Bloggingheads Community
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Wingnuts 2011 (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6429)

bjkeefe 01-13-2011 05:22 AM
Wingnuts 2011
 
A new year, a new thread. (Last year's effort to document the atrocities and highlight the comedies finished here.)

Let's start off with a reminder, directed with no small amount of sympathy towards all those who have, on this site especially, expressed fondness for William F. Buckley, Jr. You will recall, no doubt, that one thing he received much praise for was driving out of his definition of polite society a certain group.

Guess what, though?

Quote:
The John Birch Society has signed on as an affiliate for the 38th Annual Conservative Political Action Conference, otherwise known as CPAC 2011. This will be held February 10-12, 2011, at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. Last year's appearance was the JBS's first since the early 1990s. Over the last couple of years, JBS has seen a real thirst in the electorate for solutions to overbearing and unconstitutional government.
There's that eliminationist rhetoric again!

Quote:
JBS has responded with a number of activist ...
Judges?

Quote:
... and educational tools, many of which will be displayed and given out at the JBS CPAC booth # 310 and 312. Most prominently will be tools for choosing freedom and stopping ObamaCare, including information on nullification, repealing and defunding the unconstitutional new health care law. Campus Liberty Alliance, the collegiate organizing arm of JBS, will be promoted within the booth, as will the JBS news magazine, The New American.
 CPAC link: http:www.conservative.orgcpac Campus Liberty Alliance's mission is to educate and mobilize our Country's future young leaders on faith, family, free enterprise and a free society. To activate, equip and send young leaders into the marketplace of ideas to recapture and proclaim the virtues of liberty. As the youth affiliate of The John Birch Society we are in accordance with their mission to bring about less government, more responsibility and - with God's help - a better world ...
Sops about a "free society" notwithstanding, since we all know what they mean by that, change "with God's help" to "if it is the will of Allah" and see if you can tell the difference.

(h/t: The House of Substance)

bjkeefe 01-14-2011 03:05 AM
“educating students the truth about America.”
 
Demanding Tennessee teabaggers!

Quote:
The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”
Alex Pareene, who passed along the above, also points out a headline concerning North Carolina teabaggers:

Quote:
Republican school board in N.C. backed by tea party abolishes integration policy
All of this is totally not racist!!!1!

bjkeefe 01-15-2011 02:21 AM
Move over, Augean Stables!
 
Politifact is going to start fact-checking Malkkkin?

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2...actchecked.jpg

Oh, and hey, look at that: Bloggingheads are everywhere! (No, wait. Actually looks like a different one.)

Anyway, LOL @ John Cole's reaction and h/t to Instaputz.

Ocean 01-15-2011 10:15 AM
Re: Move over, Augean Stables!
 
I wonder whether there should be an independent research organization conducting fact checking for various media sources and see how that pans out across the political spectrum. I like the TRUTH-O-METER idea a lot.

bjkeefe 01-15-2011 05:55 PM
Re: Move over, Augean Stables!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 194793)
I wonder whether there should be an independent research organization conducting fact checking for various media sources and see how that pans out across the political spectrum. I like the TRUTH-O-METER idea a lot.
There are several highly regarded fact-checking groups out there. Politifact is one, FactCheck.org and FAIR are two others. I think highly of Media Matters, as well, which gets us into the another aspect of your comments.

How do we define independent? I'll grant that Media Matters focuses on the conservative media, so by that, it can reasonably be labeled a liberal outfit, so if by "independent" you meaning "striving to be non-partisan" and/or "covering the full spectrum of the media," they might not be what you're looking for. I would point out, though, that no matter how non-partisan any fact-checking group tries to be, those getting fact-checked, and their fans, are inclined to howl about bias. FactCheck.org, for example, is "liberal" in the minds of the wingnutosphere due in large part to their lengthy anti-Birther presentations.

A second aspect of independence concerns funding, and here again, you're always going to find some people casting aspersions on any outfit, due to the real or supposed goals of the principle funders.

Ocean 01-15-2011 06:13 PM
Re: Move over, Augean Stables!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 194852)
There are several highly regarded fact-checking groups out there. Politifact is one, FactCheck.org and FAIR are two others. I think highly of Media Matters, as well, which gets us into the another aspect of your comments.

How do we define independent? I'll grant that Media Matters focuses on the conservative media, so by that, it can reasonably be labeled a liberal outfit, so if by "independent" you meaning "striving to be non-partisan" and/or "covering the full spectrum of the media," they might not be what you're looking for. I would point out, though, that no matter how non-partisan any fact-checking group tries to be, those getting fact-checked, and their fans, are inclined to howl about bias. FactCheck.org, for example, is "liberal" in the minds of the wingnutosphere due in large part to their lengthy anti-Birther presentations.

A second aspect of independence concerns funding, and here again, you're always going to find some people casting aspersions on any outfit, due to the real or supposed goals of the principle funders.
Yes, I can see that there may be a tendency to fact check only the other side, so to speak. That's why I was mentioning an independent, meaning neutral organization that could sample typical media outlets and publish the findings. I don't know why lying is so well tolerated. Mistakes call for tightening up internal correction mechanisms, but when convenient inaccuracies keep accumulating, one has to question integrity. Expecting media to have some sort of ethics code shouldn't be beyond the reasonable. Sometimes we get so used to something being wrong that we forget what the right expectations should be.

bjkeefe 01-15-2011 06:51 PM
Re: Move over, Augean Stables!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 194853)
Yes, I can see that there may be a tendency to fact check only the other side, so to speak. That's why I was mentioning an independent, meaning neutral organization that could sample typical media outlets and publish the findings.
I'd say Politifact, FactCheck, and FAIR meet that description as well as can be asked, subject only to resource limits.

Quote:
I don't know why lying is so well tolerated. Mistakes call for tightening up internal correction mechanisms, but when convenient inaccuracies keep accumulating, one has to question integrity. Expecting media to have some sort of ethics code shouldn't be beyond the reasonable. Sometimes we get so used to something being wrong that we forget what the right expectations should be.
Agreed, at least in theory. I'd say a few things about the difficulties in reality, though. First, in any specific case, there is the problem of comparative speeds. Second, there is a surprisingly large appetite among humans for stories that reinforce beliefs, where the facts are considered pliable or even disposable servants, rather than things to be cherished. Third, there is a surprisingly large distaste among humans for uncomfortable truths. Fourth, the previous two problems are exacerbated by the media fragmentation phenomenon enabled by the Internet. Fifth, and this has always been the case, for all cases except for the most simple, it's very hard to achieve unanimity on what would could objective description of a given event. There is always perspective at play, and it also seems that the more skewed one's perspective, the more that person is convinced others are distorting matters.

Therefore, I don't think it's ever going to be possible for us all to agree on what would constitute ethical reporting, or who can be called a trustworthy provider of information, which means in turn that no one outfit, or even small number of outfits, is going to be able to serve as an arbiter that we'll all agree upon. The best we can hope for is that reputations will be built, or torn down, and we have to accept that it will always take time, and always be a process, rather than something that can be completed.

We can also hope that as many people as possible pitch in to help. Even if most of their motivations will be at least somewhat colored by ideology, there ought to be an averaging-out towards a useful conclusion on any given issue, and on any given media outlet. And here, I think we're already doing pretty well -- there are countless people out there who do at least some fact-checking and BS-calling, and of course, we have a service that helps us find them easily. But again, I don't think we'll ever get to a place where we have universal agreement about any specific item or event, nor will we get to a point where any given media outfit is universally considered reliable.

I guess I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but that's the way I see it.

Ocean 01-15-2011 07:08 PM
Re: Move over, Augean Stables!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 194858)
I'd say Politifact, FactCheck, and FAIR meet that description as well as can be asked, subject only to resource limits.

Agreed, at least in theory. I'd say a few things about the difficulties in reality, though. First, in any specific case, there is the problem of comparative speeds. Second, there is a surprisingly large appetite among humans for stories that reinforce beliefs, where the facts are considered pliable or even disposable servants, rather than things to be cherished. Third, there is a surprisingly large distaste among humans for uncomfortable truths. Fourth, the previous two problems are exacerbated by the media fragmentation phenomenon enabled by the Internet. Fifth, and this has always been the case, for all cases except for the most simple, it's very hard to achieve unanimity on what would could objective description of a given event. There is always perspective at play, and it also seems that the more skewed one's perspective, the more that person is convinced others are distorting matters.

Therefore, I don't think it's ever going to be possible for us all to agree on what would constitute ethical reporting, or who can be called a trustworthy provider of information, which means in turn that no one outfit, or even small number of outfits, is going to be able to serve as an arbiter that we'll all agree upon. The best we can hope for is that reputations will be built, or torn down, and we have to accept that it will always take time, and always be a process, rather than something that can be completed.

We can also hope that as many people as possible pitch in to help. Even if most of their motivations will be at least somewhat colored by ideology, there ought to be an averaging-out towards a useful conclusion on any given issue, and on any given media outlet. And here, I think we're already doing pretty well -- there are countless people out there who do at least some fact-checking and BS-calling, and of course, we have a service that helps us find them easily. But again, I don't think we'll ever get to a place where we have universal agreement about any specific item or event, nor will we get to a point where any given media outfit is universally considered reliable.

I guess I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but that's the way I see it.
I wasn't suggesting absolute accuracy as a possible goal. I guess I'm expressing my wishful thinking to move the control lever closer to Truth and farther away from BS and perhaps set better standards of the expectations for honest reporting. You provided a realistic perspective of the existent limitations. Thanks.

bjkeefe 01-15-2011 11:26 PM
Re: Move over, Augean Stables!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 194860)
I wasn't suggesting absolute accuracy as a possible goal. I guess I'm expressing my wishful thinking to move the control lever closer to Truth and farther away from BS and perhaps set better standards of the expectations for honest reporting. You provided a realistic perspective of the existent limitations. Thanks.
You're welcome. And I encourage you to continue laying out a description of what a better world would look like, even if you're beset by nudges like me who bustle in to explain why such a thing is not possible. We won't make progress without some goals to aim for.

bjkeefe 01-17-2011 06:37 AM
History's Greatest Monster!!!1!
 
In this week's wingnut wrap-up, Roy Edroso tries "to get some perspective on the continuing Tucson disaster by focusing on one of its small but telling epiphenomena: The wildly increased rightwing rage at Paul Krugman."

Intro here, full column here.

bjkeefe 01-18-2011 12:29 AM
Happy MLK Day!
 
And good news: libruls are still the reel rasicts!!!1!

bjkeefe 01-21-2011 12:36 AM
None dare call it ...
 
... a cult.

Way to carry the water, Chunky Jonah. Keep hype alive!

chiwhisoxx 01-21-2011 01:41 AM
Re: None dare call it ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 195465)
... a cult.

Way to carry the water, Chunky Jonah. Keep hype alive!
What do you call a gay dinosaur? A Megasoras!

bjkeefe 01-21-2011 06:12 AM
There is no bottom to the wingnut derangement concerning Those People
 
Hateway Pundit claims: "Michelle Obama’s 'Get Up & Get Moving' Program Linked to Increase in Pedestrian Deaths."

To decorate his post, he has a picture of the First Lady jumping rope. And he gives an image credit, for once. Right under the picture. Probably had nothing to do with the name of the source.

Quote:
The First Lady jumping. (African Sun Times)
Of course Jim Hoft's whole post is made of idiocy. And of course Tucker Carlson reported the same nonsense.

bjkeefe 01-24-2011 02:56 AM
Wingnuts Hear a Hu
 
Quote:
Obama Hosts Chinese Leader (Or, Translated Into Rightblogger: Obama Sells Out America to Communists, Pianist)
Roy Edroso's latest review of What They're Yelling About This Week is up. Intro here, full column here.

Among other items of interest: What we politely call the flow of Ann Althouse's thoughts appear to have fully aligned with those of Jim "Hateway Pundit" Hoft. Don't cross the streams!

bjkeefe 01-25-2011 05:27 PM
So much for that rebranding effort
 
Remember how we kept being assured (especially by their fans and Astroturf leaders) how the teabaggers were all about fiscal issues, and didn't care about those back-assward, Jeebus-praisin', civil-rights-denying views? How that was the "old Republican base" and this is the new?

Goodbye to all that:

Quote:
House Republicans will try to ban gay marriage in Washington, D.C.

bjkeefe 01-26-2011 05:35 AM
Dennis Prager/NRO tries to amp up the pre-SOTU OUTRAGE!!!1!
 
Amazing the swill these people try to feed the base. Didn't take more than five minutes to expose his latest lie.

So far, no retraction from Prager. Somehow, I am not surprised.

bjkeefe 02-04-2011 04:43 PM
Belay that "Megadittoes!"
 
Headline probably tells you all you need to know:

Quote:
Limbaugh Jokes About Detention of NYT Journalists, Until He Learns Fox 'News' Reporters Hospitalized
The Brad Blog (via) has the details, if you want them.

TwinSwords 02-04-2011 06:37 PM
Re: Belay that "Megadittoes!"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 197106)
Headline probably tells you all you need to know:



The Brad Blog (via) has the details, if you want them.
Ann Althouse's hero.

bjkeefe 02-04-2011 10:25 PM
Reverse boycotts, for freedom!
 
Michelle Malkkkin says you must eat every meal at Chick-Fil-Uh (except on Sundays, of course), or you hate America and want to gay-marry the terrorists.

bjkeefe 02-06-2011 02:26 AM
Travels with Georgie?
 
Not so much, it appears.


http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6...tbillboard.jpg
How can we miss him, when he'll never leave?

Quote:
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.

Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12 in Geneva. But pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.

Criminal complaints against Bush alleging torture have been lodged in Geneva, court officials say.

[...]

"He's avoiding the handcuffs," Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.

[...]

Brody is an American-trained lawyer specialized in pursuing war crimes worldwide, especially those allegedly ordered by former leaders, including Chile's late dictator Augusto Pinochet and Chad's ousted president Hissene Habre. Habre has been charged by Belgium with crimes against humanity and torture, and is currently exiled in Senegal.

"President Bush has admitted he ordered waterboarding which everyone considers to be a form of torture under international law. Under the Convention against Torture, authorities would have been obliged to open an investigation and either prosecute or extradite George Bush," Brody said.
There's more.

(h/t: @Mrxk and @pwire | pic. source)

bjkeefe 02-07-2011 01:21 AM
Journamalism!!!1!
 
Not that we didn't already think Jennifer Rubin was a hack, but this is just inexcusable.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7...niferrubin.jpg
"I see no problem."

bjkeefe 02-07-2011 06:49 PM
Time for your weekly wrap-up from Roy!
 
Headline:

Quote:
Rightbloggers Celebrate Reagan's 100th Birthday; Attack His Son, Ron Jr.; Cheer His Daughter, Sarah Palin
Intro here, full column here.

Oh, and intro to the intro here.

bjkeefe 02-09-2011 02:19 AM
"Tea Party History Lesson"
 
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/398...torylesson.jpg

The lesson continues here.

bjkeefe 02-10-2011 07:37 AM
But how do the wingnuts feel about AOL-HuffPo?
 
Rule 1: Never miss an opportunity to play the fear and victimization cards.

Quote:
Quote:
Florida Republican Rep. Allen West said Tuesday that AOL's purchase of the Huffington Post is a threat to tea party groups' online presence.

West suggested that the business deal gives the left-leaning site more control over federal regulations of the Internet.

"You look out there, you see that AOL has purchased the Huffington Post. Now all of a sudden a very far left liberal blogger such as Arianna Huffington has a huge influence in the Internet world," he said.

"We cannot allow ourselves to be suppressed. We cannot allow them to take over the Internet," he said, as audience members nodded vigorously and started clapping.
(source: Roger Ailes)

bjkeefe 02-15-2011 03:52 AM
CPAC 2011 Round-Up
 
From Roy Edroso. Intro here, full column here. If you sometimes skip the intro to get to the full column: don't, especially this time.

Bonus: "The 25 'Best' Quotes of CPAC 2011."

Congrats to Roy for making it into Esquire.

stephanie 02-17-2011 06:59 PM
Re: Wingnuts 2011
 
Not sure what thread this fits in, but I thought it (from The Crooked Timber) was interesting. Shoo me to a better thread, if you like.

Shibboleths

Quote:
A recent report on a poll finding that a majority of Republicans (that is, likely primary voters) are “birthers”, with only 28 per cent confident that Obama was born in the United States has raised, not for the first time, the question “how can they think that?” and “do they really believe that?”.

Such questions are the domain of agnotology, the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt....

...birtherism is a shibboleth, that is, an affirmation that marks the speaker as a member of their community or tribe. (The original shibboleth was a password chosen by the Gileadites because their Ephraimite enemies could not say “Sh”.) Asserting a belief that would be too absurd to countenance for anyone outside a given tribal/ideological group makes for a good political shibboleth.... [B]eliefs of this kind are a marker for partisanship, as witness the high correlation between stated birtherist beliefs and approval of Palin. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the statement isn’t actually believed. Rather this is an open question and an important one for agnotological understanding of the emergence of comprehensive culturally induced ignorance as a marker for the Republican tribe....

bjkeefe 02-17-2011 07:26 PM
Re: Wingnuts 2011
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198190)
Not sure what thread this fits in, but I thought it (from The Crooked Timber) was interesting. Shoo me to a better thread, if you like.

Shibboleths

Quote:
A recent report on a poll finding that a majority of Republicans (that is, likely primary voters) are “birthers”, with only 28 per cent confident that Obama was born in the United States has raised, not for the first time, the question “how can they think that?” and “do they really believe that?”.

Such questions are the domain of agnotology, the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt....

...birtherism is a shibboleth, that is, an affirmation that marks the speaker as a member of their community or tribe. (The original shibboleth was a password chosen by the Gileadites because their Ephraimite enemies could not say “Sh”.) Asserting a belief that would be too absurd to countenance for anyone outside a given tribal/ideological group makes for a good political shibboleth.... [B]eliefs of this kind are a marker for partisanship, as witness the high correlation between stated birtherist beliefs and approval of Palin. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the statement isn’t actually believed. Rather this is an open question and an important one for agnotological understanding of the emergence of comprehensive culturally induced ignorance as a marker for the Republican tribe....
It fits well here.

I'd say that it also could be posted in one or more of the Egypt-related diavlog threads, in response to the various commenters who have regurgitated with smug trepidation that survey result to the effect of "82% of Egyptians believe anyone who changes religions should be killed!!!1!"

[Added] Interesting to see how the ayatollahs of the GOP, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, are doing their bit to keep birtherism alive.

chiwhisoxx 02-17-2011 10:00 PM
Re: Wingnuts 2011
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 198190)
Not sure what thread this fits in, but I thought it (from The Crooked Timber) was interesting. Shoo me to a better thread, if you like.

Shibboleths
Pick any of em, really, they're all upgrades :)

bjkeefe 02-20-2011 08:21 AM
Golf claps for Michael Medved
 
Considering the source, this is pretty impressive:

Quote:
Obama Isn't Trying to 'Weaken America'

[...]

In short, the White House record of more than 200 years shows plenty of bad decisions but no bad men. For all their foibles, every president attempted to rise to the challenges of leadership and never displayed disloyal or treasonous intent.

This history makes some of the current charges about Barack Obama especially distasteful—and destructive to the conservative cause.

One typical column appeared on Feb. 5 at the well-regarded American Thinker website, under the heading: "Obama Well Knows What Chaos He Has Unleashed." Victor Sharpe solemnly declares: "My fear is that Obama is not naïve at all, but he instead knows only too well what he is doing, for he is eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world while diminishing the West."

These attitudes thrive well beyond the blogosphere and the right-wing fringe. On Jan. 7, Sarah Palin spoke briefly on Laura Ingraham's radio show, saying, "What I believe that Obama is doing right now—he is hell-bent on weakening America." While acknowledging that "it's gonna get some people all wee-weed up again," she repeated and amplified her charge that "what Obama is doing" is "purposefully weakening America—because he understood that debt weakened America, domestically and internationally, and yet now he supports increasing debt."

The assumption that the president intends to harm or destroy the nation that elected him has become so widespread that the chief advertising pitch for Dinesh D'Souza's best-selling book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," promises to "reveal Obama for who he really is: a man driven by the anti-colonial ideology of his father and the first American president to actually seek to reduce America's strength, influence and standard of living."

None of the attacks on Mr. Obama's intentions offers an even vaguely plausible explanation of how the evil genius, once he has ruined our "strength, influence and standard of living," hopes to get himself re-elected. In a sense, the president's most paranoid critics pay him a perverse compliment in maintaining that his idealism burns with such pure, all-consuming heat that he remains blissfully unconcerned with minor matters like his electoral future. They label Mr. Obama as the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so overcome with hatred (or "rage") that he's perfectly willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.

On his radio show last July 2, the most influential conservative commentator of them all reaffirmed his frequent charge that the president seeks economic suffering "on purpose." Rush Limbaugh explained: "I think we face something we've never faced before in the country—and that is, we're now governed by people who do not like the country." In his view, this hostility to the United States relates to a grudge connected to Mr. Obama's black identity. "There's no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily."

Regardless of the questionable pop psychology of this analysis, as a political strategy it qualifies as almost perfectly imbecilic. Republicans already face a formidable challenge in convincing a closely divided electorate that the president pursues wrong-headed policies. They will never succeed in arguing that those initiatives have been cunningly and purposefully designed to wound the republic. In Mr. Obama's case, it's particularly unhelpful to focus on alleged bad intentions and rotten character when every survey shows more favorable views of his personality than his policies.

Moreover, the current insistence in seeing every misstep or setback by the Obama administration as part of a diabolical master plan for national destruction disregards the powerful reverence for the White House that's been part of our national character for two centuries.
(h/t: Frank Rich)

bjkeefe 02-24-2011 04:38 PM
Breaking: Obama has yet another father!
 
According to Jack Cashill (best known on this board as 'fur and look's favorite author), it can now be revealed that our president was sired not by Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X, but by ...

... Jimi Hendrix!!!1!

The evidence?

Quote:
Quote:
In 1960, a fellow named “Johnny” was making his reputation in Seattle’s club scene as a left-handed guitarist with a local band known as the Rocking Kings. Two days older than Ann, this tall, thin young black man was not at all abashed about dating white women [...]

Of course, as you may have guessed, Johnny decided to use the stage name “Jimi” and changed the spelling of his last name from “Hendricks” to “Hendrix.” In a further Paul-is-dead kind of twist, Obama cites as his personal marker for 1967 the fact that “Jimi Hendrix performed at Monterey” [...]

And, of course, Obama, like Hendrix, is left-handed.
Case closed.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3...dfatherjpg.jpg

Ocean 02-24-2011 07:29 PM
Re: Breaking: Obama has yet another father!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 198943)
According to Jack Cashill (best known on this board as 'fur and look's favorite author), it can now be revealed that our president was sired not by Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X, but by ...

... Jimi Hendrix!!!1!

The evidence?



Case closed.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/3...dfatherjpg.jpg
That would be awesome. Does Obama play electric guitar?

bjkeefe 02-24-2011 07:45 PM
Re: Breaking: Obama has yet another father!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 198966)
That would be awesome. Does Obama play electric guitar?
Secretly. Very secretly.

bjkeefe 02-28-2011 07:50 PM
"This tape is Ailes' blue dress."
 
Rumors are swirling that FoxNews boss Roger Ailes may be indicted.

It is fun to dream for a few minutes, isn't it?

B'head David Corn has a good post summarizing the backstory. And remember:

Quote:
Fox News, founded in 1996, went to town during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment crusade. That saga made Ailes' network. I doubt anyone kept track, but there must have been at least 17 million occasions when a Fox host or guest said that lying about sex in a legal proceeding (to prevent political embarrassment) was a high crime deserving impeachment -- or worse.
(h/t: DougJ and Barry Ritholtz)

bjkeefe 03-01-2011 02:29 PM
Re: Wingnuts 2011
 
Did you know this?

Quote:
Quote:
... the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
If George Will says it, it must be true!

(h/t: Atrios)

bjkeefe 03-04-2011 07:24 PM
I'd hate to think what it'd be like if we ...
 
... let those Muslims in, with all of their backward notions.

Quote:
Student basketball star suspended for pre-marital sex

A university in the US state of Utah has suspended a star basketball player for having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend in violation of the school's strict "honour code".
The best part about it?

BYU's team name is ... the Cougars.

(h/t: @OpheliaBenson)

Ocean 03-04-2011 07:27 PM
Re: I'd hate to think what it'd be like if we ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 199875)
... let those Muslims in, with all of their backward notions.



The best part about it?

BYU's team name is ... the Cougars.

(h/t: @OpheliaBenson)
How old was the girlfriend?

bjkeefe 03-04-2011 07:33 PM
Re: I'd hate to think what it'd be like if we ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 199877)
How old was the girlfriend?
Don't ask don't tell!

Which raises the more serious question: how did they find this out?

Ocean 03-04-2011 07:39 PM
Re: I'd hate to think what it'd be like if we ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 199879)
Don't ask don't tell!

Which raises the more serious question: how did they find this out?
After reading the article carefully I suspect he was spotted with his girlfriend in Starbucks sipping coffee in a very relaxed state of mind. Double trouble!

graz 03-04-2011 07:41 PM
Re: I'd hate to think what it'd be like if we ...
 
The girlfriend is pregnant.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.