Breaking News
Health Care Reform Passes House Of Representatives
Conservative whack-job supporters of Sarah Palin are having a rally to fire David Letterman. I feel pretty safe in making two predictions here.
1. The rally will be poorly attended.
2. CBS will not fire David Letterman. Letterman is worth millions, probably billions to CBS. While TV networks don’t like cranky pants protestors outside, what they like more than that is MONEY.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
This is Greta Van Susteren’s tea party
sham-f*ckin*-wow! with every reich wing gag moment and publicity stunt reported, I become more and more aware of what fascism really is… laws/amendments are behind a ‘break in case of..’ glass to c0ns and think they are only are applicable to their own benifit…what a bunch of overgrown kindergarteners..
I actually think Letterman should be fired for the “jokes” in question, but I don’t remember any conservative calling for Rush Limbaugh to be fired from his TV show for comparing then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton to a dog
Letterman will laugh all the way to the bank. As Liberace said, “Say anything you want about me, but spell my name right.” Any publicity is good publicity. Letterman isn’t running for anything, and I’m sure he’ll settle for the audience twice the size of Limbaugh’s who will stick with him.
Remember when Billo sued Al Franken and the publicity shot Franken’s (wonderful) book, “Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” to the top of the best seller list? And then the judge laughed the case out of court while Al made a couple million more than he would otherwise? Wasn’t that a riot?
After the guy realized his error and apologized, what explains the fanatic, pathological, inexplicable hatred for the guy? It’s almost like the right is *gasp* TERRIFIED of Letterman. It’s the only possible explanation for the perverted fixation.
“Letterman will laugh all the way to the bank.”
We’ll see. That very well be what Imus thought about his own situation before he was (quite, rightfully) canned from his show for making that disgusting comment about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
Also, in terms of a parallel to the “slutty flight attendant” part of Letterman’s monologue that has got him in hot water, Glenn Beck was not fired from his radio show for calling Hillary Clinton “the stereotypical bitch” (heck, he didn’t even apologize for this remark).
Imus was on his way out before he was (rightly) fired. Letterman is one of the centerpieces of CBS.
daniel:
Oh the ’slutty flight attendant’ bit is old news. The entire right forgot about that world-ending outrage about 6 hours after it started, once they realized they could collectively pretend that Letterman was talking about Willow and not Bristol.
Pete-
The slutty flight attendant bit is not at all old news, nor will it be forgotten. It’s just that the attack on the children, no matter which one he claims he was talking about, was the more egregious. What’s more telling, is that the Letterman apologists choose not to bring that one up, but they both go hand in hand. Flight attendants are sluts, Palin is a slut, her daughter is a slut.
No way is that forgotten or old news.
Would it be picayune to point out that Letterman cannot be fired? He works for his own production company World Wide Pants and that production company contracts with CBS for the shows. World Wide Pants produces and has produced a number of shows including Bonnie Hunts show and Craig Ferguson’s show and Everybody Loves Raymond. CBS could cancel the show, but I would guess they would owe WWP a small fortune and run the risk of ostracizing a moderately powerful production company and Letterman could then take the show elsewhere or retire the show and sit on his billions making more billions.
I still think he and his group are helping to fuel this to take away the spotlight from Conan.
No matter what happens I predict a year from now Letterman will be in much better shape than Palin.
It’s just that the attack on the children, no matter which one he claims he was talking about, was the more egregious.
How morally outraged can one be when it is clear she’s been using those children as props for well over a year? I’m all for keeping family off-limits, but you can’t say that and then hide behind them.
Maybe as morally outraged as the Clintons were when that MSNBC twit said Chelsea Clinton had been ‘pimped out’, Duros. Would that be an acceptable amount of outrage?
Shuster got suspended over a far less egregious offense, or at least certainly less offensive IMHO, Chelsea wasn’t 14 or 18, and she was out front and center campaigning for her mother at the time.
If anyone is hiding behind anything, it’s Letterman and his apologists hiding behind his crassness as being ‘just a joke’, and his being a comedian.
I doubt that Letterman will be fired but his “brand” has taken a hit it won’t ever recover from. The cultural divide just got a little deeper and a little wider.
Letterman was clearly out of line as any husband and father would agree if someone slandered his wife or daughter to his face. That Letterman did it from the safety of his studio shows not only cowardice but intelligence. Intelligence because had he done that in person he might very well have learned what old time American values about decency and honor mean to many Americans. I’d like to see him make those same remarks in a bar in Alaska.
It’s not a joke, its a slur and should be treated as such. Duros your remarks say much about your personal decency and honor.
had he done that in person he might very well have learned what old time American values about decency and honor mean to many Americans
That’s right! Old time American values mean punching! And kicking! And eye-gouging! Affronts to decency and honor must be avenged swiftly and violently! No slight or insult can be allowed to pass! It’s the American Way!
When you slur my wife or daughter that’s the way it goes.
As a pacifist you might think it better if your husband turned the other cheek when someone called you a slut and made fun of your daughter getting knocked up but not everyone shares your value system.
As a pacifist you might think it better if your husband turned the other cheek
Well, that has been a popular notion among followers of a certain line of religious teaching. A young man from Nazareth made quite a name for himself pushing the idea. But that was so long ago. Times change, don’t they?
Conservative Failure in Progress?
Apparently not…..
Letterman to apologize to Palin tonight
: What really motivated Letterman to do this? Sincere remorse? A cynical play for more ratings? Or the simple fact that he was starting to lose sponsors over it?
Contrite apology though. Good for him. As was Leon Panetta’s retraction to Dick Cheney this evening.
Quaker,
Get with it, haven’t you got the memo? Christianists are fundementalist nutcases who believe in fairy tales not science.
Honor is a concept that predates Christianity. While turning the other cheek is all well and good, I think it quite likely a man defending the honor of his wife and children can make it through the Pearly Gates. Now I don’t know that, I just have to take it on faith.
Dennis the Bigot: “Conservative Failure in Progress?
Apparently not…..
Letterman to apologize to Palin tonight”
Yet his ratings were up. So maybe he’s apologizing because people are thinking he was talking about Willow Palin when he clearly meant Bristol and he’s sorry if he inadvertently caused any grief.
However, ratings are hard numbers, and they were up.
On a side note, I typed this yesterday, but a DB error meant I couldn’t post it.
Dennis the Bigot: “No way is that forgotten or old news.”
Does this mean you will continue to flog it long after it’s old news? Does this mean you will become obsessed with it? Will be you stalking Letterman over it?
Serious question… How much of a fucking hypocrite are you?
AO: “Honor is a concept that predates Christianity. While turning the other cheek is all well and good, I think it quite likely a man defending the honor of his wife and children can make it through the Pearly Gates. Now I don’t know that, I just have to take it on faith.”
And you would be wrong.
The Bible is quite clear on that. Getting angry at someone is just as much a sin as killing them.
Don’t believe me? Look it up. You can sin with thought, word, or deed.
Get with it, haven’t you got the memo? Christianists are fundementalist nutcases who believe in fairy tales not science.
Right back at ya. Didn’t you hear that those who pick and choose which teachings of Jesus they choose to follow aren’t “real” Christians?
Quaker,
If I remember correctly you are a gal. You are quick witted and from time to time we have had almost pleasant exchanges. Which is how all of this should be but the baggage and the cultural divide often seem to get in the way.
If you were my wife, another quick witted gal, or my daughter and someone had the indecency to call you a slut there would be hell to pay here on earth. That may subject me to eternal damnation but I think not. Again this is something I can take only on faith.
If CS is correct in his biblical interpretation his soul is in much greater danger than my own. In fact this blog might be almost unchanged by a rapture event except for the inevitable fire and brimstone of the apocolypse.
If I remember correctly you are a gal.
You don’t. You are thinking of Southern Quaker.
That may subject me to eternal damnation but I think not.
I couldn’t say about the “eternal damnation” part, but I’m confident that I can point you to a couple of places in the Bible where Jesus advised folks to choose a different course. If you decide to disregard His advice, that’s your call.
AO: “If I remember correctly you are a gal.”
I’m pretty sure that’s Southern Quaker.
AO: “If CS is correct in his biblical interpretation his soul is in much greater danger than my own.”
Two points…
1.) I am correct, because it’s not my interpretation. It’s practically a direct fucking quote.
thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_anger_and_insults/mt05_21a.html
Merely being angry is the same as murdering. You are also not allowed to raise your hand, even in self-defense.
thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_self-defense/mt05_38.html
I guess Jesus wouldn’t like the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan. Or World War II. Or any other war.
It’s a good thing there are no real Christians in charge, or we’d be in trouble.
2.) I don’t have a soul. Neither do you. When we die, we will both go to the same place. Nowhere.
In fact, there are parts of the Bible that says there is no such thing as heaven or hell.
Strange book.
Sorry Quaker,
I’d do the same for your sister or mom though.
Does the animosity of measurable portions of the left towards Christianity bother you at all or do you just take it in stride?
According to Jesus, you are not allowed to raise your hand in self defense…
thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_self-defense/mt05_38.html
According to the Old Testament, you are allowed to kill the person that accidentally killed your relative…
thebricktestament.com/the_law/accidental_death/nm35_11.html
And there are people who take this shit seriously?
CS,
Good luck with that.
AO: “Does the animosity of measurable portions of the left towards Christianity bother you at all or do you just take it in stride?”
Christianity says we deserve to be tortured in hell forever.
I say Christianity is stupid.
I’m guilty of, “animosity … towards Christianity”.
So what is Christianity guilty of?
What I don’t get is how Saturday Night Live could make an incest joke about Todd Palin and his daughters, and then Sarah was just fine with going on that show the next month.
Leno and Conan made jokes about John Edwards and the Palin daughters, and they weren’t boycotted or threatened in this manner.
Yes it was a terribly decision and joke by Letterman, but where were the outrage and the “boycott SNL/Conan/Leno” rallies 9 months ago? I guess I don’t understand why all of a sudden, it’s this huge “cause” to get behind.
Does the animosity of measurable portions of the left towards Christianity bother you at all or do you just take it in stride?
Measurable, yes. Large, no.
I see a greater animosity on the Left for those who make a show of Christian piety for an advantage in politics, commerce, or entertainment. Those who are actively hostile to Christian belief are relatively few.
I’d do the same for your sister or mom though.
They’d both tell you to stop that.
AO: “Good luck with that.”
That’s it? Do you really have nothing more you can add to the discussion?
I guess not. The Bible verses I quote are pretty damn clear.
According to the Bible being angry will send you to hell, you are not allowed to defend yourself, but you are allowed to kill someone who accidentally caused the death of a relative.
There’s just no way that can be correct.
Maybe there is a god, but the Bible is clearly written by men.
Suffering a witch to live I suppose. For a guy who goes on endlessly about the evils of racism, unless of course it is in the form of legalized discrimination, you sure are going out of your way to showcase your intolerance and lack of appreciation of diversity.
To bring this thread back from its wayward drift, What are your feelings towards comedians taking cheap shots at women and children, calling them sluts etc.
jojo: “What I don’t get is how Saturday Night Live could make an incest joke about Todd Palin and his daughters, and then Sarah was just fine with going on that show the next month.”
It’s simple. This is not real outrage. Letterman embarrassed McCain when McCain dropped out of an interview at the last minute and went on another program instead.
This is political payback.
Nothing more.
Amused Observer: “Suffering a witch to live I suppose. For a guy who goes on endlessly about the evils of racism, unless of course it is in the form of legalized discrimination, you sure are going out of your way to showcase your intolerance and lack of appreciation of diversity.”
How so?
Christianity is racist. Why do you think the Bible says you are not allowed to plant two crops in the same field? Why do you think the Bible says you are not allowed to wear a shirt made of two different fabrics?
Do you really think your god is so fucking petty he would contend you to hell for wearing a poly-blend?
No. It’s about saying, ‘Stay with your own kind.’
I don’t like Christianity, because Christianity doesn’t like diversity.
It is not intolerant to fight intolerance.
“…unless of course it is in the form of legalized discrimination…”
I know this is hard for you to understand, but there is such a thing as institutional racism. Affirmative action corrects for discrimination. It isn’t a form of discrimination.
On a side note, I find is fucking amazing that Amused Observer would profess to being a Christian, yet directly contradict Christ’s teachings saying, ‘He has to take it on faith.’ that he is right and Jesus is wrong.
What’s the point of belonging to a religion, if you are just going to ignore the parts you don’t like.
Why not just drop the whole damn thing and hope for the best in the afterlife.
Think of it this way…
When Jesus describes the Rapture, he talks about two people in the field, and one is taken to heaven, and the other is left behind. He uses a number of examples, but in every instance it’s two people. One goes to heave. One is left behind.
Don’t you get it?
God marks on a curve.
So fuck the religion. Live a good life, and as long as you are better than average, you’re going to heaven.
(I tried this argument on my priest once. He didn’t buy it.)
AO: “To bring this thread back from its wayward drift, What are your feelings towards comedians taking cheap shots at women and children, calling them sluts etc.”
Generally calling women sluts is wrong… and stupid. If women like sex, you are more likely to get sex. This is good.
On the other hand, it depends on the context.
The point / counter-point bit of Kentucky Fried Movie has an excellent joke in it that uses the term ’slut’… what does that word even mean? What’s the etymology of the word, ‘Slut’?
… Never mind.
The point / counter-point bit of Kentucky Fried Movie has an excellent joke in it that uses the term ’slut’, so it depends on the context.
Someone who uses sex appeal to cover for inadequacies does open themselves to that kind of attack. I don’t think Palin did that herself, but I believe the GOP and their enablers did.
And sometimes it’s just funny to use an inappropriate term. Calling the Mother Teresa a slut, for instance. Issac Asimov went into this in one of his books. I own it, but I can’t find it to give a quote. Or even tell you the name.
CS
While institutional racism is a theory of the left the
14th Amendment is a fact. Once again I’ll paste the pertinent portion.
” nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That means each individual citizen is to be treated equally under the law. There isn’t a timeout provision.
If it is a moral outrage to legally discriminate against one flavor of American it is equally outrageous to legally discriminate against another flavor of American.
You just can’t seem to grasp the actual meaning of the word discrimination.
On another note you might want to closely examine my writing because I have not professed my faith here in OllieLand. And what does “contend you to hell ” mean?
For an athiest you certainly have some strongly held opinions on how God works. What’s up with that?
While institutional racism is a theory of the left
A “theory”?
There you go again, AO, leaving no opportunity at all for bystanders to call out your bumble. The fault in that construction is so apparent it makes ridicule superfluous.
LOL Quaker,
It’s a theory and its a theory of the left. But let us for a moment stipulate it’s validity. The 14th Amendment does not include a timeout or pay back clause. We are a nation of individuals with individual rights, not rights based on group membership.
AO: “While institutional racism is a theory of the left…”
No it is not.
“14th Amendment is a fact. Once again I’ll paste the pertinent portion.
‘nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’”
If you end racism, the people who benefit from racism now will suffer a loss. This does not mean they are now victims of ‘reverse-racism’. It means they are no longer the beneficiaries of racism.
Ergo, the 14th amendment doesn’t apply.
“You just can’t seem to grasp the actual meaning of the word discrimination.”
Projection at its finest.
“And what does “contend you to hell ” mean?”
‘Condemn’ That should be ‘Condemn you to hell.’
That should have been clear from the context.
“For an athiest you certainly have some strongly held opinions on how God works. What’s up with that?”
Two reasons…
1.) I used to be a Christian.
2.) I’ve read the Bible. Not cover-to-cover. The endless begats would bore the tears out of anyone.
And I noticed you weren’t able and / or willing to debate my opinions. Why is that?
If I was wrong, you should be able to point out where and why.
Amused Observer: “LOL Quaker,”
Laughing simpleton.
“It’s a theory and its a theory of the left.”
That’s right. Racism isn’t real anymore. It’s just an excuse the left uses to keep Whitey down.
CS,
Your idea that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply is preposterous. If the 14th Amendment regarding equal protection under the law has no bearing on discrimination why do we even bother with worrying about discrimination against blacks. You are advocating the tyranny of the majority.
AO: “Your idea that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply is preposterous. If the 14th Amendment regarding equal protection under the law has no bearing on discrimination…”
What you call discrimination isn’t valid.
It’s not discrimination against whites to level the playing field.
“You are advocating the tyranny of the majority.”
Are you truly this fucking stupid? Or what this just a Freudian slip?
CS,
I mostly feel that resorting to namecalling is a sign of weakness in a debate. But you are truly a jackass. What fit of intellectual dishonesty led you to fracture my post with your partial quotes and leave out this key portion which you cunningly substituted elipses for?
…why do we even bother with worrying about discrimination against blacks.
“It’s not discrimination against whites to level the playing field.” Not unless you use discrimination to do it, dumb ass.
The 14th Amendment does not include a timeout or pay back clause.
You’re right. However, the 14th includes a section that allows Congress to make whatever laws necessary for enforcing the amendment. All the “discrimination” you’re complaining about is prescribed by those very laws.
That is an illegitimate interpretation of
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
That lanquage was intended to give Congress the power to force the states to abide by the Amendment not negate it.
Good night Quaker, play with Strowbridge if you so desire. You’re a lot smarter than he is but you’re still birds of a feather who advocate discrimination.
AO: “I mostly feel that resorting to namecalling is a sign of weakness in a debate.”
I feel that when a person can’t come up with a compelling argument it is a sign of weakness.
And you clearly can’t come up with a compelling argument.
You’ve decided that you have to redefine discrimination to include stopping people from discriminating against oppressed people. Because in your warped, racist mind, institutional racism is just awesome, but combating it is the real bigotry.
“You’re a lot smarter than he is but you’re still birds of a feather who advocate discrimination.”
This from a man who said it was acceptable to worry about the crime rate going up if minorities moved into your neighbourhood.
You are as racist as they come.
No wonder you hate Affirmative Action. You want to be allowed to keep minorities down.
Yet his ratings were up. So maybe he’s apologizing because people are thinking he was talking about Willow Palin when he clearly meant Bristol and he’s sorry if he inadvertently caused any grief. The Apologist Southern Strategy
“Honest Officer, I truly thought she was 18!”
“I would never do this with a 14 year old. Trust me. I’ll never do it again, I swear.!”
Mr. Politically Astute says he checked to make sure ‘Bristol’ was 18, but didn’t bother to look at any pictures or read any text of just which daughter that he was going to joke about getting knocked up by A-Rod to make sure he got that right. And it’s just a case of political opportunism for Sarah and Todd to be angered by his this claimed honest mistake from a man who loves to interject himself into the political arena at every opportunity.
You’re an expert on how parents should react to cruel jokes about their daughter’s sluttiness just how, Strowbridge?
That lanquage was intended to give Congress the power to force the states to abide by the Amendment not negate it.
Correct. Now perhaps you could point out a few instances when the Supreme Court found Congress misinterpreted that authority.
Quaker,
Fill me in, you seem to be leading up to the point that to enforce the Amendment you have to negate the Amendment.
[...] What I said two days ago: 1. The rally will be poorly attended. [...]
The protest have come and gone, and it appears there were more media there than actual protesters.
I guess Dennis the Bigot was wrong.
How shocking.
you seem to be leading up to the point that to enforce the Amendment you have to negate the Amendment.
I’m not.
The two are mutually exclusive. When Congress acts, its legislation is either within the authority provided by the amendment to enforce equal protection; or it is not. There’s no middle ground.
Congress has acted under this authority many times and I’m asking you: when has the Supreme Court found that Congress has exceeded its authority under the 14th?
An illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court does not make it right. The language is clear, the meaning even more so. Eroding the Constitution by judicial fiat brings us ever farther away from a nation ruled by law.
Affirmative Action was not legistlated into the form it is today. It was formed by policy which the Supreme court wrongfully failed to nullify when the case was brought before it.
An illegitimate decision by the Supreme Court does not make it right. The language is clear, the meaning even more so.
Can I possibly be understanding you correctly?
The states amend the Constitution to guarantee equality for all citizens; the Congress makes laws to enforce that equality; the Supreme Court, time after time, finds that Congress has acted within its authority.
Yet they are all in error? And only you, AO, have received the revealed truth from the Founders?
Remarkable.
The policy of Affirmative Action is in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment. It denies not mandates equal protection under the law.
The policy of Affirmative Action is in direct opposition to the 14th Amendment.
And while challenged many times in court, never found to be unconstitutional. I repeat my expression of astonishment at your uniquely superior understanding of constitutional law.
Duros your remarks say much about your personal decency and honor.
BTW, rather late, but you know nothing of my decency and honor. Perhaps you should not cast aspersions.
“Congress has acted under this authority many times and I’m asking you: when has the Supreme Court found that Congress has exceeded its authority under the 14th?”
Quaker,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases
Famous for Harlan’s dissent.
Good stuff, Hick. AO, please take note.
You just can’t accept the fact that there isn’t an asterisk in the 14th Amendment. The line of reasoning that supports negating equal protection to provide equal protection is similar to “We have to burn this village to save it”.
I not only think they should fire his sorry ass, if he had said that about my daughter, I would kick his sorry ass all over his stage. If you think I am a conservative wack job supporter your as stupid as your comments. This is about horrible sexual comments about a 14 year old and complete disrespect to a woman. But of course numnuts like you want and look at it as poltical.
GFY