Wait, I thought liberals had too many kids because they got more welfare.

I agree with John. (Deleted) and your notions of liberals.

Like me saying conservatives are people who inherited their wealth and therefore they believe they earned it.

You’re complaining about media bias?

That’s rich. You’re favourite network, Fox News, is the most biased news network in America, along with MSNBC.

So, Kathleen, take your airhead musings elsewhere. You’re too stupid even for this site.

Shut up, trolls. Nobody cares what you two think.

Well yeah he was ticked. The insinuation that Democrats hate Palin because she has a lot of kids is LUDICROUS. Or that all Democrats would abort a Down’s fetus is just plain WRONG. He’s ticked because hacks like Bernie Goldberg drive political discourse in this country straight into the gutter. Aren’t you ticked about that?

Stewart clearly laid out why he doesn’t like Palin and it had nothing to do with her being a (good looking) woman, a hunter, someone who is pro life, from Alaska, or a mom. It’s because there is no substance behind her statements. And yet you all on the right keep bringing up the stupid superficial reasons as to why we think Palin is bad for this country.

“That’s rich. You’re favourite network, Fox News, is the most biased news network in America

Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-19 09:49:46″

Then you should have no problem posting an example of such bias.

“Wait, I thought liberals had too many kids because they got more welfare.

Posted by Jack Schite
2009-11-19 09:32:27″

People on welfare dont care who gives it to them…just so long as they get it. And yes, many of them do use kids as a way to get more free money. And yes, your team likes to keep them in that rut.

Well yeah he was ticked. The insinuation that Democrats hate Palin because she has a lot of kids is LUDICROUS. Or that all Democrats would abort a Down’s fetus is just plain WRONG. He’s ticked because hacks like Bernie Goldberg drive political discourse in this country straight into the gutter. Aren’t you ticked about that?

Stewart clearly laid out why he doesn’t like Palin and it had nothing to do with her being a (good looking) woman, a hunter, someone who is pro life, from Alaska, or a mom. It’s because there is no substance behind her statements. And yet you all on the right keep bringing up the stupid superficial reasons as to why we think Palin is bad for this country.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2009-11-19 09:54:28

Dont forget, TPD, that is was liberals who said she shouldnt get into politics b/c she has so many kids….that she was doing a diservice to them by staying on the campaign trail. Stewart has never, clearly, laid anything out about why he doesnt like conservatves…..thus your blanket “no substance behind her statements” crap. Sorry but lower taxes and less govt is hardly a substance free statement. You just dont like the sound of it b/c you bet the entire farm on Hussein.

This reminds me of that family guy episode when Peter puts a Hitler scare crow on the front porch and when Mort Goldman sees it he runs away saying “protect Jon Stewart, he is our most important Jew.” Here we have three of the biggest loser libs to ever post on this site, foaming at the mouth that somebody would dare question that talking point spewing, ball washer, Stewart.

And yet you guys are tickled pink at vile spewed by VH on this site consistently. Bernie Goldberg can indeed go (deleted) himself. He should be laughed at like the hoe he is.

Eunice Kennedy had five kids, her mother had nine kids.

Here is a clip of the segment:

rackjite.com/archives/4183-Jon-Stewart-tells-Bernie-Goldberg-to-go-fock-himself.html

Nice to see many liberals pushing back here.

Here we have three of the biggest loser libs to ever post on this site, foaming at the mouth that somebody would dare question that talking point spewing, ball washer, Stewart.
Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-19 10:10:45

So just to be clear tbirk, you believe that all Democrats would abort a Down’s fetus? ALL of them? Every single one? Because that is what Bernie Goldberg is saying.

Shut up, trolls. Nobody cares what you two think.

Posted by mightysamurai
2009-11-19 09:54:11

The truth hurts, eh? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw bricks.

It’s deeper than that as well, Tom. He is saying that the only reason why someone liberal would dislike Sarah Palin is because she has five kids, including one with special needs.

And yet you guys are tickled pink at vile spewed by VH on this site consistently.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 10:21:47

Right, because VH and stewart both compete at the same time with the same audience. Please. And its now called vile to question stewart and obama? But its all fun n games to bash palin, bush etc…..? Double standard there son.

Because that is what Bernie Goldberg is saying.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2009-11-19 10:34:59

Really, thats exactly what he is saying? You and whats up are hearing shit that isnt there.

It’s deeper than that as well, Tom. He is saying that the only reason why someone liberal would dislike Sarah Palin is because she has five kids, including one with special needs.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 10:36:50

There is your problem right there. You are finding “deep” meanings on the stewart show. Turn the channel vega, its rotting your brain.

Nice to see many liberals pushing back here.
Posted by Jack Schite
2009-11-19 10:32:13

protect stewart, he is our most important liberal!!!!

There is your problem right there. You are finding “deep” meanings on the stewart show. Turn the channel vega, its rotting your brain.

I didn’t say that’s what Stewart meant. I said that’s what Goldberg meant.

And I don’t really watch John Stewart. But maybe I should. I would’nt have known about this if not mentioned here.

I didn’t say that’s what Stewart meant. I said that’s what Goldberg meant.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-19 10:52:13

And here we go again, the D-Vega Mind-Reading Extravagenza.

Stick with what Goldberg said, as you have no idea whatsoever about what he meant!

I didn’t say that’s what Stewart meant. I said that’s what Goldberg meant.

And I don’t really watch John Stewart. But maybe I should. I would’nt have known about this if not mentioned here.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 10:52:13

So based on a clip from stewarts show you now know the deeper meaning of Goldbergs words? No, you shouldnt watch stewart…your plenty dumb already. No need to get way down with huron and jack.

Really, thats exactly what he is saying? You and whats up are hearing shit that isnt there.
Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-19 10:46:52

Then tell me tbirk, what does this sentence mean:

She has a Down syndrome child, liberals don’t allow that in their lives.

Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-19 09:49:46
Picking on girls now? What a wuss you are. I bet you get lots of whoopins at school don’t you. Do you fake sick so mommy will let you stay home? Do you pre cut your tighty whities so the wedgies don’t hurt so bad?

Then tell me tbirk, what does this sentence mean:

She has a Down syndrome child, liberals don’t allow that in their lives.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2009-11-19 11:02:10

Dont you think you should quote the words he said? And no, I dont think his comment has any deeper meaning than much of what stewart says. For the party of abortion on demand, it does hit home. Thats why you are pretending to be upset.

And yet you guys are tickled pink at vile spewed by VH on this site consistently.

Says who? I barely even read Van Helsing’s posts. I love them because of the whiny, indignant noises they summon from pathetic losers like you.

And after all this stewart still failed to show that liberals are not the party of abortions. What did he prove? That he doesnt like his politics exposed.

Dont you think you should quote the words he said?
Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-19 11:26:30

Yeah, that’s exactly what I did. And don’t compare what Goldberg said to what Stewart says… that’s not what I asked you. Don’t cop out. Answer the question. I’m hearing stuff that’s not there? Goldberg is suggesting that all liberals will abort a Down’s baby. Tell me how that is not what Goldberg is saying…

Yeah, that’s exactly what I did. And don’t compare what Goldberg said to what Stewart says… that’s not what I asked you. Don’t cop out. Answer the question. I’m hearing stuff that’s not there? Goldberg is suggesting that all liberals will abort a Down’s baby. Tell me how that is not what Goldberg is saying…
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2009-11-19 11:38:44

Tom,

Tblrk2006 is a waste of time, of course that is what Goldberg meant and tblrk2006 agrees with him. Keep in mind this is the same tblrk2006 that thinks we should withold constitution protections from people based on their relegion.

And after all this stewart still failed to show that liberals are not the party of abortions. What did he prove? That he doesnt like his politics exposed.

Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-19 11:35:10

The Supreme Court of the United States supports abortions. Don’t you follow the law? Abortion is a fundamental human right. Life does not begin at conception.

Abortion is a fundamental human right. Life does not begin at conception.
Posted by Huron_Serenity 2009-11-19 11:51:55

The ability to kill other humans is a fundamental human right?

WOW, that pretty much says everything we need to know about you, Huron_Serenity.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-19 11:53:56

I wouldn’t mind if that was true, with regards to some of the users of this particular site…

The fetus is not human. It merely has the potential to become human. Unlike you.

Huron_Serenity: A proud member of the Conservative Party of Canada.

The fetus is not human. It merely has the potential to become human. Unlike you.

Posted by Huron_Serenity 2009-11-19 12:05:06

Then tell us all when does life begin. And also provide proof of that. You can impress us further by telling us what the fetus is, since it is not human.

Interesting that you want your political opponents to die. Also interesting that you base your morals over what is legal and what is not.

Says who? I barely even read Van Helsing’s posts. I love them because of the whiny, indignant noises they summon from pathetic losers like you.

The fact that you think expressing disgust in response to inciteful and dishonest language proves my point.

I guess the author Kathleen McKinley is a pathetic loser, right? She is but making whony, indignant noises.

Boy, the Crybaby Choir showed up in a hurry on this one. And they’re as pissed off as Stewart was about being called out on the liberal’s love for Hitler-like eugenics.

Life is imperfect? Terminate it. That’s the liberal way.

You don’t even have to go to Down Syndrome to find proof. About 80% of all unborn children with a clef lip are now aborted, even though the condition is easily correctible by a few simple operations. Liberals love having power over life and death…especially the cripples and helpless. It’s a sick obsession.

Abortion is a fundamental human right. Life does not begin at conception.
Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-19 11:51:55
Is that a law or a theory? HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAA! Ok, ok I’m done. Wait… wait HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA!

The only sick obsession over abortion comes from the right, Mike.

You have no proof of the political idealogies of the clef children’s mothers.

Congrats for upping the idiocy ante, Mike, by dropping in a Hitler reference.

All liberals abort Down’s fetuses. Every single one. Every single time. Bernie Goldberg says so. And Mike_M agrees.

I just want to point out that the troll “Huron_Serinity” in a previous thread advocated the Fort hood murders and said that the killer should be pardoned:
http://rightwingnews.com/2009/11/a-nut-with-a-gun-dont-dismiss-hasans-evil-as-insanity/?comments=show#comments

Why is this disgusting human being still here, and why are you all talking to him?

“Congrats for upping the idiocy ante, Mike, by dropping in a Hitler reference.”

Thanks for opening the door. He’s the most recognizable standard for the elimination of “inferior” human life and you guys seem to agree with his premise.

Eugenics was inspired by the left. The theory and practice are championed by the left. Therefore, the left is far more likely to terminate a pregnancy due to any fault found with the baby. Not all Leftists abort Downs’ children, but they are far more likely to than anyone on the right.

“All liberals abort Down’s fetuses. Every single one. Every single time. Bernie Goldberg says so. And Mike_M agrees.”

List for us the liberal politicians, celebrities, or regular individuals you can find that has a Down Syndrome child.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find conservative politicians, celebrities or regular individuals as well, Mike.

Sarah Palin made a choice that we respect. I respect her choice and her right to have that choice in the first place.

I wouldn’t mind if that was true, with regards to some of the users of this particular site…

The fetus is not human. It merely has the potential to become human. Unlike you.

Huron_Serenity: A proud member of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-19 12:05:06

Welcome to the idiocy that is Huron_stupidity!!! So it’s not human, then what makes it genetically different from Obama? The BABY shares all the chromosomes as any other human, retard, it’s SCIENTIFIC FACT. That mean’s IT IS HUMAN. There is no more logical or scientific basis for determining Human than genetics. An a baby is genetically human the INSTANT it is conceived, another SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Your ignorance of all things science is pathetic, you really need to sue the Canadian school system for failing you COMPLETELY.

Huron_Serenity: A proud member of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-19 12:05:06

Ah, another refugee from the Third World come to America to escape the shit hole he was born in. Welcome!

The fetus is not human.
Huron_Serenity:

what species is it, my third wolrd friend? Does it evolve? You know, that is a theory.

/lol

Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-19 13:14:56

“Facts” – LOL.

When that l’il ole foetus grow, then we’ll talk. Until then – it ain’t a human.

“Until then – it ain’t a human.”

What else is it then? It has complete human DNA. How do you determine when it becomes a human if it doesn’t start out that way? What do you allege that it is before it becomes human?

When that l’il ole foetus grow, then we’ll talk. Until then – it ain’t a human.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 13:27:25

Proof please?

All liberals abort Down’s fetuses. Every single one. Every single time. Bernie Goldberg says so.
Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay
2009-11-19 12:37:40

Wow…so he said all that without using those words.

When that l’il ole foetus grow, then we’ll talk. Until then – it ain’t a human.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 13:27:25

You dont have kids….although thats probably a good thing. I would definately advocate your sterilization.

Jon Stewart is out most important liberal….protect him.

Even when he takes things out of context and invents rage.

Life does not begin at conception.
Posted by Huron_Serenity
2009-11-19 11:51:55

So is the unborn child dead? Since the opposite of life is death, just wtf do people in the Third World get taught in school? Nixon supposes you believe in the stork.

It doesn’t say much for Democrats and kids if the only example you can come up with is half a century old.

So is the unborn child dead? Since the opposite of life is death,
Posted by Dick_Nixon

Does not connect, dixon. Move along.

There are no such things as the “unborn” anymore than there are the “undead”.

Actually, Nixon is rather certain that it has been said that at conception there is no life by our douche friends on the left. Then what state is the fetus, or unborn child as Nixon prefers, in after conception and before birth?

Come on liberals, tell Nixon.

Realpolitik, just how many sock puppets do you run at RightwingNews?

Vega, what state were your kids, and Nixon is pretty sure you have stated you have at least one, in before they were born?

“There are no such things as the “unborn” anymore than there are the “undead”.

Thanks for the admission that abortion can not be defended using fact or logic.

He wasn’t born yet. Or you could crudely say “non-born”.

But not “unborn” which means someone was born and then put back into the womb.

Then what state is the fetus,
Posted by Dick_Nixon
2009-11-19 14:29:23

It is in a state of growth, its aim to become a human being.

But not “unborn” which means someone was born and then put back into the womb.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 14:31:20

Nixon has never heard of that particular definition for unborn. Nixon has heard the word unborn used in reference to children in their mother’s womb however.

its aim to become a human being.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:34:50

Then what species is it, if it is not a human being? And you never answered on how many sockpuppets you are running here today.

It is in a state of growth, its aim to become a human being.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-19 14:34:50

It already *IS* a human being. Of that, there is no doubt.

Of course, you and those like you will continue to call it less than human so that you can live with killing it at will. Par for the course for mass-murderers.

He wasn’t born yet. Or you could crudely say “non-born”.

But not “unborn” which means someone was born and then put back into the womb.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 14:31:20

So i guess that child in your partners womb wasnt really your offspring? I got to watch mine suck her thumb and do other “born” baby things. But I guess it really doesnt matter to you. God forbid you have unprotected sex with a female and make a “non-born.” Need to kill that thing quick before you have to live with your bad sex decisions.

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-19 14:36:42

Nope – say it all you want. Murder is reserved for the death of humans.

It is in a state of growth, its aim to become a human being.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:34:50

So its a tumor.

Nope – say it all you want. Murder is reserved for the death of humans.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-19 14:39:26

And a child in the womb IS a human. Say it isn’t all you want, but it will never make it true!

So its a tumor.
Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-19 14:40:10

Well . . . no. But thanks for the laugh.

Nope – say it all you want. Murder is reserved for the death of humans.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:39:26

The only thing differnt from, what you call, a fetus and a born child is that its breathing air. What do think those premature babies that are born months early breath? What do you think those babies that are cut and stolen from their dead mothers wombs breath? Are those babies not human yet b/c they didnt pass through the canal at at least 40 weeks?

Nixon has never heard of that particular definition for unborn.

That’s because “unborn” is a made-up word. Like “partial birth”. Made up out of whole cloth by Right-to-lifers.

Nixon has heard the word unborn used in reference to children in their mother’s womb however.

It is used incorrectly because its not a word. If you “un” something, it would have to be something in the first place.

So an accurate term would be “non-born”. Because they would not be born yet. “undead” doesn’t mean something that will eventually be dead. It means something that was dead at one point and became undead.

We are all “non-dead” because we have not died yet, but will one day.

The only thing differnt from, what you call, a fetus and a born child is that its breathing air.
Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-19 14:44:12

Well . . . no. But thanks for exposing your ignorance about the development of a foetus – it explains a lot.

We are all “non-dead” because we have not died yet, but will one day.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-19 14:45:26

Looks like Mr. Semantic has spoken.

It is used incorrectly because its not a word. If you “un” something, it would have to be something in the first place.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 14:45:26

That is not a rule vega. Plenty of things are, for example, un-affilitated with something….and they were never affiliated in the first place.

Well . . . no. But thanks for exposing your ignorance about the development of a foetus – it explains a lot.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:48:02

My ignorance? Your the one that refuses to call a child, just that, until it pops out. When in fact, they can be removed from the womb quite early and still survive.

Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-19 14:48:02

Before you start throwing around accusation, perhaps you can finally explain what the fetus is, if it is not human. And as an added bonus, explain when life begins.

they can be removed from the womb quite early and still survive.
Posted by tblrk2006
2009-11-19 14:51:29

Perhaps not *quite* early, but when they can survive on their own they are human.

So i guess that child in your partners womb wasnt really your offspring?

Why would you say that?

I got to watch mine suck her thumb and do other “born” baby things.

Okay, but when were they born?

But I guess it really doesnt matter to you. God forbid you have unprotected sex with a female and make a “non-born.” Need to kill that thing quick before you have to live with your bad sex decisions.

I don’t make bad sex decisions, at least not in the manner in which you describe.

If I did, I would not support a termination of pregnancy under any circumstances except for safety or severe defects.

perhaps you can finally explain what the fetus is, if it is not human. And as an added bonus, explain when life begins.
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-19 14:51:38

A foetus is a marvel of growing cells. Life begins when the foetus has developed to the point that it can live on its own.

Life begins when the foetus has developed to the point that it can live on its own.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-19 14:57:44

And in humans, that is about age seven, right Realpolitik?

That is not a rule vega. Plenty of things are, for example, un-affilitated with something….and they were never affiliated in the first place.

Fair enough. I just think its inaccurate usage. “Non-born” would be better, that’s all I’m saying.

Nope – say it all you want. Murder is reserved for the death of humans.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:39:26

Well . . . no. But thanks for exposing your ignorance about the development of a foetus – it explains a lot.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:48:02

You’re the one who’s ignorant here never-show. PLEASE PROVE that the fetus is NOT human. We need clear scientific proof. Anything else is your seriously mis-informed and utterly worthless opinion.

Genetics says it’s human, what other science contradicts that?

And in humans, that is about age seven, right Realpolitik?
Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-19 14:59:20

LOL

Yur a funny l’il man.

Yur a funny l’il man.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-19 15:03:38

And you are an ignorant piece of shit.

So you say that life begins when it can live on it’s own? When is that, Realpolitik? Infants can’t live on their own. Are they not human in your eyes either? You prepared to kill them as well?

Posted by TheBaud
2009-11-19 15:05:32

You lose the argument and start the personal attacks – par for the course.

No human being can exist on its own – don’t sweat the absurdities you spew. We are talking about the fact of living on its own – entirely different.

No human being can exist on its own – don’t sweat the absurdities you spew. We are talking about the fact of living on its own – entirely different.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 15:11:07

None of that proves that it the fetus is NOT human, as you so absurdly claim never-show.

No human being can exist on its own – don’t sweat the absurdities you spew. We are talking about the fact of living on its own – entirely different.
Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-19 15:11:07

What’s the matter, Realpolitik. Did I hurt your feelings? Shall I point to your personal attack that started this?

You said, “Life begins when the foetus has developed to the point that it can live on its own.” Yet children have been taken from the womb and lived earlier that full development. And an 2-week-old infant cannot “live on it’s own”; it is as dependent on it’s mother for live as it is when it is in the womb.

So ehough of your whining and enough of your evasion. Tell us when life begins. And provide the appropriate proof.

None of that proves that it the fetus is NOT human,

Posted by bthewolf
2009-11-19 15:15:42

You had best achieve some grounding upon what makes a “human” – though I do understand that attaining knowledge is alien to you.

Now it’s time to go dwaddle some young’uns on my knee.

Posted by Realpolitik 2009-11-19 15:19:29

So you have failed to prove when life begins, and you have failed to prove that a fetus is not human. And since you have reduced your posts to nothing but personal insults, by your own standards that means you have lost the argument.

Time for you to run away now, Realpolitik.

You had best achieve some grounding upon what makes a “human” – though I do understand that attaining knowledge is alien to you.

Now it’s time to go dwaddle some young’uns on my knee.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 15:19:29

I gave the scientific definition of human, retard! YOU have not proven I’m wrong. I’ve spanked YOU and Huron_Stupidity pretty hard on SCIENCE today. And you call me un-educated!!! Go back to school never-show. Learn something about science and logic.

And quit diddling little kids you f’n perv.

It is in a state of growth, its aim to become a human being.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:34:50
So your aim was off and you became a raft?

We should include jon stewart in every topic title. Seems the liberals have ol’ jons D in their mouths even more than the one, obamature.

No more than you have Palin’s bra strap in yours, tblrk.

Life begins when the foetus has developed to the point that it can live on its own.
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 14:57:44
So you are a raft foetus?

Realpolitik is about 4 different people on RWN at the same time today. Skilled he is.

That’s because “unborn” is a made-up word.

All words are made up by someone, Vega. That one happens to be several centuries old. Everyone knows that baby in mommy’s tummy is a human being and a baby, they even admit it when they aren’t arguing abortion: when is the baby due? Are you teaching it by playing classical music?

Then when the abortion topic comes up, the lies start: “its not a baby, its not human, its a parasitical lump of tissue.” The same kind of thing every evil movement of man has done when they wanted to dehumanize something for their convenience. Slavery, Jews for lampshades… abortion.

How did this thread go all the way from an unfunny liberal who mistakes insulting political opponents for humor, all the way to abortion?
Oh, right. Liberals hate human beings, and will resort to any trick to enslave, hurt or kill people. Starting from their favorite, defining certain categories as untermenschen and thus killable without regret.

No more than you have Palin’s bra strap in yours, tblrk.
Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-19 15:40:44

If only you could find examples of me going to the same lengths to defend her like you do obama or, now, stewart.

And yes, her bra strap, or however you put it, would be great. That women is hot.

We do hate humans, smells.

Lucky for you that doesn’t include you.

If only you could find examples of me going to the same lengths to defend her like you do obama or, now, stewart.

Easy, tblrk. Please list 10 instances where Palin has been wrong in something she said and/or did.

I can easily list 10 instances where Obama has been wrong.

I can easily list 10 instances where Obama has been wrong.
Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-19 17:11:21

That’s no challenge, D-Vega. Obama has been wrong many more times than that. What a target-rich environment.

I can easily list 10 instances where Obama has been wrong.
Let’s hear them!

First, my fellow conservatives, here is what Bernie said;

“She has five kids. Liberals don’t have five kids. One of them has Down Syndrome. Liberals certainly don’t allow THAT to happen.”
Stewart’s diatribe is indeed obnoxious, Bernie starts talking at 6:17.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-18-2009/daily-show–the-rogue-warrior

Straight up, take it as you will. I don’t think I’d have said it the way he said it, maybe have been more specific like ‘hard left liberals’ or ‘the liberals in charge of the Democratic party’ or ‘so-called social progressives’ or something similar. Regardless, Goldberg said what he said just like Beck said Obama is a racist then said Obama doesn’t hate white people *in the same breath*. In both cases, they got ahead of themselves and let emotion trump logic. Happens to all of us. Admit Goldberg screwed up and just let it go.

Next, oh ye liberal trolls, stop it with the righteous indignation and grow a little common sense.

First off you have no right to even *TRY* and whine about being bad-mouthed, when you can’t even make a single post without insulting someone. Next if you would stop with the double-standard of taking everything a right wing pundit says as exacting to the letter (while excusing the left wingers) and recognize that Goldberg was talking about the outspoken special interests we wouldn’t have 100+ post threads like this.

It is so interesting to see which threads you guys will latch onto and actually repeatedly post in. It’s very telling.

“Easy, tblrk. Please list 10 instances where Palin has been wrong in something she said and/or did.”

1. Signing on with John McCain, more for the consequences of the bungled campaign rather than how it got her in the spotlight
2. Letting McCain’s handlers decide how she should be presented
3. Not being herself on the VP campaign trail
4. Going on SNL
5. Taking bailout money for Alaska
6. Posing in shorts for Runner’s World
7. Going on Oprah and giving that woman’s ratings a boost
8. Over-using the word ‘Maverick’ because the McHandlers said to
9. Going on Couric’s show because Couric needed the help
10. Making statements that Levi Johnson would man up and help raise her grandchild.

Posted by Iokobos
2009-11-19 19:31:50

Shh! You’re threatening D-Vega’s delicate ego with your facts!

I can’t help it if facts have a conservative bias.

facts have a conservative bias.
Posted by Iokobos
2009-11-19 20:56:02

LOL

Oxymoron much?

Oxymoron much?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 21:10:12

No….you are a moron, very much.

Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 21:10:12

Moron, much? Why, yes, yes you do.

Dammit, tblrk, you beat me to it!

Oxymoron much?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 21:10:12

Yes you do, all the time, oh no my bad, tblrk said you’re just a moron.

Oxymoron much?
Posted by Realpolitik
2009-11-19 21:10:12

Indeed, I love to play on words and phrases from ideological opponents. Once again your responses are so telling in what you focus on as well as when you can’t do anything but try for pointless barbs. True signature of a lightweight.

So five out of your ten have more to do with McCain than her and four have to do with media appearances.

But one, just one, on an actual policy decision. And that was more the Alaska leg than her. Wow, you sure are objective.

Oh, I’m sorry. Am I allowed to comment on this thread after two days? Has it been “vacated”?

So five out of your ten have more to do with McCain than her and four have to do with media appearances.

Spare me, D-Vega. I remember the list you gave when we asked you to name the things Obama has done wrong. You gave us a list of minor campaign mistakes.

That’s because it was within the campaign, mighty.

And if you remember correctly, three of my problems were Jeremiah Wright, his partial birth votes, and his position on the DC gun ban.

Fail.

Palins problem is that nothing is ever her fault when things go wrong. Then she tries to take credit for things that she either was not a part of or had a limited role in.

Indeed, I love to play on words and phrases from ideological opponents.

you can’t do anything but try for pointless barbs.

True signature of a lightweight.

Posted by Iokobos
2009-11-19 23:25:51

Do you ever actually READ any of your own posts???? Even an idiot like you couldn’t find a fitting description of them OTHER THAN “pointless barbs.”

Your troll fu is weak and pathetic, Grasshopper.

The shtoopid is strong with this one, folks.

Palins problem is that nothing is ever her fault when things go wrong. Then she tries to take credit for things that she either was not a part of or had a limited role in.
Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 11:38:28

Delicious irony – this could be one of the best one sentence descriptions of Obama and his entire administration that I’ve ever read. Need some help with that beam in your eye, WU??

Posted by LampofDiogenes
2009-11-20 13:12:26

I notice that you dont deny that it applies to Palin. Any thoughts on the subject, ya I thought not.

Please list 10 instances where Palin has been wrong in something she said and/or did.

I can easily list 10 instances where Obama has been wrong.

OK Class, where’s the logical error here. Anyone?

That’s right, he presumed that there must be 10 instances of wrongdoing with Sarah Palin’s known statements and activities. What logical error is this called?

Excellent, the a priori or circular argument. He’s presuming the answer in his question.

Class dismissed.

Posted by whats_up
2009-11-20 13:25:03

And I notice you had no meaningful response to the point. I challenge you – no, I DEFY you – to find ANY post where I have defended Sarah Palin.

[crickets chirping]

Yeah, I thought not.

Tool.