|
Your Sledgehammer posted:The fact that a list of Olbermann "special comments" runs 70 entries long over a span of five years tells you everything you need to know about how egotistical the man is. Not really? Dude likes to write and rant. One every few weeks doesn't tell me everything I need to know about how egotistical he is. I don't even get the argument currently going on. "Mark Levin is insane" "Rush Limbaugh is a sexist bigot" "Keith Olbermann is really full of himself". I don't really get the need to nail Olbermann for being egotistical or showy.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
Ballz posted:The first part isn't all that far-fetched -- many have suggested to just let the tax cuts expire, because aside from the payroll tax (which I don't believe anyone planned on extending anyways), Americans wouldn't feel the effects right away. When a new Congress convenes in January, they can then go and add new tax breaks to those making under $250K and have it apply retro-actively to the first of the year. Why are they calling it "The Fiscal Cliff" then and saying that allowing all of those things will result in exactly what you said wouldn't (spiraling the U.S. into a recession)? It's not just the right predicting a double dip recession if something isn't done. Or is the whole thing just hyperbolic horseshit, designed to generate headlines? The more I look at what will happen if a new budget isn't passed, the more I don't think it'll be all that horrible, but then again my comprehension and grasp of global economics is pretty tenuous. Walter posted:Yes, Rush, we should cap unemployment at 13 weeks and food stamps at 2 months and then cut people off. No doubt, dude. This poo poo has been loving killing me. All the right wing outlets I listen to are running around calling Obama the "food stamp president" and crying about all the people receiving government assistance. Well, no poo poo Rush. That sort of tends to happen when Wall Street bookies and corporate barons gamble away everyone's retirement investments and plunge the whole loving country into a huge shitstorm. "People are poor! Why do so many of them need help?" And the poo poo that really gets me is that so many of these media outlets continue to sell the idea that the country is broke because the poor people took all the money, when it was really the rich power brokers and their lawmakers who stole it all and mismanaged everything. edit: someone should look into how long Rush received his unemployment benefits. I can't seem to find it, but I remember reading in one of Franken's books that Limbaugh was on the dole more than once. Stern wrote about it too. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I'm curious what other TV hosts were "Bush-bashing" (being critical of Bush) at that time. I don't recall a single one, maybe you can refresh my memory? The thing is, the two of you are talking about different time periods. You're absolutely right that Olbermann was pretty much alone in regularly speaking against the Iraq War in 2003, but he's totally right that by 2007 Bush was universally reviled and a bunch of people jumped on the "Bush sucks" bandwagon to boost ratings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:but he's totally right that by 2007 Bush was universally reviled and a bunch of people jumped on the "Bush sucks" bandwagon to boost ratings. No one is disagreeing here - what we are saying is that without Olbermann there might not have been a Bush sucks bandwagon. The media were so cowed by W and the post 9/11 environment that who knows how long it would have taken for someone else to get the ball rolling and make it ok to loudly call the President a dipshit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:The thing is, the two of you are talking about different time periods. You're absolutely right that Olbermann was pretty much alone in regularly speaking against the Iraq War in 2003, but he's totally right that by 2007 Bush was universally reviled and a bunch of people jumped on the "Bush sucks" bandwagon to boost ratings. But if Olbermann was doing it well before 2007 he wasn't "jumping on the bandwagon" by 2007. He broke the ice (circa 2005) as far as criticizing Bush and the conservative media complex, making it possible for other progressive voices to be heard on cable. When people go out of their way to try and characterize Olbermann as a left wing version of Limbaugh or O'Reilly it's a red flag. Yeah he's a bit pompous but he's not equivalent to anyone on the far right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:At any rate, it's been really fun watching Boehner get pummeled by the Right for dropping so many Teabaggers from Committee positions. It's like he's realized, far too late of course, that the country actually doesn't like his Party that much. Hannity was going on about this on his radio show today. He had someone on that I gather had been bounced from some committee or another and the dude he was interviewing was bending over backwards trying to be reasonable and pragmatic while Sean poked and prodded him over and over again to whip him back into the Tea Party "true conservative" line. I can't stomach Hannity for longer than 2 minutes usually so I didn't get the entire gist of it but from what I managed to listen to it was basically Sean horsewhipping the dude as he actually tried to make the case that Republicans may want to entertain the idea of being slightly more pragmatic and reasonable moving forward and not be total dicks about everything all the time. The guy he was interviewing didn't really seem that mad about being bounced by Boehner and sounded like he understood why they can't be so hardline about everything, but Sean - being the Great American that he is - was having none of it. It was rather funny in that circular firing squad sort of way, but even at that, I can only stand listening to Hannity for about as long as it takes me to take a poo poo. I really try to monitor and absorb some of this stuff; Boortz, Rush, Hannity, Andy Dean, etc. but it just sends me into a seething rage when I realize the lies they're spewing and, more importantly, how many people take it as absolute gospel. I'd love to get on the radio with some of these people and debate them. Or invite them into this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Olbermann didn't pioneer poo poo, nor was he courageous. The fact that he could get on TV and bloviate pointlessly, with as little rigor as Michael Savage, was a sign that people were utterly sick of Bush and his wars. He was catering to a new market, purely as entertainment. Not a single person was enlightened by him. Seconding what Zwabu posted. He was courageous. He went after the war(s) well before it became obvious that it was right, way before it was popular or even acceptable to do so and did not "bloviate pointlessly". He was right, as much of an rear end in a top hat as he was about it. Same with Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, Bill Maher and whoever else you want to throw out there as a demonstration of false equivalency to human turds and commercial opportunists like Michael Savage. Around 2002-2003, the only people I could watch/listen to that were making an ounce of sense in the media were Olbermann, Moore, Buzzflash and a few radio hosts on Air America Radio that NO ONE was listening to. I think you're forgetting the flag sucking and xenophobic vitriol that went on prior to everyone eventually realizing in retrospect that invading Iraq was a stupid and stupid idea. Something like 85 - 90% of the country was all for it at the time and anyone who disagreed with the idea back then was a terror loving terrorist who hated the troops. No one dared challenge the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, profiling, etc. and now you have right wing radio show callers screaming and bitching constantly, whining about the TSA and crying 'foul' about government spying and overreach. Not to mention the complaining about the cost of it all and that their taxes might go up or something. It did take courage to speak out back then and everyone seems to have now forgotten that the people that did so were right, no matter how much of an rear end in a top hat they may have been about it. Sorry for the rant/double post.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
The reason it is OK to go over the "fiscal cliff" is because the negative economic effects won't really hit on a large scale until months and months later. Which gives time to set things back to rights after the richie rich tax cuts are gone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Hannity was going on about this on his radio show today. He had someone on that I gather had been bounced from some committee or another and the dude he was interviewing was bending over backwards trying to be reasonable and pragmatic while Sean poked and prodded him over and over again to whip him back into the Tea Party "true conservative" line. I've listened to Mark Levin the past two days on my drive home and he is calling Boehner a traitor to conservatives. Levin is a straight up fear mongering demagogue and when he's not hawking his own books, he's telling his listeners that the reelection of Obama is the end of Western civilization. He loves to quote himself and cite his own books more than Thomas Friedman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
For anyone wanting a trip down Memory Lane, here's part 1 of Mediaite's "17 Of 2012′s Craziest And Most Memorable Moments In Television". Besides Fox News, it also covers some interesting moments from other right-wing media (Limbaugh) and some of the "lamestream media" networks (MSNBC, CNN, HLN).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Has "These people!" always been such a rallying cry for Rush/Hannity? I realize that the left and people voting democrat have always been targets, but since the election it seems the phrase "THESE PEOPLE" has been so rife and often used that it's become disturbing to the point that it could be replaced by "DARKIES" or the N-word and not be noticed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:Has "These people!" always been such a rallying cry for Rush/Hannity? I'm pretty sure it's been that way since at least 2008, though I bet you could argue it goes as far back as the '60s (when the nadir of American race relations died down and being overtly racist became no longer ok). All we're really seeing now is a revival of the nadir, as open racism becomes more and more acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:Has "These people!" always been such a rallying cry for Rush/Hannity? Lee Atwater infamously elaborated on its intent/history with regards to the Southern Strategy back in 1981 (you can read the infamous quote here).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm pretty sure it's been that way since at least 2008, though I bet you could argue it goes as far back as the '60s (when the nadir of American race relations died down and being overtly racist became no longer ok). All we're really seeing now is a revival of the nadir, as open racism becomes more and more acceptable. It is but it isn't. It's 'more acceptable' only because the right wing in this country is getting more locked in and insane - almost like they're in the middle of some great big conservative skinnerbox cult experiment. Everyone else is horrified by it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:It is but it isn't. It's 'more acceptable' only because the right wing in this country is getting more locked in and insane - almost like they're in the middle of some great big conservative skinnerbox cult experiment. Everyone else is horrified by it. I wouldn't say "everyone else" is horrified by it. Step out of our ultra-liberal circlejerk and I think we're too often shocked by how we're really far into the fringe of American politics and how Democrats are too moderate and center-right to really combat modern American conservatism's moral rot on race issues (among... well, everything else). I mean, Rush Limbaugh can call Sandra Fluke a slut and Trayvon Martin a punk or gangbanger (understood to be a euphemism for "friend of the family" by all involved) and still stay the unelected figurehead of the Republican Party, which is still taken seriously as a political party with legitimate positions. If that's not evidence for the death of effective American progressivism I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
So I was eating dinner and the tv was showing Obama on FOX with the headline "OBAMA SEEKS UNILATERAL POWER TO OVERRULE DEBT CEILING" Jesus wept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
Guess who's feeling butthurt about not being invited to the White House?  quote:President Obama met with Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Ed Schultz. The Huffington Post Media Group's Arianna Huffington was also in attendance. White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest released a statement saying that "the President met with influential progressives to talk about the importance of preventing a tax increase on middle class families, strengthening our economy and adopting a balanced approach to deficit reduction."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Guess who's feeling butthurt about not being invited to the White House? Given the audio that broke where Petraeus said "if I had run for president Ailes would have managed it and Murdoch would have financed it," you have to wonder if Fox News is at all interested in keeping the moderates who aren't die-hard conservatives but simply prefer Fox News to the other cable news networks. Then again, those moderates are probably not watching Fox and Friends.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Guess who's feeling butthurt about not being invited to the White House? They are shocked, SHOCKED I tell you. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/us/politics/17radio.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:Given the audio that broke where Petraeus said "if I had run for president Ailes would have managed it and Murdoch would have financed it," you have to wonder if Fox News is at all interested in keeping the moderates who aren't die-hard conservatives but simply prefer Fox News to the other cable news networks. Wait, what? When did this happen? Where was this? Did I miss something in the thread because this sounds delightful, by which I mean awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Wait, what? When did this happen? Where was this? Did I miss something in the thread because this sounds delightful, by which I mean awful. Here ya go! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:For all the bullshit of the last four years, its hard to remember how loving insane the Bush era was in general. I mean, I lived through it and still can barely believe there was a time when Olbermann was the voice of reason in a world gone mad. My neighbor, goon RivuletsofGlop & I got through 2002-2003 by consuming at least thirty kegs in his bar behind his garage. Basically, we stayed drunk all the way through the "duct-tape--Saddam has chem-drones--Valerie Plame? What's treasonous behaviour?!" hysteria. It was hell, I tells ya.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Everything just seemed so bleak back then. I remember really coming of political age during those years and especially after the shadiness behind the 2004 election it was real easy to believe that Republican party victory forever poo poo they were spewing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Guess who's feeling butthurt about not being invited to the White House? The whole point of that meeting was to talk to progressives, not invite everyone across the political spectrum. They're making a stink over nothing. (As usual.) KomradeX posted:Everything just seemed so bleak back then. I remember really coming of political age during those years and especially after the shadiness behind the 2004 election it was real easy to believe that Republican party victory forever poo poo they were spewing. You weren't alone - the reality is that in hindsight all we saw was the last gasp of 'old white racist & gullible majority' politics for presidential elections. Also the major reason why the democratic party rocks rear end now is that smart youth who were angry at the Republican party during those years got involved in politics - it was their brains that were responsible for the superior Obama ground game. The republican strategists are basically being outmoded and out-thought at every turn now, by smart youth who they'd spurned during the Bush years, who can keep quick-thinking pace with how politics work these days. The fact is he was already obsolete in 2000 - but the illusion of that and 2004's lackluster democrat candidate created a luster of invincibility that Rove really didn't deserve. Now we really seem him as he is; he's a snake-oil salesman who was doomed to eventually be exposed. The biggest takeaway from the election for me was this: Karl Rove, who was always a charlatan playing at being a genius, has been effectively exposed as obsolete by people like Nate Silver, and by the fact-based reality of how information and political campaigning works these days. You can't be a lazy-rear end and rely on a dumb white majority to magically create success in spite of your dishonesty and incompetence any more (as was definitely the case with George W - pretty much anyone with any sense could see he was an idiot) - you have to be smart, and appeal to people's intelligence. This is the age of instant fact-checking and twitter feeds. Of easy computer use and facebook shared articles. Of youtube embarrassments and heated news site discussions. Of local communities organizing an extensively coordinated campaign ground-game at the local level thanks to the use of easy social networking. It's a time where if you are running a candidate who tries to rely on people's ignorance and lock-step prejudice, you are doomed to lose - and that loss will only get harsher as time goes on. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Why are they calling it "The Fiscal Cliff" then and saying that allowing all of those things will result in exactly what you said wouldn't (spiraling the U.S. into a recession)? It's not just the right predicting a double dip recession if something isn't done. Or is the whole thing just hyperbolic horseshit, designed to generate headlines? Pretty much what I bolded. Well ok, maybe not complete horseshit. The "world will end January 1st" aspect of it is, though; the drastic, draconian cuts called for by this are phased in over the course of several months. Congress has plenty of time to fix it (and they don't have to do it all in one fell swoop), and by waiting until the new year, they'll no longer be shackled to the Bush tax cuts. Again, the most immediate impact on working Americans on January 1, 2013 will be their payroll taxes will go up to what they were before 2011. And that's something neither party is interested in changing, regardless of what becomes of the fiscal cliff. The OP to the fiscal cliff thread is a good primer on the particulars of what will happen should nothing be done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Again, the most immediate impact on working Americans on January 1, 2013 will be their payroll taxes will go up to what they were before 2011. And that's something neither party is interested in changing, regardless of what becomes of the fiscal cliff. Dammit Democrats, why don't you keep the tax holiday and tax the difference (and whatever other money you need) out of Wall Street's hide? I mean, it's not like rich people's money is going to combat the huge "gently caress the stock market" feeling in the American populace right now. You could at least propose the idea, even if the Republicans won't bite, to score brownie points! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:The whole point of that meeting was to talk to progressives, not invite everyone across the political spectrum. They're making a stink over nothing. (As usual.) The Republicans have a way of bouncing back, even one thought they were dead in 64, then Nixon came in 68, then Reagan in 79. The will eventually adapt maybe even sooner than we think and theyre are plenty of young people who are just as hateful and ignorant as these old racists, hell they support racist policy without realizing its racist and getting offended when thats pointed out. Hell I get treated like I'm crazy when I point out that capitalism is an unsustainable system, let alone when I tell them I'm a socialist they look at me like I'm deranged. Among the college aged group you're gonna see a shift from the social conservative types to more libertarian smug. I see it happening at my college (which is a CUNY so raging against the government while benefiting from it directly just seem so stupid to me). I could be wrong though, hell I know more than few libertarians of the Randian/Paul type that are fundie Evangelical Christians
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:Guess who's feeling butthurt about not being invited to the White House? Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican President had events where he only met with conservative journalists or bloggers? I mean seriously, can you imagine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Everything just seemed so bleak back then. I remember really coming of political age during those years and especially after the shadiness behind the 2004 election it was real easy to believe that Republican party victory forever poo poo they were spewing. I can clearly remember the post-9/11 era when 98% of the public was blindly devoted to Bush as he started making noises about invading Iraq. When he forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq without letting them do their job (determining whether there were WMD) and the admin was like "we can't wait for the inspectors because MUSHROOM CLOUD!" it was the most obvious huge, gigantic red flag ever that we were being completely bamboozled, and literally no one in the mainstream media questioned it. It really was a dark period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican President had events where he only met with conservative journalists or bloggers? I mean seriously, can you imagine? This just firmly reinforces my belief that the conservative media is filled with nothing but absolute contempt for their audience. If they actually respected their audience, they wouldn't distort history and flat-out lie to them so goddamn much. Especially when their lies are so easily and quickly disproved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'd love to get on the radio with some of these people and debate them. This really isn't that hard to do, if you have some free time. Mike Stark is guy that used to drive a number of talk radio hosts nuts like this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGhR2VnVma0 I don't know if he's still active but he did put together a sort of primer for calling these types of shows. I don't know if he wants it just thrown out there but I have a copy here and if anyone wants a link PM me. Long story short, most of these shows welcome liberal callers. Especially if you sound like a pushover moron they can pants live on air. You're never going to "win" any sort of debate with even the small time local guys since they control the phone line and dump button, but it's easier than you think to derail shows and topics completely in 30 seconds or less if you know your poo poo. Truth is most talk radio hosts aren't that good once their off their talking points. The only hard part is not getting blackballed if you're any good and the fact you're going to sit on hold for 10-20 minutes for most local shows or up to 2 hours to call a Limbaugh or Beck once you finally get through the busy signals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
GoatSeeGuy posted:This really isn't that hard to do, if you have some free time. Mike Stark is guy that used to drive a number of talk radio hosts nuts like this- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGhR2VnVma0 I don't know if he's still active but he did put together a sort of primer for calling these types of shows. I don't know if he wants it just thrown out there but I have a copy here and if anyone wants a link PM me. Holy poo poo, that was great. Rush sounded like the epitome of  until he was finally able to "turn" the call "around" on the guy (by dodging the question and attacking the questioner).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 07:33
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I can clearly remember the post-9/11 era when 98% of the public was blindly devoted to Bush as he started making noises about invading Iraq. When he forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq without letting them do their job (determining whether there were WMD) and the admin was like "we can't wait for the inspectors because MUSHROOM CLOUD!" it was the most obvious huge, gigantic red flag ever that we were being completely bamboozled, and literally no one in the mainstream media questioned it. It really was a dark period. Just as an example of how deep this was, Hans Blix (UN Weapon Inspector) was a recurring character on Late Night With Conan O'Brien and portrayed as a Mr. Magoo type figure who would look at crates labelled "mustard gas" and say "nothing bad here". Even Conan O'Brien and his comedy show was cheer leading for war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I can clearly remember the post-9/11 era when 98% of the public was blindly devoted to Bush as he started making noises about invading Iraq. When he forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq without letting them do their job (determining whether there were WMD) and the admin was like "we can't wait for the inspectors because MUSHROOM CLOUD!" it was the most obvious huge, gigantic red flag ever that we were being completely bamboozled, and literally no one in the mainstream media questioned it. It really was a dark period. For what it's worth, in South Africa, one of our television channels showed Wag the Dog as their Saturday-night movie on the day you guys invaded Iraq. The rest of the world knew what was up, even if the majority of the US public did not. Also, that film was disturbingly prescient about the kinds of media manipulation that went on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
I see that there. posted:Has "These people!" always been such a rallying cry for Rush/Hannity? If it's "these people" you can change the definitions of who "these people" (by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus) are as needed, carrying the anger you've built up at one group to a slightly or even completely different group. edit: It's not that they aren't using it to be racist, but it's good for more than that. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:12
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I can clearly remember the post-9/11 era when 98% of the public was blindly devoted to Bush as he started making noises about invading Iraq. When he forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq without letting them do their job (determining whether there were WMD) and the admin was like "we can't wait for the inspectors because MUSHROOM CLOUD!" it was the most obvious huge, gigantic red flag ever that we were being completely bamboozled, and literally no one in the mainstream media questioned it. It really was a dark period. Am I correct feeling this is the source of the paranoid hatred for the UN these days? Looking back on the Iraq war era now it baffles me that educated, rational people supported the conflict and Bush administration shenanigans at the time. Sydney Bottocks posted:This just firmly reinforces my belief that the conservative media is filled with nothing but absolute contempt for their audience. If they actually respected their audience, they wouldn't distort history and flat-out lie to them so goddamn much. Especially when their lies are so easily and quickly disproved. They have no other option really...their support relies on working slobs falling for the same old bullshit over and over again without invoking critical thinking on their part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
Nah, paranoid hatred of the UN has been a right-wing bugaboo since its formation. The John Birch Society, which if you're not familiar with it you really need to read up on it, which was started by the Koch brothers' father, used to rant about UN takeover of the US back in the 60's and 70's about how the Demmycrats were going to sell out the US to the UN and so on and so on. Xenophobic psychosis has been the default state of the American right since... ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:53
|
|
|
Some one should study the psychology behind conservative memes/catch phrases/tropes. The one I see a lot lately goes something like "Are you really [denigrating right-wing sacred cow]? Really? Really?" An alternate version of this is "Can you believe that??" *clutches pearls*.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
Edit: nevermind.
Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:For what it's worth, in South Africa, one of our television channels showed Wag the Dog as their Saturday-night movie on the day you guys invaded Iraq. Yeah, while most of the rest of the world may have known what was up, that's a bad example. It was more or less suggesting that going after Osama was a distraction from Clinton's impeachment trial. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 13:49
|
|
