The spectacle of you two clowns, with your clownish political philosophies, your madcap understanding of current events, and your middle-schoolish analysis of geo-political strategy (my apologies to clowns and middle-schoolers everywhere) are an endless source of mirth to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the issues!
And the laughs just keep on keeping on!
Your feverish efforts to insult and denigrate the president personally, and to demean his work professionally, are as easily dismissed as the braying of beasts or the cackling of crows.
You are noise-makers, perfectly suited to the mindless hackles of Faux.
September 18, 2014 at 10:22 a.m.
It means the you low-information baggers hate the President, hope he fails, and don't give a rttts-sssss what implications that has for America as a whole, because you're a bunch of rabid anti-Obama-ites.
Pure and simple.
September 17, 2014 at 8:14 p.m.
Correction -- FauxNoise.
Get it right, please.
September 15, 2014 at 6:43 a.m.
The "irony" is that you, without irony, call their propaganda "news."
Faux is not a "news" channel; the Faux bubble has one purpose, and one purpose only -- to pander to fear and outrage. Their "coverage" of what they call news is a carefully orchestrated shell game played by a chorus of barkers interested only in attracting and holding the attention of their audience, for the purpose of raising ratings.
Outside the Faux"News" bubble, their network -- with its cartoonish indignation over imagined grievances and the sneering tone of its on-screen characters -- is a joke, scorned by anyone interested in serious discussion or analysis.
I "consider" stuff that comes from Faux all the time, but their content never survives even the most rudimentary, superficial scrutiny.
I find most annoying their propensity to repeatedly raise issues that were debunked early and often, marshaling discredited reports in support of their positions on current issues.
Ever hear of Three-Card Monte? That's what it's like trying to follow a story on Faux -- a convoluted shell-game full of twists and turns that are impossible to negotiate on any level other than "Ain't it awful?"
I tune in on a regular basis just to see what outrage-of-the-moment they're blaring.
You want "irony" steivo? The real irony is Colbert's attempt to parody (for the purpose of satire) a "news" channel which has become a caricature of itself, a ridiculous self-parody (sort of the way the "professional" wrestling parodies the sport of wrestling), and you can't really parody a parody, or caricature a caricature. It's too much. It's like putting sauce on a sauce.
Like the Department of Redundancy Department.
September 14, 2014 at 7:28 a.m.
"What do you folks do at these "upper division seminars" Discuss Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto?"
Actually, you're right -- impossible to avoid Marxist thought in, say, a course in 19th century philosophy, history, or economics.
Too bad you never took a class. With even a teensy bit of an opening in your mind, you might have learned something.
But, alas, right-wingnuts are notoriously closed-minded, paranoid, insular, and possessed of the kind of bunker mentality antithetical to the free exchange and critical examination of ideas.
(Here's a stinger for you: At my old college -- a Catholic university, by the way -- a course entitled "Marxist Thought" has been in the undergraduate catalogue for over 40 years.)
September 13, 2014 at 7:40 p.m.
HERE'S what irritates me: I go to vote, and people I've known for years tell me I need to prove my identity to them with a picture ID!
Someone tell me why? Why is that reasonable?
September 13, 2014 at 6:54 p.m.
From the people who brought you the Bush Administration's reasoning that the very fact UN weapons inspectors couldn't find WMD in Iraq showed Saddam had successfully hidden them, we get, the fact that no one can find any proof that any election has ever been affected by voter fraud shows how successful the fraudulent have been at concealing their fraud.
September 13, 2014 at 3:30 p.m.
" . . . requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it rarely happens."
September 13, 2014 at 3:18 p.m.
And, further, why do you and your ilk insist on citing rare convictions for voter fraud under current laws as evidence of the need for more restrictions?
We obviously have enough laws already, and they are sufficient to cover the rare, real instances (as opposed to imaginary ones) in which people cheat!
(Hint: it's because Republicans want to make it harder for people, especially poor people -- whom they don't believe deserve to vote anyway -- to exercise their constitutional right to vote.)
September 13, 2014 at 3:11 p.m.
A solution in search of an imaginary problem.
YOU STILL have not addressed my main point, tnmartin, regarding the fact that I can cash a check ANYWHERE I am ID'D by workers on sight (my bank, the grocery store, the BP on the corner), but poll workers who know me (and can see that I am indeed very much among the living) are obliged to see photo ID when I come to vote.
Why is that? 'Splain dat, will ya?
Does that not prove that voter ID laws are merely an elaborate game of "Gotch-ya!"?
September 13, 2014 at 3:06 p.m.