Comments on: The Talking Points Are Here!

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:06:57 +0000

Ian will never want to stop embarrassing himself.

By: johnnyprogressive

johnnyprogressive — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:52:56 +0000

Ian your point with Clinton is moot considering its been 6 years since he’s left office. You might want to stop embarrassing yourself.

By: Muzza

Muzza — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:27:01 +0000

We should be comparing apples to apples. At least Bill met Monica one-on-one. This, on the other hand, was nothing more than a large diameter circle jerk.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:19:27 +0000

Sorry, I’m just thinking like a liberal — man, my head hurts.”

Dude, you gotta stretch first. Your brain could cramp up from lack of use.

By: MJB

MJB — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:02:27 +0000

Of course Ian sees the difference, but truth doesn’t matter. BTW, nice job Rex.

By: PD100

PD100 — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:18:34 +0000

“Sorry, I’m just thinking like a liberal — man, my head hurts.”

Yes Ian, that thinking stuff can be painful to the less experienced.

By: (: Tom :)

(: Tom :) — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:03:45 +0000

I was going to comment on how ridiculous your argument was, how puerile your attempt at making some sort of equivalence was, and how your projection of how liberals think is strikingly similar to what it looks like when Putsch fellators try to approach rationality. But it looks like quite a few others have beat me to the punch. They didn't mention how stupid your argument looks when you put radio personalities and bloggers apart from the vast conspiracies, instead of being a part of those conspiracies, though... Are you done now?

By: StarkyLuv

StarkyLuv — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:57:24 +0000

Again, Ian, like Jay really doesn’t grasp how utterly pathetic they are.

You waste I don’t know how much time trolling progressive sites and getting your pathetic talking points and lies slapped down again and again. And you KEEP AT IT!

I mean really, Ian. You don’t see the difference with Bill Clinton meeting with bloggers WHEN HE’S NO LONGER PRESIDENT and George Bush meeting with his right-wing syncophants to give them their talking points to continue to lie to the American public? You don’t see the difference in that?

George W. Bush is intimately interacting with his 21st centrury propaganda machine and shows no shame in doing so. Will you see this when all of these “personalities” (I refuse to call them the media) start to say the exact same things, in the exact same phrasing, at the exact same time? Will you start to wake up then?

By: Bill L.

Bill L. — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:54:57 +0000

Former president asking what bloogers think = current asshat telling radio monkeys what to think

Sorry, just learning not to think so my head won’t hurt.

By: Rex Mundane

Rex Mundane — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:02:16 +0000

Of course. And people who have nightly shows on television and daily radio programs are precisely as prominent and noteworthy in the eyes of the american public as the innumerable people across the world who have personal websites and blogs. So the fact that Clinton, as former president, had lunch and a discussion with numerous bloggers about a wide array of topics, an action which might be viewed as “grassroots” by liberal communist america-hating terror-coddling queer-loving queers, is exactly the same as the current president having a discussion with much more prominent and public figures in the media in order to advocate specific policy decisions and actions at a politically vulnerable time for his party.
Wow, its so much fun now, viewing the world as a republican idealogue, comfortable in the knowledge that no matter what I say, I must be right, otherwise I wouldnt be saying it.

By: Rex Mundane

Rex Mundane — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:44:27 +0000

Another marvelous Tour de Force, Ian, because clearly Former President = Current president, and Bloggers = Radio Personalities. You clearly = Genius sir.

By: Rex Mundane

Rex Mundane — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:38:38 +0000

Because Bill Clinton never, ever met with liberals in the media.

Nope, not ever.

Ah, very clever of you Ian. Of course Clinton met with the media constantly to get himself more positive press. What else could explain how, at a time when the country’s attention might have been diverted by a strong economy and lasting peacetime, the president decided to actively make his sexual proclivities so widely known about? Why else would the media have constantly reported on his having an affair with an intern in the face of other more important issues if not for the president’s desire to brag about all the strange he was getting? How wise and intelligent of you Ian to get to the root of the matter, that Bush talking with numerous prominent right-wing talk radio figures in an effort to, as he said it himself, “catapult the propaganda”, doesnt matter at all because Clinton. Not because Clinton anything, just because Clinton.

By: PD100

PD100 — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:31:22 +0000

Dont you have to do some proofreading for Jesse Malkin today, Ian?

By: (: Tom :)

(: Tom :) — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:26:50 +0000

Because Bill Clinton never, ever met with liberals in the media.

Nope, not ever.

Posted by: Ian | Oct 17, 2006 11:57:19 AM

Hmmmm. I don’t seem to recall the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevul Clenis having private meetings with the liberal in the media at any time. I’m reasonably sure that if such a meeting took place, it would have been all over PigBoy Radio for the next two weeks straight. And then it would have been snidely referred to at least twice a month to keep it in every ditto monkey’s frontal lobes. And then it would have been trotted out faithfully in arguments from then on. Funny how none of that has taken place as far as I can tell…

Got any reputable sources confirming your unsubstantiated innuendo (that Clinton had meetings with liberals in the media and gave them their talking points), Ian?

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:00:48 +0000

You’re just sore because they didn’t invite you and Malkin.