top 10 conservative idiots

[foxpaws]

Ah yes, the condescending fox who is 'above it all' and just reads it 'to laugh.'

Yeah, and men read Playboy for the articles.

You pick up Playboy Foss? I thought Juggs would be your 'Men's Entertainment' rag of choice.

And yep - I read a lot of things just 'to laugh' - you should try it .

I meant Sandra Bernhard - duh, sorry. Obviously I shouldn't type while under the influence... Kokko and Awabi.

I recently read a book - The Divine Sarah, about Sarah Bernhardt... I have been reading a lot about the Art Nouveau period lately.

 

[foxpaws]

Humor is quite subjective. But there are some things that most anyone would consider out of line. Most everyone has a line, where do you draw yours (assuming you are sober)? If the joke, as the basis in reality that all jokes need, is perpetuating a smear (not as the punchline) is that too far? Does that go beyond good humor into prejudice mascarading as humor? Is there a threshold for that kind of humor after which point it would be considered vindictive?

Yep - there probably are lines to be drawn - but, even those lines are subjective. I can't listen to Andrew Dice Clay- but, there are others who find him hilarious. I believe his comedic viewpoint is vindictive and insulting.

Is the "Top 10 Conservative Idiots" like Andrew Dice Clay or Sandra Bernhard (I got it right this time )? No it isn't. Do you think it breaks a threshold Shag?

Wander over to Radioactive Liberty and see if there is anything there that reads similarly (there will be lots) and put it up to the same barometer test...

And if you haven't heard of Radioactive Liberty - just ignore that last paragraph, I shouldn't be giving you guys ammo.. But, since Foss is reading things for the articles, I guess I won't have to worry about a flurry of links to the Sarah Palin pin-up shots over there...

 

[shagdrum]

Yep - there probably are lines to be drawn - but, even those lines are subjective. I can't listen to Andrew Dice Clay- but, there are others who find him hilarious. I believe his comedic viewpoint is vindictive and insulting.

Is the "Top 10 Conservative Idiots" like Andrew Dice Clay or Sandra Bernhard (I got it right this time )? No it isn't. Do you think it breaks a threshold Shag?

Wander over to Radioactive Liberty and see if there is anything there that reads similarly (there will be lots) and put it up to the same barometer test...

And if you haven't heard of Radioactive Liberty - just ignore that last paragraph, I shouldn't be giving you guys ammo.. But, since Foss is reading things for the articles, I guess I won't have to worry about a flurry of links to the Sarah Palin pin-up shots over there...

Frankly, I could care less about this article. It is preaching to the choir at it's most substantive and is nothing but hyperbolic conjecture perpetuating false stereotypes with a few flawed attempts to be humorous. It is more telling of hrmwrm then anything else, especially considering his past in this forum and the type of sources he has tried to pass off as credible in defending and/or making his arguments.

The thing is, after a point, that is what many comedians and comedy shows do. The Daily show is made by Hollywood liberals and for liberals. It stopped being funny to all but those who share those same flawed prejudices a long time ago. Mahr's stuff is very similar. An occasional joke or two is one thing, but consistently conveying specific false stereotypes as a premise to a joke goes beyond comedy to perpetuating a prejudice through humor. I assume that is why you don't Andrew Dice Clay; the perpetual sexist nature of his humor.

It should be pointed out that there is a huge double standard here, as well. Conservatives are expected to tolerate blatant smears, mischaracterizations and misdirections of them mascarading as humor that are echoed throughout the MSM, academia political correctness, Hollywood and pop culture in general ("teabaggers" being the latest example), but if Ann Coulter makes one humorous comment about John Edwards, then it is outrageous and hateful and must be immediately denied by any and all republicans and becomes a litmus test for the next few weeks for any conservative and/or republican being interviewed.

 

[foxpaws]

It should be pointed out that there is a huge double standard here, as well. Conservatives are expected to tolerate blatant smears, mischaracterizations and misdirections of them mascarading as humor that are echoed throughout the MSM, academia political correctness, Hollywood and pop culture in general ("teabaggers" being the latest example), but if Ann Coulter makes one humorous comment about John Edwards, then it is outrageous and hateful and must be immediately denied by any and all republicans and becomes a litmus test for the next few weeks for any conservative and/or republican being interviewed.

'Here' as in the USA or 'here' as on this forum. Where is the double standard Shag?

And are you referring to the time Coulter called Edwards a 'f@ggot'? It wasn't the fact that she smeared Edwards that was so appalling (he usually deserves the jokes that are told at his expense) - it was using the word 'f@ggot', which similar to using the word 'n!gger.' That was what everyone got so upset with.

 

[fossten]

You pick up Playboy Foss? I thought Juggs would be your 'Men's Entertainment' rag of choice.

Having seen your photo, I can understand your barely concealed envy.

 

[Marcus]

Having seen your photo, I can understand your barely concealed envy.

And you have the nerve to say that I have nothing to contribute here?

 

[mespock]

Ah yes, the condescending fox who is 'above it all' and just reads it 'to laugh.'

Yeah, and men read Playboy for the articles.

Here fox I'll give the dynamic self proclaimed smartest on the board duo someone to slam ... Keep pulling the wheel to the left it keeps the car running straight ...

Funny how the two really have no clue ... Thanks for the laugh and the entertainment ....

 

[fossten]

And you have the nerve to say that I have nothing to contribute here?

One cheap shot deserves another. The difference is, mine was accurate.

 

[ford nut]

One cheap shot deserves another. The difference is, mine was accurate.

Wrong again fossten.
Yours was just crude and uncalled for.

But typical of you.

 

[fossten]

Wrong again fossten.
Yours was just crude and uncalled for.

But typical of you.

Actually, it was quite accurate. Would you like me to prove it?

Your tears are tasty. Keep whining.

 

[foxpaws]

Having seen your photo, I can understand your barely concealed envy.

Foss, yep - guess what - I'll never have to hum...

Do your boobs hang low? Do they wobble to and fro? Can you tie them in a knot? Can you tie them in a bow? can you throw them o'er your shoulder like a continental soldier? Do your boobs hang low?​

I could buy boobs if I wanted...

However, I get to enjoy the company of leg men (approaching 6 feet - I have something plastic surgeons can't endow... legs). I have found that leg men are smarter, more successful, far more handsome, more mature, have a great sense of humor, smell good, and actually are ever so much more courteous than boob men.

I would guess that you, Foss, are a boob man.

And Cal - please don't just wipe this exchange. I can take it..

 

[ford nut]

Actually, it was quite accurate. Would you like me to prove it?

Your tears are tasty. Keep whining.

I wasen't talking about boob size fossten but the One cheap shot deserves another.

But you are the eye for a eye type.

 

[shagdrum]

Having seen your photo, I can understand your barely concealed envy.

Come on, Foss, that is a low blow. Keep it relevant to the conversation, please.

 

[Calabrio]

i can't believe calabrio actually put up an arguement against this. it's obviously humor at the expense of an identifiable group based on headlines.

But, it's not just a humor piece.

For a moment, let's pretend that this article was thoughtful, well written, and had a solid argument at it's foundation. If that were the case, I'd then compare it to an Ann Coulter article. She would be an example of a writer who is red-meat for conservative and uses humor to entertain along with the argument.

I can see wittless attempts at humor in the article, but I see that being used merely as a device to entertain his like minded readers while stating and attempting to support his arguments with abundant, contextless references and quotes.

Why wouldn't I respond to it or address the gross inaccuracies and problems with the logic contained within it? Should you dismiss an Ann Coulter article because "it's humor?" You might suggest other reasons to dismiss it, but because she interjects humor into the piece, does that simply mean that you just need to learn to laugh at yourself?

yes, i take all my world views from an american political site.
riiigghht. or should i say left.

DemocratUnderground.com
Got it.

post something up about conservatives and they come running like mexicans for the border to denounce a little laugh of the day.

You posted a article for discussion.
A poorly written, boring, unfunny one I might add, but you posted it none the less. The article is clearly attempting to make arguments and support those arguments.

This guy isn't Will Rogers or P.J. O'Rourke, he's not even doing humor like the Daily Show. This wasn't just a funny look at world events. This was as poorly written attack piece with very lazy attempts at humor. Humor no more sophisticated that calling the unpopular kid at school a name in front of a crowd for a cheap, forgettable laugh among those in the room. This was a humor piece like Keith Olberman on MSNBC is a comedy show.

If you didn't want a response, why post it?

 

[Calabrio]

And you have the nerve to say that I have nothing to contribute here?

Have you checked back on that thread?
Perhaps you missed it.

And Cal - please don't just wipe this exchange. I can take it..

Noted.

 

[hrmwrm]

But, it's not just a humor piece.

For a moment, let's pretend that this article was thoughtful, well written, and had a solid argument at it's foundation. If that were the case, I'd then compare it to an Ann Coulter article. She would be an example of a writer who is red-meat for conservative and uses humor to entertain along with the argument.

I can see wittless attempts at humor in the article, but I see that being used merely as a device to entertain his like minded readers while stating and attempting to support his arguments with abundant, contextless references and quotes.

Why wouldn't I respond to it or address the gross inaccuracies and problems with the logic contained within it? Should you dismiss an Ann Coulter article because "it's humor?" You might suggest other reasons to dismiss it, but because she interjects humor into the piece, does that simply mean that you just need to learn to laugh at yourself?


DemocratUnderground.com
Got it.


You posted a article for discussion.
A poorly written, boring, unfunny one I might add, but you posted it none the less. The article is clearly attempting to make arguments and support those arguments.

This guy isn't Will Rogers or P.J. O'Rourke, he's not even doing humor like the Daily Show. This wasn't just a funny look at world events. This was as poorly written attack piece with very lazy attempts at humor. Humor no more sophisticated that calling the unpopular kid at school a name in front of a crowd for a cheap, forgettable laugh among those in the room. This was a humor piece like Keith Olberman on MSNBC is a comedy show.

If you didn't want a response, why post it?

i actually found it funny. and there is some truth to many parts. but with all the crap and petty comments and articles circulating from the right, i just thought i'd throw something up for confusion. reply all you like, but i was expecting more the quick dismissives usually given.

thank you for your time of actually trying to make an arguement against it. i didn't mean to be dismissive of you. this site is obviously very left based and wouldn't stand up as a source for proving arguements, or creating them.

and there are many that get posted that seem to be just for thought or info, and gain no discussion. maybe next time i'll throw something like this up in the anything goes section of the forum. might be more appropriate.

 

[fossten]

Come on, Foss, that is a low blow. Keep it relevant to the conversation, please.

1. No lower than hers, but far more accurate.

2. No less relevant than hers, but far more poignant.

 

[fossten]

I would guess that you, Foss, are a boob man.

Keep guessing. It was you that floated the 'Juggs' idea, not me. Clearly you're trying to foist some shallow reason for me not to like you, other than the obvious ones anyway. That's muddy thinking but definitely amateurish.

 

[foxpaws]

Keep guessing. It was you that floated the 'Juggs' idea, not me. Clearly you're trying to foist some shallow reason for me not to like you, other than the obvious ones anyway. That's muddy thinking but definitely amateurish.

O...M...G...

That might be photo of the year...

Only thing wrong with it is she's not sitting in my Lincoln...

Lets run this down

Great legs?

Fine @ss?

Nice personality?

Oh perhaps we should call it 'poignant'?

Thanks - you know who - for the link...

 

[fossten]

Ah, fox, your envy is barely contained. Sorry those years have not just passed you by, but were never there for you. I know you are desperate for me to be attracted to you, but sadly your state of mind is a dealbreaker.

Why don't you post your own pic in the interest of full disclosure?

 

[hrmwrm]

fox hit it dead on. your transparent foss.