http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NEWS06/712210400/1008

'I spoke figuratively, but it's true."

Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King and then when he was called on it, he said it depends on what we mean by "saw." 

"You know, I'm an English literature major as well. When we say, 'I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't necessarily mean you were there -- excuse me, the Super Bowl. I saw my dad become president of American Motors. Did that mean you were there for the ceremony? No, it's a figure of speech."

--Willard "Mitt" Romney

I think he means like if I said, "I can see Mitt Romney telling a lie and then backtracking."  You know, I didn't literally see Romney lying or backtracking, it's a figure of speech!

I guess that makes "official endorsement," as in getting the official endorsement from the NRA, is also a "figure of speech." 

Hey, Mitt, remember the fellow who said, "It depends on what the meaning of is is."

:D

But don't you hear the resounding  mantra from those commenting on Brit Spears sister havin a young one...'she's human and we all make mistakes'...how many people were gonna vote for Mitt for sayinghis father was there.... ;)

but while pointing fingers, why is that Edwards(?) story going nowhere about some affair?huh?huh? :-X

But don't you hear the resounding  mantra from those commenting on Brit Spears sister havin a young one...'she's human and we all make mistakes'...how many people were gonna vote for Mitt for sayinghis father was there.... ;)

but while pointing fingers, why is that Edwards(?) story going nowhere about some affair?huh?huh? :-X


I like you, you go off on weird tangents all over the place. :D

  Maybe the Gov wasn't marching right beside MLK, like immediately adjacent to him, but was among the stragglers at the rear of the procession...

I like you, you go off on weird tangents all over the place. :D


tank goodness for pop culture ..I see them react one way, then when you present them with the same thinking, they say wait a minute...oh yeah,I did say that, it can't go both ways ;D ;D

tank goodness for pop culture ..I see them react one way, then when you present them with the same thinking, they say wait a minute...oh yeah,I did say that, it can't go both ways ;D ;D


  I don't mind hypocrites so long as their honest...

  Hypocrisy is manipulative lying.  It can actually put the recipient's life in danger.  It's one of the most insidious forms of evil because it exploits our trust.  It's like selling deodorised turds as donuts.  At first you're glad you bought them until you start eating them... :)

I like you, you go off on weird tangents all over the place. :D


All over the place yet no place at all.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nervous.gif

'Tis the season.  Once everybody's done disposing of xmas trees and recovering from New Years hangovers, they'll scratch their heads and say, "Now, where were we?"  In otherwords, this whopper might just blow over and Romney will get a pass.  Just don't tell anymore talltales, Mitt, next time you won't be able to shake it so easily. 

  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

After the Bush/Cheney years the bar on what constitutes a lie has risen considerably, don't you think?

But don't you hear the resounding  mantra from those commenting on Brit Spears sister havin a young one...'she's human and we all make mistakes'...how many people were gonna vote for Mitt for sayinghis father was there.... ;)

but while pointing fingers, why is that Edwards(?) story going nowhere about some affair?huh?huh? :-X


Probably nobody would vote for Mitt based on what his father did.  If we voted for presidents based on their father's accomplishments, George HW would have never been voted in due to his father's Nazi support, JFK for his father's gin running, Clinton because his father was just an all around dirtbag, etc.  It's a stupid speech point to cover the fact that Mitt has very little to boast about his own accomplishments, he's certainly not speaking out against anything or marching with anyone.  Look around, and there should be plenty of causes he could at least fake an interest in.

but pointing fingers to Edwards? c'mon.  It's not like Edwards is using his fidelity as a stump issue. Bringing it up in the same topic is like a kid breaking a cookie jar and then saying, but Suzy was in your closet yesterday.  They're unrelated events.  You should start a thread about what the media is ignoring, like Huckabee's son torturing a dog and his father firing anyone who didn't help cover it up, or Clinton's suspicious fund raising, Rudy's abuse of disaster funding to make himself a love nest in the WTC, Ron Paul's stances like anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, etc., or the fact that Denis Kucinich is even running.

but pointing fingers to Edwards? c'mon.  It's not like Edwards is using his fidelity as a stump issue. Bringing it up in the same topic is like a kid breaking a cookie jar and then saying, but Suzy was in your closet yesterday.  They're unrelated events.  You should start a thread about what the media is ignoring, like Huckabee's son torturing a dog and his father firing anyone who didn't help cover it up, or Clinton's suspicious fund raising, Rudy's abuse of disaster funding to make himself a love nest in the WTC, Ron Paul's stances like anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, etc., or the fact that Denis Kucinich is even running.




Well said

Just so that everyone knows, the main source of the John Edwards affair is the National Enquirer.  This is probably why the only people who generally take this story seriously are Ann Coulter and right wing nutjobs.

Now, if this story actually made it into a respectable news source, then you'd have something.

Just so that everyone knows, the main source of the John Edwards affair is the National Enquirer.  This is probably why the only people who generally take this story seriously are Ann Coulter and right wing nutjobs.

Now, if this story actually made it into a respectable news source, then you'd have something.

Isn't Ann Coulter in the category of right-wing nutjobs, or is she a different beast entirely?
???

  I don't mind hypocrites so long as their honest...

  Hypocrisy is manipulative lying.  It can actually put the recipient's life in danger.  It's one of the most insidious forms of evil because it exploits our trust.  It's like selling deodorised turds as donuts.  At first you're glad you bought them until you start eating them...
That's our politicians: Deodorized turds (except sometimes they skip the deodorizing part).

That's our politicians: Deodorized turds (except sometimes they skip the deodorizing part).


  Rather clever of me, eh..?

  "Football through a tire swing!  Hee hee!  It's so subtle, will they get it..?"  ::)

   Rather clever of me, eh..?

   "Football through a tire swing!  Hee hee!  It's so subtle, will they get it..?"  ::)


Now that all the TV writers on strike got jobs with the political campaigns, maybe you can work for the Daly Show!
:D

Isn't Ann Coulter in the category of right-wing nutjobs, or is she a different beast entirely?


Ann Coulter is the strongest proof we have that demons actually exist.  j/k

Ann Coulter is the strongest proof we have that demons actually exist.  j/k


"Demon" is to flattering a name.  If punditry were pornography, she'd be Max Hardcore: She's disgusting, denigrating, sadistical, and thrives on ham-fisted shock value.  Everybody claims to hate her, but her name is better known than most in the field, and her products continue to sell bigtime. 

And yes, punditry is now political pornography.

that strikes me as rather unfair to mr. hardcore, actually.

ann coulter is frightening in her own right, but also because she reflects how twisted the right wing in this country's really gotten. you wonder if she's actually trying to incite violence. she's so toxic it's unbelievable, it's completely irresponsible of the media to give her airtime. it's a betrayal on the level of making school shooters famous.

on the other hand, if we still have people who can come up with sparkling turd-to-donut metaphors, we might be okay. i'm gonna totally use that. 8)

that strikes me as rather unfair to mr. hardcore, actually.

ann coulter is frightening in her own right, but also because she reflects how twisted the right wing in this country's really gotten. you wonder if she's actually trying to incite violence. she's so toxic it's unbelievable, it's completely irresponsible of the media to give her airtime. it's a betrayal on the level of making school shooters famous.


She most certainly is trying to provoke outrage from liberals (in this case, a liberal being anybody to the left of Mussolini), and when liberals go out to her speeches screaming and crying, waving F-U placards and hurling cream pies, Sweet li'l Annie gets to go back on FOX News and play the martyr; she gets to jeer and say: "See, those liberals are ill-mannered savages who only believe in free speech if it's politically correct!" That's why I discourage activists from ad hominem protesting.  If the Republican Club invites Ann Coulter to campus and the only people who go see her are people who like Ann Coulter, her shrill tones would echo through an auditorium populated only be the 15 twits in the Republican Club, and that video clip on YouTube would get the point across better than any screaming mob of gay lesbian feminist sandal-wearing pot-smoking long-haired pagan idol-worshipping bleeding-heart big-government commie liberal peaceniks ever could!!!
:D

After the Bush/Cheney years the bar on what constitutes a lie has risen considerably, don't you think?


Don't forget the lies of Clinton and his defending Monica. And yes, Cheney was part of the Senate at the time.

Why did both the Bushes have to choose bad VP's? (Remember Quale? He can't even spell 'potato'!)

that strikes me as rather unfair to mr. hardcore, actually.

ann coulter is frightening in her own right, but also because she reflects how twisted the right wing in this country's really gotten. you wonder if she's actually trying to incite violence. she's so toxic it's unbelievable, it's completely irresponsible of the media to give her airtime. it's a betrayal on the level of making school shooters famous.

on the other hand, if we still have people who can come up with sparkling turd-to-donut metaphors, we might be okay. i'm gonna totally use that. 8)


  OMFG..! :o

She most certainly is trying to provoke outrage from liberals (in this case, a liberal being anybody to the left of Mussolini), and when liberals go out to her speeches screaming and crying, waving F-U placards and hurling cream pies, Sweet li'l Annie gets to go back on FOX News and play the martyr; she gets to jeer and say: "See, those liberals are ill-mannered savages who only believe in free speech if it's politically correct!" That's why I discourage activists from ad hominem protesting.  If the Republican Club invites Ann Coulter to campus and the only people who go see her are people who like Ann Coulter, her shrill tones would echo through an auditorium populated only be the 15 twits in the Republican Club, and that video clip on YouTube would get the point across better than any screaming mob of gay lesbian feminist sandal-wearing pot-smoking long-haired pagan idol-worshipping bleeding-heart big-government commie liberal peaceniks ever could!!!
:D



Hey! I resemble that remark!  :D ;D ;D


You do have a point. I notice that about O'Reilly, too. If you disagree with him, then you are "drinking the kool-aid" of the so-called "SP"s.  ::) ::)

As much as it angers me to see the hate these people are spewing-and yes it is HATE!!! I have to keep reminding myself of Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Unfortunately, these people take the Freedom of Speech a bit too far if you ask me. Yes, they are entitle to their opinion but to use the public media/forum for their name-calling and childish antics is just appalling. And what is worse is that they are ALLOWED to and continued to be ALLOWED to do it by the "powers that be". And if you stand up to them to tell them how disgusting they are by their tactics, then they play the victim. Even if they do apologize for the venom they hurled, it is too late but you are always going to have some lost soul who can't think for themselves to believe their lies and nastiness.

I guess their mothers never taught them that if you don't have something nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all.



Cat 

She most certainly is trying to provoke outrage from liberals (in this case, a liberal being anybody to the left of Mussolini), and when liberals go out to her speeches screaming and crying, waving F-U placards and hurling cream pies, Sweet li'l Annie gets to go back on FOX News and play the martyr; she gets to jeer and say: "See, those liberals are ill-mannered savages who only believe in free speech if it's politically correct!" That's why I discourage activists from ad hominem protesting.  If the Republican Club invites Ann Coulter to campus and the only people who go see her are people who like Ann Coulter, her shrill tones would echo through an auditorium populated only be the 15 twits in the Republican Club, and that video clip on YouTube would get the point across better than any screaming mob of gay lesbian feminist sandal-wearing pot-smoking long-haired pagan idol-worshipping bleeding-heart big-government commie liberal peaceniks ever could!!!
:D
i for one am a big fan of ignoring ann coulter, i agree, the protests give her legitimacy.

i for one am a big fan of ignoring ann coulter, i agree, the protests give her legitimacy.

Indeed, the Ann Coulters of the world are just a bunch of rodeo clowns.  Do you want to join the right-wing rodeo?  That's a lot of bull if you ask me! 

Plus if you do it to their guys, they'll do it to your guys.  They wouldn't want the campus Gestappo to come down and heckle Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, would they? 


Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.


I agree with Voltaire, so long as listening to what you have to say is not compulsory.  I agree these far-right pundits get way too much air time and media consolidation is giving the news/commentary business a terrible right-wing slant; however, there is still an option: Don't watch, don't listen. 

It's pathetic the way this sh*t gets around.  Last week the MRI company we deal with invited us to dinner on their tab.  I'm enjoying a perfectly fine free meal in a fancy restaurant and then Dr. H and the MRI rep start ranking on Al Gore, reciting all the right-wing talking points: Global warming is a fraud; Gore didn't deserve the Nobel Prize; Gore isn't comfortable in his own skin, etc.  Then the MRI rep in her Southern twang says, "Ah'm from Nayashveel, and he didn't even win his own Stayte!"  I mean Jesus Christ, I don't bring up politics in mixed company, but these clowns just assume everybody agrees with them.  I just kept gnawing at my prime rib and choked back the words I wanted to say, like how do you know Al Gore is uncomfortable in his own skin?  Are you trying to tell me the consensus of climatologists worldwide is wrong?  And let me tell you about all the dirty tricks the Republicans pulled in Tennessee--did know about those? 

It's the fallout from fifteen years of nonstop ideological warfare waged by the right-wing press while the so-called liberal New York Times nodded in agreement. 

Anyway, I'm off topic and venting again!
::)