the terrorism in Iraq will stop when we pull out. You claimed in this thread that our invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists. You and your party, therefore, believe that cutting an running in Iraq will lower the threat of terrorism inside the United States.
And you also want to terminate the NSA terrorist tracking programs, give terrorists ACLU lawyers, free as many of them as you can, end interrogation of captured Al Qaeda, AND cut and run in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Like you, the Spaniards thought appeasement would work, too. After Madrid, they voted out the government that supported the USA in Iraq ON THE PROMISE THAT THEY WOULD NOT LONGER BE ATTACKED, and within one month, they were planning a bigger strike and fought it out with the police.
However just like the case with the stupid Spaniards, your Al Qaeda friends are just as pleased with the election. Unlike the Spanish situation, though, they openly promise to deliver an attack on America on YOUR watch.
Boy, they sure fooled you didn’t they?
Here you are about to give them the victory they need by cutting and running, by ending the NSA programs that have been so effective, and ending all interrogation of terrorists, and the ingrates promise to blow up the White House.
All I can say is that when that strike happens on YOUR watch, you better have that bus ticket to Canada handy, because the backlash against your party will be crippling.
In due time, shorter than you can imagine, the Republicans will regain control of Congress while keeping the White House. Your promise that the Republican Party is dead will prove to be just another lie of yours. This time, however, I don’t think that the Democratic Party will survive it.
Keep drinking that “Grape Kool-aid,” fool.
georgej on November 13, 2006 at 4:49 AM
Well, Iran is really happy that Americans are so abortion-happy. That means they can make their population grow faster than ours and can take us over quicker. So who knows? Maybe OBL is glad that SD repealed the abortion bans so Americans will kill themselves with more efficiency than he ever could.
bookwurm322 on November 13, 2006 at 6:49 AM
Yes, it’s very important to know the difference between two islamic extremist cave-mullah’s. Otherwise, NO INTERVIEW FOR YOU. Somebody get their hands on Gutfeld…we need to ask him: What color is the boathouse at hereford? WHAT COLOR IS THE BOATHOUSE AT HEREFORD? If you don’t know that, you can’t comment on it! So is this a form of absolute moral authority? I mean..Khomeini, Khameini? Oops, I misspelled them. I guess my opinion isn’t allowed either. Spare me the intellectual elitism. Maybe you’re mad Fox news is interviewing him instead of you? And you KNOW the difference between the dead mullah and the other guy…well, I’m mad that Bill Maher has his own show. I know I’m so much funnier. See, I don’t think knowing the difference is important…their views are pretty much interchangeable. Knowing the difference between Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy isn’t that important unless you’re playing trivial pursuit…man, I thought I hit rock bottom after the election..now we’re nickel and diming some blog guy I’ve never heard of…go conservatives!
austinnelly on November 13, 2006 at 9:07 AM
…then again, today death is a social inconvenience, but not an impediment. Look at Chicago. Die, and you don’t even lose your vote.
Add her to the list. She’s probably got more brain-stem activity than ol’ Ramsey, and is taken more seriously than Chomsky.
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 9:59 AM
Wow. I publicly retract my statement that Grebrook is stupid. It is delusional, mentally unstable, treasonous, and hateful, but not stupid. Clever, too. Great arguments for someone with so little to work with.
Jaibones on November 13, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »