calfoxwc Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Regardless of the personal attacks, I was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Cal, you often say your online persona is not "you" and in threads like this I really hope that's true because your online persona doesn't seem to be able to draw distinctions very well. You say "children" of politicians should be off limits in political/social/public discourse but draw no distinction between legal-age adults and young children. You say mocking ANY children should be off limits and decry what heck very expertly explained as what can only be called manufactured outrage and then conveniently "forget" all about Rush Limbaugh's attacks on Chelsea Clinton. Another distinction you fail to draw. Or are you actually making this distinction based on your political views and not really on your morals? I truly can't tell. And, my personal favorite, you like to throw around conservative radio labels like "lib" and then complain -- INCESSANTLY -- about people name calling, using the excuse that "they did it first so I'm fighting back." Again, your online persona's inability to draw the distinction between actual name-calling (what you do frequently) and people's slamming your point/position (what others -- outside of mz the pussy, I grant you that one -- usually do that you say is name calling). Can the real you please speak to your online persona about trying to draw some non-politically skewed distinctions once in a while? The real us out here would appreciate it. Juki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 You say "children" of politicians should be off limits in political/social/public discourse but draw no distinction between legal-age adults and young children. ****************************** No, I don't. They are still politicians children. The difference between 17 and 18 means little to me as far as whether or not they are open to try to attack to hurt their parents out of political benefit. ******************************** You say mocking ANY children should be off limits and decry what heck very expertly explained as what can only be called manufactured outrage and then conveniently "forget" all about Rush Limbaugh's attacks on Chelsea Clinton. Another distinction you fail to draw. Or are you actually making this distinction based on your political views and not really on your morals? I truly can't tell. ******************************** That's what I said. I meant it. Are you saying it is fair to hurt their parents with these attacks if they are 18 but not 17 ? Call me a liar if you want. But I certainly do NOT remember Mccain or Limbaugh doing that. It isn't like it was last week. You can't tell, because I really mean what I say - attacking any politician via humiliating their children is unnecessary and really cheapshot politics. *********************************** And, my personal favorite, you like to throw around conservative radio labels like "lib" and then complain -- INCESSANTLY -- about people name calling, using the excuse that "they did it first so I'm fighting back." Again, your online persona's inability to draw the distinction between actual name-calling (what you do frequently) and people's slamming your point/position (what others -- outside of mz the pussy, I grant you that one -- usually do that you say is name calling). *************************************** well, you are confusing now. Name calling gets out of hand with some people. And, saying "you're opinion is Retarded" is a slur I don't appreciate. Special ed kids deserve better. Being nasty and rude to somebody isn't name calling, but initiates it's. Even disagreeing with someone respectfully often initiates name calling by those who can't stand being disagreed with. My impression of somebody dissing somebody regardless of the merit of their opinion or posted article, is the same as name calling. And, I am really, really busy, and I type faster than blue lightning, and if I take issue with crap in any form, then I tend to spew it back. Hardly something to brag about at all, but it's the .. about.. only way to let others know they should at least try to be tolerant of opposite views. ******************************************** Can the real you please speak to your online persona about trying to draw some non-politically skewed distinctions once in a while? The real us out here would appreciate it. ********************************************* The real me spent an hour and a half helping paint our great room and hallway, or one of our closest friends said she'd cut my computer cord if I got back on before we were done. The online me isn't happy, because after we got done painting, I fired up a beef roast dinner in the microwave and, since I was sitting at a stop sign, and two pickup trucks smached into each other in front of my car, and the one who was turning spun into my car, I have whiplash so I was looking for my aspirin and forgot to wait to open the dinner out of the microwave, and pulled the celophane back as steam roared out and burnt my thumb pretty good. You send em both a pm and tell em off for me. See ya. Cal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Letterman tonight: “All right, here – I’ve been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week – it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don’t know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There’s no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can’t be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They’re angry at me because they said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?’ And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani … and I really should have made the joke about Rudy …” (audience applauds) “But I didn’t, and now people are getting angry and they’re saying, ‘Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who’s completely innocent, minding her own business,’ and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she’s now at the ball game, and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I’m wondering, ‘Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?’ I’ve never made jokes like this as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years, and you can’t really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself. “And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer ‘Newshour’ – this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, ‘Oh, boy, now I’m beginning to understand what the problem is here. It’s the perception rather than the intent.’ It doesn’t make any difference what my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke. And I’m certainly – ” (audience applause) “– thank you. Well, my responsibility – I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much.” (audience applause) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yeah, he's probably right to do this. Ratings bumps from stuff like this are usually temporary. Guys like Letterman and Leno stay on TV for a generation precisely because they don't offend whole swaths of people. And then there are the concerns of the parent company, who were weighing in on this as well. However, I don't think the joke missed because it needed to be explained. He didn't have to explain it at the time. Everyone got it and most laughed. What was wrong with the joke was that the premise was wrong. And it was only wrong in retrospect, at least from their vantage point. And I sympathize with the guy who wrote this. I saw those headlines last Monday morning and I didn't see anyone mention Willow being at the game either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yeah, I think that one is settled too. Point: Inspecta. People like Cal and Steve are also under the mistaken impression that if Chelsea Clinton got a rep for being a sloppy drunk that Leno, Letterman, and all the rest wouldn't do jokes about her being a lush. They would. She just never got a reputation for being a sloppy drunk. So if you did a joke where the punchline rested on that premise no one would laugh. It's sort of like how they believe that Obama is an "empty suit" or some such nonsense. Go try a joke with the premise that Obama is a dope who doesn't understand anything that's going on. See how many people laugh. You'd have to do it as a 180, like in this classic skit: This is one of the reasons why conservative comedy never works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yeah, I think that one is settled too. Point: Inspecta. I think so. Letterman wanted to boost his sagging ratings against Conan through any means possible. People like Cal and Steve are also under the mistaken impression that if Chelsea Clinton got a rep for being a sloppy drunk that Leno, Letterman, and all the rest wouldn't do jokes about her being a lush. They would. She just never got a reputation for being a sloppy drunk. So if you did a joke where the punchline rested on that premise no one would laugh. Of course Heck would shit hgis pants. It's sort of like how they believe that Obama is an "empty suit" or some such nonsense. Go try a joke with the premise that Obama is a dope who doesn't understand anything that's going on. See how many people laugh. So your hypocritical and stunted sense of humor proves, uh, what again? You'd have to do it as a 180, like in this classic skit: This is one of the reasons why conservative comedy never works. Cuz ya get fired if you're conservative. And: It works for liberals because the needed attention span is shorter. BTW Heck a "real" apology at least requires a straight face. Remember after Paul was busted for weed and promiused "never again" as he winked at the camera? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 People like Cal and Steve are also under the mistaken impression that if Chelsea Clinton got a rep for being a sloppy drunk that Leno, Letterman, and all the rest wouldn't do jokes about her being a lush. They would. She just never got a reputation for being a sloppy drunk. So if you did a joke where the punchline rested on that premise no one would laugh. **************************************** Nobody talked about if she got a rep... she got drunk once, and Bristol got pregnant and had a baby once. I guess Heck and Dan think it's okay to hurt and humiliate Bristol because HER once is a rep. That's really ridiculous. What you have, is a lot of liberal media that picks up stones only if they are to be thrown at conservatives, and they gleefully throw them. Like Letterman did. Letterman admits he checked to see if Bristol was 18? But he is so ignorant, he didn't check to see which daughter, if any, was WITH her at the game? Don't buy it. And bring up a alledged decade? old slur that was levied against Chelsea, which was also repulsive, is the usual defend of liberalism gone bad - it's just a diversionary change of subject that excuses an outrage now, for an outrage long before. Clue for Heck: They are BOTH outrages. And the former does NOT excuse the latter. ********************************************************************* It's sort of like how they believe that Obama is an "empty suit" or some such nonsense. Go try a joke with the premise that Obama is a dope who doesn't understand anything that's going on. See how many people laugh. ******************************************************************* See? Say, Heck, go read the subject of the thread, and try to explain how talking about Obama is relevant, and is any kind of analogy of what happend to the Palin kids. Diversionary subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So since Obama "preached" sex ed (including sodomy) to grade schoolers how about a joke about his kids getting a BF from a stranger? Since we gots to be all apples and oranges and whatnot. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Because he didn't. That's just something people like you think. So you don't send someone out there to do a joke based on this supposedly widely-accepted premise - that's only accepted by cranks - because nobody will laugh. Again, this is why there are no conservative comedy shows - because you guys think everyone accepts your bullshit as true. And in order to laugh, they need to accept the premise as being true, or mostly true. But they don't. So I guess you could tell that joke to Cal and he'd get it. But everyone else would be looking at you like, "Huh??" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Heck translation: "Conservatives have no sense of humor because they don't laugh at the only jokes we tolorate - jokes, especially vicious and mean spirited jokes that hit conservatives below the belt. But liberals really laugh at that good stuff." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.