Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 351 To 360 Of 657 Comments
MUSEUM SHOOTER INFLUENCED BY RIGHT WING RHETORIC?
"is there anyone on the left writing anything differently?"
If the writer is "on the left", then they are a political writer. The subject of their writing is politics, and so if they discuss the topic at all its going to be politically related . . . as in, "its the other team's fault". Same as those "on the right".
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.06.2009 @ 09:18
All three of the shootings in the past two weeks, and you haven't broached the topic of whether inflammatory rhetoric is an issue of concern or not. I gotta admit, I'm suprised.
@mike farmer:
so, "I would never make a joke about statutory rape. Thats's disgusting" is the same thing as "she looked do-able"?
Keep trying to figure out why the Right gets more and more discredited.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.06.2009 @ 19:53
@lionheart:
Respectfully (fully admitting last post was snark-laden) I think you're missing the general structure of humor here. A joke about Sarah's daughter being knocked is going to refer to Bristol . . . because that's the "news" fact that is being lampooned. A joke about Palin's wardrobe being bought is going to refer to the RNC wardrobe kerfluffle . . . regardless of whether or not the specific clothes at the heart of that issue have or have not been returned or donated to charity or whatever.
If John Edwards is seen in the company of a woman, the joke is going to be that he's having sex with her, regardless of whether its the mistress or not. Or, the jokes is going to be that he paid hundreds of dollars for a haircut, regardless of what he actually paid for his last haircut.
Letterman is a comedian, not a reporter. He's not reporting on a Sarah Palin trip -- he's telling Sarah Palin jokes. It isn't supposed to be factually accurate. Its supposed to humorously (a debatable quality, granted) magnify or highlight a commonly understood issue.
Here's an example from the same source. Letterman did his Top 10 list on Sarah P.'s trip to NY, and number 2 (the "zinger" on the Top 10 list) was something along the lines of "Went to Bloomingdale's to get new makeup to update her 'slutty stewardess' look". Ms. P's response was "I didn't even go to Bloomingdale's". The point of the joke was that she's generally considered a hottie (although when your competition is Hilary, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi that's not too hard a title to get), it wasn't that she bought makeup at Bloomingdale's. Quite frankly, she's getting laughed at more for demonstrating she's too damn stupid to get a joke than the original "joke" ever got.Let me go back to the question I asked before -- do you honestly believe that a late night talk show host on a major network would tell "sex-with-a-14-year-old" jokes? Doesn't that seem an almost insane idea? Let me build on that -- do you honestly think Drudge truly believed that the 14-year old, and not Bristol, was the butt of the joke? I'm no fan of Drudge, but he doesn't seem that out of touch to me. Why would he push this idea, then?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.06.2009 @ 05:31
One reason -- he's deliberately not realizing it specifically to be outraged . . . and to outrage you. Same reason Hannity seemed to not realize Obama's quote had more words to it (funny how he didn't hear them). That's dangerous.
"Well, he's only dangerously trying to manipulate people some times."
That's just not good enough.
@Lionheart:
"Nobody in the MSM is going to go after cretins like Letterman for his sexually perverted attacks on a 14 year old daughter of a politician"
Guess you don't watch Kieth Olbermann then, since he spent a good chunk of his show Wednesday going over this issue.
p.s.: You really think Letterman was talking about the 14-yead old daughter getting knocked up, and not the 18-year old daughter . . . y'know, the one that got knocked up? Really? Making fun of the pregnant daughter that's been in the news for the last 7 months seems more unlikely to you than David Letterman pushing statutory rape?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 11.06.2009 @ 00:16
Or did Hannity tell you it was the 14-year old?
WHELAN APOLOGY LEAVES QUESTIONS UNANSWERED ABOUT BLOG COMMENTERS
I post under a psuedonym for the exact opposite reason -- identity.
I have been "busboy33" for almost 2 decades now, and have never posted on any site under a different name. I consider my identity as busboy33 to be as "real" as the name on my birth certificate (fwiw, Mike Koughan). People have recognized me online from different sources . . . or to be more specific, they recognized busboy33.I know the person who runs this site as Rick Moran. If his "real" name was Rahm Emanuel, would the words he wrote suddenly mean something different? I agree with this sentence, but now that I know his "real" name the sentence is a lie?
A psuedonym is only anonymous if it doesn't represent an entity, an identity. If it does, then the name is just as "real" as any other.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.06.2009 @ 22:30
CONSERVATIVES KEEP LEARNING THE WRONG LESSONS FROM REAGAN
"This incompetence is manifested by the fact that nothing - I repeat, nothing - is getting done in Congress with all of his major initiatives either bottled up (health insurance) or dead in the water (EFCA, and TARP II). Everything that is happening in the Obama administration is the result of executive fiat. Anything that needs congressional approval is nowhere to be seen despite the fact that he has massive, overwhelming majorities in both chambers."
Aw, now be fair. It's certainly not his fault that Blues are wear-a-helmet-indoors incompetent. The Dems in the Legislative branch have the teamwork and organizational skills of chicks (the baby chickens, not the hot babes). They run around in circles (or not), randomly squeaking (or not), and whenever momma herds them back into the "group" they're off on a tear again before she even turned around. Of course everything is getting done be executive fiat -- The Legislature is Deep Blue, nothing's gonna come out of there for another 18 months at least. Heck, to me that's good leadership. Things need to be done, and the people that are supposed to do it are uselessly looking for a Prozac refill. He could try to keep herding the cats while the fires spread . . . or he could just take the damn hose and try to put the fire out.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.06.2009 @ 13:40
Now, if Congress suddenly remembers what they get that sweet health care package for and start trying to . . . y'know . . . legislate . . . and Obama doesn't step back, THEN I have a big problem. But with Reid, Feinstein and the rest of the Incompetents running the show, somebody's got to get things done.
NOTHING MUCH TO SAY ABOUT TILLER'S DEATH
@lionheart:
"Whether one agrees that the living contents of a womb is a life or not"
??? If its the "living" contents, then its alive . . . isn't it? You say you're open to the disparity of views on the topic, but the way you define the topic makes it seem like there's only one answer.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 2.06.2009 @ 17:13
THE MOST EXPENSIVE DATE NIGHT IN HISTORY
@c3:
Fair enough. As I said, I assumed you didn't use it for the "Full Monty" implications . . . otherwise you've been hiding your fanaticism pretty damn well ;)
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.06.2009 @ 13:28
@c3:
"Tokyo Rose"? Really? wow.
I'm not a Red, as you probably guessed (p.s.: I'm not Blue either). Some/most of what I hear from this and other Red sites I disagree with (same with Blue spots like FireDogLake).
But no matter how much I've disagreed with somebody here or elsewhere, I've never considered them to be an enemy agent. That would imply I am at war with other Americans. I must destroy them, bring them to their knees. I had better not listen to anything they have to say because its all propaganda lies. They are my sworn enemy, after all. Victory or death!. . . wow. I presume you meant it in a flippant way, but you might want to take a moment and think about the implications of that particular choice of descriptor.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.05.2009 @ 18:23
@Mr. M.:
"You think that kind of speculation is vulgar? Me too."
Then I am deeply sympathetic to your plight, being forced at gunpoint to expound on the topic. Well, not at gunpoint exactly, but as you said other people have discussed it, so you're almost obliged to. Poor you.
G. Gordon Liddy has been catching (I'm sure intentional) flack for his "Sotomayor menstruating" comments, so can we expect to see a post on that from you soon, prefaced with a nice "now I think this topic is inapropriate but . . . " waiver as well?
Lose the skirt, Shirley. If you're going to take the low shots, then bite the bullet and take them. Say what you will about Coulter and the rest of the screaming nut-jobs, but at least they don't waffle on their bile with "I hate to be crass and offensive, but I heard somebody else say this crass thing I'm about to repeat . . ." BS. That's a dodge and you know it. You meant to giggle like a school-girl and tweak the NutJobbers with purile questions about ObamaGasms, and you did.That kind of waffling is a politician trick -- and you're better than that. If you're going to pull the flamethrower out for a post, then just do it and accept that things get burned. Pouring propane inot the tank while saying "now I don't want anything to catch on fire" is (or should be) embarassing.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 31.05.2009 @ 16:05
