^ And it would have stood well on its own, but you had to comment in a negative way and fuck it up. GG!

7/30/2008 4:26:07 PM

It isn't fucked up you moron. It's still a funny comment. You wonder why people give you so much shit. I commend you on a funny comment, and your vagina bleeds all over the place.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 4:31 PM. Reason : a]

7/30/2008 4:27:28 PM

Quote :

"i don't listen to her show very much because her voice inflection and questioning-style grates on my nerves."

Yeah, really - cheese grater to the ears, right there. I just never knew up until now that she was also so hard on the eyes. Oy.

7/30/2008 4:37:49 PM

^^

Quote :

"Finally, you said something funny without having to insult anyone."

Read: Gee, this post doesn't suck nearly as much as usual. Dude, just STFU--for once. Thank you.

7/30/2008 4:42:35 PM

Uh, Chance was reinforcing a positive trend on your part - saying something funny without going off and insulting another poster. For you to do that is a good thing. To which you overreacted in rather characteristic fashion.

The moral of the story here is to clear the sand out of your vagina. Not everyone here is out to get you.

7/30/2008 4:46:01 PM

I'll give you a comment, but you know damn well I'm going to throw a sly insult in there by implying this good thing you've just done is completely non-representative of you and your usual behavior...clearly a simple "lol" wouldn't rile you up as much

7/30/2008 4:56:41 PM

^^ [/patronizing post]

^ Yep.

7/30/2008 6:12:51 PM

^^ your skin is not thick enough to post here if something as mildly patronizing as that causes you to flip out. On a minute-by-minute basis we are for more condescending to each other, than noting when a poster does something good.

Typically, you shouldn't have to use reverse-psychology on mature, intelligent adults.

The Soap Box can be a better place if we all let little things like that slide off our backs.

7/30/2008 6:23:06 PM

what? are you fucking referring to me you stupid cocksucking motherfucker? you've got a little penis!!! fuck you you ignorant elitist liberal codsack!!! :grr:

7/30/2008 7:44:31 PM

omfg...

7/30/2008 7:46:17 PM

well, he can do it. so, why not me too?

7/30/2008 8:05:55 PM

It's too bad this thread is so acrimonious -- there are pretty good questions here about the legitimate role of the White House (or any branch of government) in communicating with the press, and just how much editorial bias constitutes "propagandizing."

To wit:

Let's take a hypothetical example. The Obama presidency is pushing for universal health care and they fax a position paper to Air America Radio. Then Thom Hartmann (I haven't listened to his show but I assume he's a political commentator like a Fox counterpart) reads it, and then goes on air and does a special segment on universal health care. During that segment he reiterates much of what President Obama's policy wonks wrote as supporting arguments for it.

So in the above example:

1. was it wrong for President Obama's administration to fax a position paper to Air America Radio?
2. was it wrong for Thom Hartmann to read the paper?
3. was it wrong for Thom Hartmann to base, in whole or in part, his on-air editorial positions on it?

For #1, I'd say no. Whether in a position paper or in a press briefing, it seems to me the White House always has some media apparatus for publishing their opinions on policy initiatives.

For #2, I'd also say no. Why shouldn't a political commentator include in his analysis the positions of White House policy analysts (even if they are inherently biased)?

For #3, I'd say probably not, as many arguments put forth in a White House position paper wouldn't be totally unique, and more so, as a commentator, if he completely shares his opinions with them, why not reiterate them?

I suppose one might argue that a commentator has a duty to research all available background information -- but that doesn't mean they'd eventually come to a different conclusion from what they read in a White House brief.

Regardless of the party bias, I'm not sure I have a problem with the White House faxing talking points to news stations or commentators reading them/reiterating them. What I WOULD have a problem with is if _reporters_ reiterated such copy without being objective. But in the case of Fox McClellan excluded them.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM. Reason : foo]

7/30/2008 11:58:43 PM