Jacket, No Tie [Archive]

Northgate

12-12-2006, 03:47 PM

dmz

12-12-2006, 04:33 PM

Dammit Northgate! -all this time I was having visions of Ahmadinejad, headphones on, belting out Mandy in broken Farsi.

Now you've ruined it for me, you jerk.

midwinter

12-12-2006, 04:52 PM

Why can't they focus on the issues?

Argh.

Because Democrats suck and it is the job of the news media to remind people that the Democrats are always on the verge or losing elections—even when they have not announced a run—to the swarthy Republigods!

What Barack "Hussein" Obama needs to do is show up on CNN and tell these clowns to knock that shit the fuck off.

dmz

12-12-2006, 05:06 PM

Because Democrats suck and it is the job of the news media to remind people that the Democrats are always on the verge or losing elections—even when they have not announced a run—to the swarthy Republigods!

What Barack "Hussein" Obama needs to do is show up on CNN and tell these clowns to knock that shit the fuck off.
Actually if you are a Republican, you wear anything you want, true, you just can't have a low resting pulse rate. (it automatically means you don't care about the country)

...feces, indeed.

Placebo

12-12-2006, 05:47 PM

I always thought it looked pretty sharp.

addabox

12-12-2006, 06:24 PM

Actually if you are a Republican, you wear anything you want, true, you just can't have a low resting pulse rate. (it automatically means you don't care about the country)

...feces, indeed.

What? You mean Republicans don't dare appear calm and collected or risk being perceived as indifferent?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

dmz

12-12-2006, 06:51 PM

What? You mean Republicans don't dare appear calm and collected or risk being perceived as indifferent?

That makes no sense whatsoever.
The jokes aren't funny when I have to explain* them!

*(Bush's low resting heartrate a year or so ago caused open speculation that he wasn't taking his job seriously.)

midwinter

12-12-2006, 07:42 PM

*(Bush's low resting heartrate a year or so ago caused open speculation that he wasn't taking his job seriously.)

Really? I don't remember that discussion.

addabox

12-12-2006, 08:27 PM

Really? I don't remember that discussion.

I wonder if it was one of those "stuff the liberal media is making a big deal about" that was only a big deal amongst people who think there is a liberal media.

midwinter

12-12-2006, 09:00 PM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2006-12-12_CNN_Obama_Osama.jpg

CNN is totally liberal.

dmz

12-12-2006, 09:04 PM

Really? I don't remember that discussion.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/08/bush_should_sto.php

I think there was also some cackling with the NPR crowd, Daniel Shore running his mouth, something along those lines. It did make the rounds.

midwinter

12-12-2006, 09:41 PM

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/08/bush_should_sto.php

I think there was also some cackling with the NPR crowd, Daniel Shore running his mouth, something along those lines. It did make the rounds.

Oh, I don't doubt that someone said it. I just didn't hear it. Not even the cackling on NPR, which I listen to mornings and evenings.

Northgate

12-12-2006, 10:11 PM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2006-12-12_CNN_Obama_Osama.jpg

CNN is totally liberal.

And if Obama runs you can expect TWO YEARS of this.

addabox

12-12-2006, 10:19 PM

Actually, I'm pretty sure the story will be that the fundies figure him for the anti-christ. It's already started, you know: preternaturally calm smoothie who "claims" to speak to faith, seems to be a real charmer (alert! alert!), shows up right now, you know, when all the signs are in ascendancy....

I know it sounds like a joke but I'm pretty sure this is going to become one of those "stories" wherein the story is the story-- that "a surprising number of Americans" have "real concerns".

SDW2001

12-13-2006, 05:31 PM

I figured everyone here should know this all important information...

Our illustrious and always fair and balanced MSM (mainstream media) has decided (via the always enlightened Jeff Greenfield) that if you sport a dress Jacket and nice shirt with no tie...you are now wearing the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look.

That's right. You're not young and hip. Nope. You're not appearing like the average Tech Executive. Nope. You're not emulating GQ. Nope.

You're a fucking terrorist loving sympathizer with the axis of evil.

Now it should also be noted that if you're a REPUBLICAN candidate running for President you can wear pretty much anything you want.

If you're a DEMOCRAT running for President you need to avoid earth toned...well...just don't run because they're gonna make fun of your regardless of what you wear.

Well, I agree that no one should be comparing him to Ahmadinejad based on what he's wearing. That said, in the land of political reality, his middle name will hurt him. It shouldn't, but it's just the way things are.

Your last point about Democrats being attacked but not Republicans...well that's just stupid. This is the very first piece of MSM negativity that I have heard about Obama. He's on the MSM Honeymoon Cruise right now. Beyond that, it consistently amazes me that you cannot see or admit...not to save your own life...that majority of the MSM is stupendously liberal. Worse, you actually think the notion of MSM liberal bias is not just false, but totally absurd. This flies in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, both statistical and anecdotal. But that's you, I guess.

midwinter

12-13-2006, 05:38 PM

And it's even on sale (http://www.amazon.com/What-Liberal-Media-Truth-About/dp/B0009K762G/sr=8-1/qid=1166049467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9071668-9165641?ie=UTF8&s=books). Extensively documented. You should read it.

SDW2001

12-13-2006, 06:17 PM

Go ahead...have some fun, guys. But you both know I'm right.

midwinter

12-13-2006, 06:20 PM

Go ahead...have some fun, guys. But you both know I'm right.

Hey, SDW! I found a picture of you!

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/corbis/DGT231/CB055846.jpg

Seriously. You should read Alterman's book.

addabox

12-13-2006, 06:21 PM

Go ahead...have some fun, guys. But you both know I'm right.

What is it with you and "and you know it" lately? Seems like you can't get through a post without declaring that someone actually knows what you think is true and (I guess) is just insisting on their little lie to be difficult.

It's actually kinda irritating, at this point.

midwinter

12-13-2006, 06:23 PM

It's actually kinda irritating, at this point.

It is not. It's a powerful mode of argument and you know it.

addabox

12-13-2006, 06:25 PM

It is not. It's a powerful mode of argument and you know it.

Oh, wait...... weird. I do know it. Wait...... nope, gone again.

dmz

12-13-2006, 06:32 PM

I think you Lovely lefties are just honked becuase now you know CNN will be pulling for Hillary.

midwinter

12-13-2006, 06:36 PM

Yeah. CNN is totally liberal (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610080004).

dmz

12-13-2006, 06:39 PM

Yeah. CNN is totally liberal (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610080004).
I think you meant to type "Wolf Blitzer has been known to be more balanced than Dan Rather." :p

Who watches "news shows" for their news, anyway?

addabox

12-13-2006, 07:34 PM

OK, new rules:

SDW, stop using "and you know it".

DMZ, stop putting 15 lines of blank space before your "punch lines".

dmz

12-13-2006, 07:45 PM

Make me, you wiener*.

*sorry, just watched The Abyss the other night.

midwinter

12-13-2006, 08:00 PM

*sorry, just watched The Abyss the other night.

That's next in my queue of grading movies after I finish The Chronicles Of Riddick.

addabox

12-13-2006, 09:54 PM

James Cameron movies: my secret shame. I don't mean just the early, nerd canonical ones. All of them. Yes, that means exactly what you think it does. I am a woman.

Flounder

12-13-2006, 11:06 PM

My heart will go on, addabox.............

SDW2001

12-14-2006, 02:38 PM

Hey, SDW! I found a picture of you!

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/corbis/DGT231/CB055846.jpg

Seriously. You should read Alterman's book.

Now if that's not original then

.....oh wait. Nevermind.

SDW2001

12-14-2006, 02:39 PM

Yeah. CNN is totally liberal (http://mediamatters.org/items/200610080004).

oooooh! Media Matters! :lol:

midwinter

12-14-2006, 02:52 PM

oooooh! Media Matters! :lol:

Oh my god, you really are Bill O'Reilly.

Northgate

12-14-2006, 05:12 PM

Didn't you know. Actual factual data is not "really" factual data if you have a bone to pick with the source.

addabox

12-14-2006, 07:59 PM

I've never understood the right's vehemence about "Media Matters". Every time I look at it it is simply pointing out an instance of a falsehood being promulgated in the "liberal media".

They site the falsehood, provide links to the facts, and provide transcripts and video of the incident.

Maybe it bugs conservatives to have their misstatements pointed out, but the idea that Media Matters is some kind of rabid partisan smear site that's spreading lies (ala O'Reilly) is mystifying to me.

For instance, I just popped over there. The three lead stories are:

The false reports by Hume, Borger and Cabuto that SD senator Johnson would have to be replaced if incapacitated. This is flatly false.

An article wondering why the media hasn't been more curious about the background of McCain's announced campaign manager. Partisan, sure, but it's not like they're making anything up.

Finally, a piece on Norah O'Donnel's interview with Laura Bush wherein Mrs. Bush asserted that "the media" aren't telling about the "good news" in Iraq. Instead of behaving like a journalist and pointing out that pretty much nobody thinks there is much of anything "good" going on in Iraq at this point, from her husband on down, O'Donnel invited Mrs. Bush to point out some of those good things, and let those stand without comment. Kind of like when you interview someone about a roaring house fire and they announce that such a fire has its upside, and you say "oh yeah? Tell us about that". And when they explain that it cuts heating costs, you smile and thank them.

Gee, those bastards. Do they have no shame?

midwinter

12-14-2006, 08:07 PM

Adda,

I think a large part of it is simply that MMfA serves kind of the same function as the conservative talk radio--especially the good ones like Limbaugh. I mean, that's a HUGE chunk of what he does: play a clip of a liberal saying something stupid and then tear it apart.

But MMfA calls into question that central piece of mythology that the media is "liberal," and that's threatening.

I'll never forget the "debate" between Krugman and O'Reilly. When O'Reilly found out that Krugman was using MMfA for his research, O'Reilly went ballistic, absurdly shouting "Do your own research!" as if plowing through lexis-nexis would be any different that using MMfA.

lunocrat

12-14-2006, 08:27 PM

The only difference between a schmiberal and schmuckservative is the way they eat corn on the cob. As for the MsM, well, that would be two topics in one paragraph.

Placebo

12-14-2006, 08:40 PM

Now if that's not original then

.....oh wait. Nevermind.
Nice repartee.

Gilsch

12-14-2006, 11:28 PM

Didn't you know. Actual factual data is not "really" factual data if you have a bone to pick with the source. Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.

And hey guys, leave falafel boy out of this. Have to give it to the guys carrying those gigantic buckets of water. Stamina! Maybe from a falafel rich diet?

SDW2001

12-15-2006, 11:55 AM

Oh my god, you really are Bill O'Reilly.

Well, in the sense that I think Media Matters is itself a biased piece of trash, yes.

SDW2001

12-15-2006, 11:57 AM

Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.

And hey guys, leave falafel boy out of this. Have to give it to the guys carrying those gigantic buckets of water. Stamina! Maybe from a falafel rich diet?

Sometimes it's factual data completely out of context, though...so much so that the meaning of it is obliterated.

addabox

12-15-2006, 01:38 PM

Well, in the sense that I think Media Matters is itself a biased piece of trash, yes.

In what sense is it "trash"? Because it's partisan? If that's the criteria for "trash", you just lost most of your sources, no?

I think it's kinda great that you, a fan of any sleazy oppo research that works its way up the food chain from right wing blogs to Drudge to Fox to the Washington Post, would call Media Matters, which as I pointed out earlier has a pretty dry tone and very straightforward documentation of its critiques, "trash".

Maybe you could show a story on Media Matters and explain why it's "trashy"?

addabox

12-15-2006, 01:53 PM

Sometimes it's factual data completely out of context, though...so much so that the meaning of it is obliterated.

So when a pundit on the "liberal" media says something that is flatly untrue, I need the "context'? Or when a pundit on the "liberal" media says something randomly libelous about a figure on the left, I need "context"?

For instance, right now on Media Matters there's a piece about Glenn Beck (on the, you know, "liberal equivalent to Fox") wondering why Jimmy Carter didn't get invited to a Holocaust deniers conference in Iran. He then speculates that he didn't get invited because he would "ruin the conference" because he's "wrong about everything." All this presumably because of Carter's position on Israel and our reflexive support for her.

Casting Carter's opinions as being a Holocaust denier is stupid and slanderous, don't you think? Oh, wait, I know, he was just joking.

You'll note the article (as is the custom at Media Matters) doesn't "go after" Beck beyond providing a transcript and video of his remarks, and noting that Carter signed legisltation establishing a national Holocaust Museum. No ranting about the right wing media, or speculating about what's wrong with Beck, or anything of the sort.

So I ask you: what exactly is "trashy" about taking note of a pretty indefensible remark, particularly in such a non-confrontational way?

I would say that the Beck thing is absolutely typical of what goes on at Media Matters.

Splinemodel

12-15-2006, 02:07 PM

And if Obama runs you can expect TWO YEARS of this.
Is there anything really that special about the guy? Seems like just another poster child for multiculturalism.