Story Comments
Posted by: jimdoze 6 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
67%
jimdoze6 months, 1 week ago
-
65%
slate6 months, 1 week ago
-
62%
Jeboba6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WHAT? That's just plain stupid Slate. You're saying all women's rights groups are Dems? Prove it. That's the problem with you repugs. You have no ability to see a middle road on anything. It's strictly your way or the highway. Well Slate, we showed you quite a bit of the highway last year but just wait until 2010! If a viable third party can emerge, the GOP will be totally gone....AND GOOD RIDDANCE.
Reply-
75%
slate6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You never know what you are talking about Jeb. I'm pretty middle of the road on Gay and abortion issues.
Reply
Ok all you have to do is look at their silence on this matter (R) and their silence about things said about Condi (R). You really aren't going to say you can't put it all together? Surely you aren't that stupid? I'm not sure if all woman's groups are Dems, they just only go to the defense of those that are Dems and are silent when it pertains to Republicans. The same can be said about other 'rights' groups.
It's strictly their way or the highway and you know this. You coming in and acting like you aren't aware of this makes you disingenuous at best.
"the GOP will be totally gone....AND GOOD RIDDANCE." This not not only proves my point about how you think. It also proves you don't know squat about politics, remember when people were saying the DEMs were going to die a few years ago?
The third party guy from CA NADER cost Gore his election, though if Gore was such a good guy he could have won his own state and it would all be mute point. Anther election that was lost, was when the little nut third party guy took enough votes for Clinton to be in office.
As of today the third parties have little affect than to give someone a person to send a message against their own party and essentially gives their opponents the position, when they wouldn't have voted for them in the first place and they end up regretting their votes.
Now as far as a viable third party that actually has enough people supporting them I all for them, I'd love to see something besides a two party system, if that is possible.-
-
-
-
100%
Progressive6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right, slate. Facts are facts and NOW has condemned Letterman's joke at Palin's expense:
Reply
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/now_condem...
-
-
-
50%
mesodude6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Ok all you have to do is look at their silence on this matter (R) and their silence about things said about Condi (R). You really aren't going to say you can't put it all together? Surely you aren't that stupid? I'm not sure if all woman's groups are Dems, they just only go to the defense of those that are Dems and are silent when it pertains to Republicans. The same can be said about other 'rights' groups."
Reply
--Be reasonable and logical for just once, slate. The GOP is the party that blacks, women, and minorities are FLEEING. They are FLEEING because you have a reputation for being INTOLERANT. The Democrats have a reputation for being INCLUSIVE. Everyone is a little bit intolerant in one way or another but the far right of the GOP has a virtual LOCK on intolerance. That why Limbaugh is the person calling the shots in the GOP right now. Do you understand what that means, slate? Let me spell it out for you...It means CONS are the furthest thing from an authority on what qualifies as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc as any one group could possibly GET. Your party is SHRINKING because the rest of America believes you people DON'T GET IT. Is ANY of this sinking in?-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
0%
bigG6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
C'mon Slate - there is no way the Dems are as intolerant as the "my way or the highway" Reps. They may be somewhat intolerant of others' views on certain issues, but just look at the opinionated bull coming out of the likes of RL,SH, ad nauseum.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
vor6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would suggest you Google "women's conservative groups"!
Reply
Are you then suggesting what they are seeking is not women's rights but the accomodation of women in a male world?
Phyliss Schafly, Mona Charen, Laura Ingraham, Peggy Noonan, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter...the list goes on and on....I wouldn't doubt that most of the support of these women is male but surely they have some female following? Without women's rights there voices would still be suppressed,-
60%
slate6 months, 1 week ago
-
-
-
100%
Will13136 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/inde...
Reply
N O W statement.. putting Letterman in their Media Hall of Shame..-
-
-
100%
Progressive6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NOW statement:
Reply
"The sexualization of girls and women in the media is reaching new lows these days -- it is exploitative and has a negative effect on how all women and girls are perceived and how they view themselves," the group writes on its website, pointing to Letterman's jokes as an example. -
-
-
-
80%
mesodude6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you ever do any homework before posting? It's common knowledge that certain groups cons *presume* to be left wing supporters (the ACLU, for instance) have also come out in support of people across the political spectrum. NOW does not discriminate against women. If they seem to be more aligned with the left it's because cons are so often in the wrong and @ssbackwards.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
vor6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those women largely represent conservative women (at least the right swingin' kind). But you got skewed with the NOW response. Considering the list I put above none of them have ever received support from NOW that I know of...Michelle and Ann are simply victims of this liberal world. Really now, haven't they suffered enough? The rest are just tough women. Like the leaders of NOW they are battle hardened and inflexible. And they don't cling to men out of need (although Ingraham is a good lapdog for O'Reilly on occasion).
Reply
It was a bad joke and Sarah weaseled the necessary publicity and public indignation out of it. It was a first test for her media team and you would have to call it a win in her favor. But she will be exposed again if she keeps venturing out. This is not a woman capable of, or requiring of, substance. But these types of candidates often stumble out of the gate (remember Rudy?). What I saw on the campaign trail was not a candidate ready to lead anything. Expectations often overwhelm. A VP candidate can run from the press. A presidential candidate will have no such luxury.
Alaska is tiny in regard to population and has continuous revenues provided by its native oil. Sarah is currently at 54% approval as governor. Down nearly 30 points from last year, prior to the national campaign. We are a long way from '12. Because of Limbaugh, Cheney, and her other neocon supporters (they know she will make a perfect dupe) she won't be forgotten. This was free publicity and to someone like Sarah, a perfect situation. Reasonable people would say she went too far in her response but that's not to whom Sarah is appealing. -
-
-
-
50%
mesodude6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Black people, otoh, are all just one homogeneous group. That's why those on the right expect all black people to think a joke cons decide is racist--when it's ridiculing Condi Rice or Colin Powell (who cons now hate and will only bring up in the context of these alleged racist comments, btw). Those black people all think exactly alike. ;-(
Reply -
-
-
-
-
64%
slate6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because he isn't telling lies about the Republican party!
Reply
Noooooooooooooooo, because he said a stupid tasteless joke on national TV and thought it was funny and thought the world would agree because it was pointed at a Republican. There is no way he would have said this sort of crass joke about a Democrats daughter, because he knows he'd be out of his job faster than you can say hypocrite, and he also knows that once he's says sorry the Dems will say, see he said he's sorry, lt's move on, though sorry, never seemed to be quite enough for , Kramer, Imus or Trent Lot.-
75%
Jeboba6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No argument from me there. It was a stupid and tasteless joke. In fact, I wouldn't even call it a joke. It was not in the least bit funny.
Reply
Of course you forget the crass and tasteless comments made by Gingrich and other Repugs about Chelsea Clinton but that was just OK with you I'm sure.-
100%
slate6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't forget those jokes and if I were here at that time I would have voiced my opposition. Most girls and boys go through the usual 'awkward' stage, as I'm sure most here did. Another thing, i never thought of Chelsea nor her mom to be ugly. They aren't Angelina Jolie's but I've seen some ugly people in my days and those two ladies are far from what I personally think is ugly.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Will13136 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
N O W placed Letterman in their Media Hall of Shame...
Reply
http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/inde... -
64%
vor6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you recall Limbaugh's famously lame apology for his Chelsea Clinton remarks (he blamed it on a techical glitch?) or his being Imus-ed? And his joke WAS clearly directed at a child.
Reply
Yet hardly unusual that Republicans don't accept an apology. Why follow the Christian idea of forgiveness afterall? Religion is a prop to these people anyway. And of course the concept of accepting responsibility for anything gone wrong is so alien to conservatives they only apologize when their head is under a guillotine.
A great chance to then praise ex-President GW Bush for apologizing for his asinine jingoistic remarks post-9/11. Something tells me deep down inside there is a reasonably decent (although blue-blooded) man. His post election silence also speaks to this. Only, like McCain recently attempted, he sold his soul for political fortune. Surely a deal with the devil (Turd Blossom?) brought so many neocons into his midst. And there is something so very Republican about the entire idea of "soul-selling" (sic). I recently watched some excerpts from some of GW's speeches as Governor of Texas and you have to wonder whatever happened to that guy? He never seems to have arrived in Washington. -
67%
UnusualSuspect6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I think Letterman's so-called joke was in very poor taste, it's certainly not the worst since Palin hit the scene:
Reply
These were taken today from www.starcasm.com
Last September, a skit on Saturday Night Live suggested incest in the Palin family. “What about the husband?” asked a mock Times reporter. “You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska!” No outrage. Sarah Palin appeared on the show one month later in late October.
Days after the announcement of Bristol’s pregnancy, Conan O’Brien joked, “It’s true, John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, has revealed that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Palin said, ‘We should never have introduced her to John Edwards.’” Where was the outrage? Was Conan promoting infidelity with an underage girl?
From two different Tonight Shows: “Governor Palin announced over the weekend that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant. Oh, boy, you thought John Edwards was in trouble before, now he’s really done it!” AND…”All the Republicans are heaping praise on Governor Palin. Fred Thompson said, as an actor, he could see them making a movie about Sarah Palin and her family. Didn’t they already make that movie? I think it was called ‘Knocked Up!’”–Jay Leno
Craig Ferguson’s skit of “Larry King vs Levi Johnston” asks about “kinky sex” with the drapes open. Craig Ferguson’s honorary Alaska citizenship, granted by Governor Palin wasn’t rescinded.
“According to expense reports, Sarah Palin charged the state of Alaska over $21,000 for her children to travel with her on official business. In fairness to Gov. Palin, when she leaves them home alone they get pregnant.” –Seth Meyers (SNL). Sarah Palin was in a sketch with Meyers a week earlier.
October 8, 2008, Sarah Palin walked out on the ice with six year old Piper and 13 year old Willow, before the game, Conan O’Brien said, “Saturday night, Sarah Palin is going to drop the first puck at the Philadelphia Flyers’ hockey game. Then Palin will spend the rest of the game trying to keep the hockey players out of her daughter’s penalty box.”
Oh, yes he did. You get the outrage…but not a peep then. According to the new “logic”, O’Brien was advocating for some really sick stuff. -
-
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
loading ...
simonsez
Klarissa
vidman04
GLee
icono1
tanglang
zaph22
DaneL
lovemylibs
Wolfie2007
k9kssr
mollydogmaxi
fsev41
mesodude
DenCuddy
Progressive
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.