Really, who cares about Palin?
by BenthamiteJune 16th, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Filed under: News Story Commentary
 |
|
I just want to know who really cares about Sarah Palin anyway? The fact of the recent Letterman story is that there were about 15 protesters and 40 media reporters trying to make something big out of the "bad" joke. And it gets worse---This Web site, FireDavidLetterman.com, is just stupid. The guy behind this movement, John Ziegler, also made a film attempting to depict media bias in the recent election, which he claims gave Obama an advantage. In my opinion, if you think the media is bias in one particular direction, you are not open minded. Pretty much everything in the world is inherently bias---fact. Here's a factual attestation to bias contrasting Ziegler's fanatical propaganda against left bias: I saw a Fox News television commercial the other day that almost made me puke. Here's the reason. Fox News attempted to define for us what it means to be an American. Watching that commercial is just an insult to my intelligence and should be such to anyone else that can read. The last thing I want to deal with are fellow countrymen brainwashed by an uncompromising media regime that uses a dangerous form of psychological warfare (e.g., creation of a guilt complex; us-or-them mentality) to create cyber-zombies, the manufacturing of which is what politics in our country is becoming all about. What I wonder is how we can teach people to be more critical of media and how to deflect the brainwashing tactics that promote irrational thinking and intolerance. Here's an good example of mild intolerance in the making: Despite Letterman's Apology, Protesters Call for Sponsor Boycott. There's just no balance in this report. It's like the article is for people that don't partake in any form of comedy, much less watch television. My point here is that certain media is deliberately brainwashing and can easily manufacture negative emotions. I'm worried about the people that don't realize where they are getting their opinions from. |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest First
We already see the sarcasm. We also see a big contradiction, one you could very easily clear up by simply choosing a stance. - Count
WE? WE? Let me ask you. Do you see yourself as a King? Do you see yourself as a god ruler? Are you a split personality? WE?
You are very 'funny', LMFAo again.
I think that you need to read more then the Royal Orders that you decree!
Oh! I should not poke fun at the serious nature of your question.
Am I running for office?
Am I nominated for a judge position?
There must be some reason you think I should answer to you. Should I answer because you are the "Count"? His Royal Highness.
OMG, you are to funny. I am glad you are here.
Well Count, Your Highness, the sun is coming up over the ocean and all is bright and shiny. Time to go.
TTYL, Your Majesty.
Point me to the section in the Constitution that is being walked on.
I just hate it when people try to step all over others' Constitutional freedoms. - Count
You are funny, LMFAo!
ArrogantlyBlunt-
You wrote this strongly emotional sarcastic statement, leading me to believe you are against it: - Count
You made this sarcastic statement - Count
man up or is your manhood in some jar with your penis? - Arrogantly Blunt
Finally! You do understand a few things! Maybe you are just a few eggs short of an Easter Egg Hunt!
I think if you re-read my comments to you, about the bullshit you say; you may pick up on a lot of sarcasm I fling your way. You are beginning to understand what I am saying to you.
So let me get this straight. You make 4 statements that contradict eachother, then when asked to clarify which ones you meant and which ones you didn't, you say you use a lot of sarcasm, then still neglect to declare which side you're taking. We already see the sarcasm. We also see a big contradiction, one you could very easily clear up by simply choosing a stance. Of course, if you did that you would have to explain what you meant by:
Abortion does not upset me. :o)
Pornography is fun to watch. ;O)~
You are trying to pigeon hole me in some formate you think all people are in because they are Religious. Are you that fixated on your hate that you do not see people for themselves? You let your religious bigotry get in your eyes and the hate shows.
Fail red herring is fail. I guess if you divert the subject away from your constant flip-flopping, everyone will just forget that you dodged the questions- again. I merely asked you “if homosexuality was a choice?” If I was tying to pigeonhole you into the format of Christian fundamentalism, I would have accused you right off the bat instead of asking. Kind of how you pigeon-holed me into being a pedophile, homophobe, racist, and a bigot.
I can understand Ryan's hateful words; you, on the other hand seem to be a little bit smarter. Your hate stops you from seeing people as being just people. What do you see when you look in the mirror? Do you see someone fighting against evil or are you just fighting because of your hate of religion/people of faith?
Lol @ fighting against evil. I wouldn't fight traffic for most people. You make it sound like I'm on this fiery crusade, but the truth is most of the time I just don't give a damn. I just hate it when people try to step all over others' Constitutional freedoms. Live your life any damn way you want, just don't tell people how to govern their own lives and bodies. This really isn't a difficult concept to understand, yet it's eluded you for months now.
Your Raptor Hate Thread was aimed at Christs Followers. You are so full of hate you did not see Raptor Jesus had other forms of hate in it. Hate for blacks. Hate for homosexuals. Hate for woman and children. All you could see was the hate focused on the followers of Jesus. Your hate blinded you to this. Good way to not see what is really going on in this world and this Blog.
It wasn't aimed at anyone, it's older then Dick Clark, I told you why I posted it (every other site has it) and even took a damn screenshot as evidence. I'll be honest, I don't really get offended by a lot of things. Personally, I don't see what your problem is with the slideshow. It doesn't show hate to any of those groups, it just pokes fun at Jesus. That's like saying the political cartoons of the president “show hate.” You have posted some of them yourself. Oh I forgot it's only hate if you disagree with it. People have a 1st Amendment right to make cartoons and jokes. Sounds to me like the hater is you and the target is freedom of speech.
Would you like to know the first time I saw your hate for people of faith? You put in a critique of everyone that had critiqued a thread. In that critique you named every one and what you thought of what they had said; but two. And what two did you leave out? Julita asked you why you did not name her and you would not even answer her, if I remember correctly. The other was Arrogantly Blunt, me. Not only did you not name me, you quoted me, then said you agreed with what I had said. Why, I asked myself, was my name not on the quote?
There are only two people on this Blog that say they believe in God. Take a guess. Julita and Arrogantly Blunt.
Hate fills you up and it is hate that will destroy you.
I gotta say I'm super disappointed. You spent four paragraphs, building up your red herring into a devastating conclusion, and your final point and 'evidence' is this? Let me see if I got this straight: you're saying I “hate people of faith” because I quoted everyone but left you and Julita's names off. Is that the best you got? Shouldn't be too hard to go back and find what you're referring to. Here is the post in question: Stricter Gun Laws Might Make Sense
My exact quote to Julita was:
Count, what about me? You forgot me! -Julita
It was starting to run a little long <3
-Count, May 14th, 2009
^^ That is your evindence that I “hate” people of faith? As far as quoting everyone, I never even quoted you in that thread. Get your lies straight, it was you who quoted me, agreeing with what I had said:
Isn't it ironic that the guns you want gone are the very ones keeping you safe now. Before there were guns, the strongest people took whatever the hell they wanted and raped whoever they wanted. Rocks, swords, and farming tools didn't make very good weapons because they did not allow a physically weak person (such as the elderly or disabled) to realistically defend themselves against someone who was physically strong. Before guns the world was incredibly more violent and people died at the drop of a hat. The only tool of self-defense people had was strength in numbers. Guns are called “the great equalizer” because they actually would allow someone physically weak or disabled to defend themselves. -- Count on May 13th, 2009 at 1:08 PM
It was starting to run a little long <3 -- Count on May 14th, 2009 at 10:16 AM
All I can say is; when a critique runs long, some points are not fully assimilated into the brain. Some points/parts of that long critique may be forgotten. This point/part is excellent! I just wanted to repeat it. I also need to read your article. :o)
-ArrogantlyBlunt, May 14th, 2009
If you thought I was a “hater” all those months ago, it sure as hell doesn't sound like it from your reply. ^^ How bad at this are you when you make one accusation after another and present evidence that contradicts yourself? No wonder you never provide any evidence, it just makes you look even worse.
Anyway, in summary:
Use of sarcasm: 4/10
Attempt at humor: 2/10 (I'm being generous here)
Use of evidence/sources: 2/10
Red herring to distract from questions: 7/10 (wasn't bad actually)
Use of Julita to salvage a weak point: 3/10
Final point and climax: 1/10 (subpar, not your best work at all)
Overall score: 3/10
Oh My, I am hurt. I am so hurt. How could you do it? How could you put my name and the Counts in the same line? - Arrogantly Blunt
You really know how to hurt me, ryan2whine!
Your lucky I don't know you, I'd beat you to withing an inch of your life. - ryan29
Laughing My Sarcastic Ass Off
You wrote this strongly emotional sarcastic statement, leading me to believe you are against it: - Count
You made this sarcastic statement - Count
man up or is your manhood in some jar with your penis? - Arrogantly Blunt
Finally! You do understand a few things! Maybe you are just a few eggs short of an Easter Egg Hunt!
I think if you re-read my comments to you, about the bullshit you say; you may pick up on a lot of sarcasm I fling your way. You are beginning to understand what I am saying to you.
You are trying to pigeon hole me in some formate you think all people are in because they are Religious. Are you that fixated on your hate that you do not see people for themselves? You let your religious bigotry get in your eyes and the hate shows.
I can understand Ryan's hateful words; you, on the other hand seem to be a little bit smarter. Your hate stops you from seeing people as being just people. What do you see when you look in the mirror? Do you see someone fighting against evil or are you just fighting because of your hate of religion/people of faith?
Your Raptor Hate Thread was aimed at Christs Followers. You are so full of hate you did not see Raptor Jesus had other forms of hate in it. Hate for blacks. Hate for homosexuals. Hate for woman and children. All you could see was the hate focused on the followers of Jesus. Your hate blinded you to this. Good way to not see what is really going on in this world and this Blog.
Would you like to know the first time I saw your hate for people of faith? You put in a critique of everyone that had critiqued a thread. In that critique you named every one and what you thought of what they had said; but two. And what two did you leave out? Julita asked you why you did not name her and you would not even answer her, if I remember correctly. The other was Arrogantly Blunt, me. Not only did you not name me, you quoted me, then said you agreed with what I had said. Why, I asked myself, was my name not on the quote?
There are only two people on this Blog that say they believe in God. Take a guess. Julita and Arrogantly Blunt.
Hate fills you up and it is hate that will destroy you.
Count, shut up, just shut the fuck up. between you and AB, your both assholes, and what's worse, you don't know what the fuck your talking about. Opps! more swear words! Ryan29
Oh My, I am hurt. I am so hurt. How could you do it? How could you put my name and the Counts in the same line?
ryan29- ...and what's worse, you don't know what the fuck your talking about.
Oh so you don't have anger problems that cause you to say retarded things? You didn't say if you knew AB you would beat him “within an inch of his life”? If I'm wrong please enlighten me.
ArrogantlyBlunt- You want to play games? OK, here is one for you. I have already put my feelings about all 3 on this blog.
You have taken different, contradictory stances on these issues. Surely it doesn't take much effort for you to simply say “for” or “against” to these, and isn't, in my opinion, a reasonable request to ask you to clarify, given you made statements regarding your opinions that contradict each other.
1. On the issue of abortion:
You wrote this strongly emotional sarcastic statement, leading me to believe you are against it:
I do have to agree with you. As I look at a new born baby I see no life in their eyes. The blank stares, the inability to talk and walk and take care of themselvles. I agree that a baby can and should be killed all the way up to 3 years old, if the mother or father does not want them. Don't you agree? Or maybe it should be that they can be killed any time before they can walk? Or maybe it should be any time before they can talk? If you don't talk you're just a dumb animal, that can be killed, right? You're not really human, are you before 2 or 3 years old?
It is not murder if the child is not wanted. I do agree with you! -ArrogantlyBlunt on May 19th, 2009
Just two days later, however you wrote this, which seems to indicate you are not against abortion:
Abortion does not upset me. :o) -ArrogantlyBlunt on May 21st,2009
If you are so strongly against abortion, how come it doesn't upset you when it happens?
2. On pornography:
You quoted this rocket scientist (who cited no evidence for any of her claims):
"Producing pornography requires that a woman, usually young and badly needing money, often with a history of sexual and physical abuse, should dissociate emotionally from her body and typically take a number of drugs to survive the experience. These drugs will include muscle relaxants, drugs to dull consciousness, painkillers and local anaesthetic."
(quoting The obscenity of porn: X-rated and exploitive)
You made this sarcastic statement, which leads us to believe you are against pornography because it is abusive:
After all, woman ain't shit any way, they need to know their place in this U.S. of 'Woman Abusive free rights' America. You knew, I think I agree with you on this one too! More Porn, more abuse, we know it don't hurt no one! -ArrogantlyBlunt on May 19th, 2009
Fair enough. Of course, I'm sure you can understand my confusion when you wrote this two days later:
Pornography is fun to watch. ;O)~ -ArrogantlyBlunt on May 21st, 2009
How can you be against porn and see it as abusive to women yet still have fun watching it? Are you saying that, for you, it's fun to watch women get abused? I'm just asking you to clarify what you meant by these contradictory statements.
3.On homosexuality being a choice:
You haven't made any clear statements about this that I can recall. Most Christian fundamentalists believe it is not a choice, however so it would be interesting to see if you believe that as well.
What kind of bullshit nut are you? Oh, I forgot the kind that is in support of pedophilia, homophobia, racism, hatred of woman, and bigotry.
I don't recall ever saying that I support any of those things. Do you have any, you know, evidence that I do, other than a link to a Raptor Jesus slideshow I posted? Oh that's right you're allergic to evidence.
You are the one showing people that you are "afraid of clarifying your views on those social issues". You need to answer my question and tell people why you hate me so much that you single me out for your 3 bullshit questions. I see no Article asking other people. I see no attempt to get other people to answer your Bullshit questions.
Lmao I don't hate you, I just think you're a few clowns short of a circus. Tbh some of the articles you've written have been pretty good (the non-crazy ones). I was going to leave those three questions of mine in the Left vs Right article where they came from until you decided to post your questions from my Raptor thread in this thread (as well as several others). If anyone is singling anybody out, it's you. Hell all I said in Ryan's latest article on religion was 'decent article, deserves more than 1 star' and you even spammed them there. I don't even have a problem responding to those questions (as I've said, my response has been typed out for a long time), but since you have avoided my questions for so long, I'm going to wait until you finally clarify your views above before I do.
I already know your answer but are you man enough to say it here? Can you man up or is your manhood in some jar with your penis?
Wait, why are you randomly, all of the sudden bringing my penis into this discussion? This is the American Critic, gay chat room's that way -->
Well? You and I both know the answer! Man up or shut up bigot!
Lol 10 min later ^^ Dude, you wrote 22 critiques yesterday. I don't have the time or desire to write 5 let alone check this thread every 10 minutes. Anyway, this is the sixth or seventh time I've asked you to clarify your position, let's see how you dodge those questions this week :)
References
Visit (http://www.youtube.com)
Maher backs Letterman in Palin joke controversy (CNN)
Visit (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
Fire David Letterman
Visit (http://www.firedavidletterman.com)
I remember. It was all blacked out so no one could go to that site and check it out. What you hiding there, King Count?