 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Heresy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:12 pm |
|
Coverpoint wrote: palinoscopy: examining a Republican's conservative credentials.
LOL
|
Mazel Schlimazel
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:21 pm |
|
Heresy wrote: Coverpoint wrote: palinoscopy: examining a Republican's conservative credentials.
LOL
"Rushoscopy" would be the more fitting term to use, though, since wingers tend to use Rush Limbaugh, not palin, as a reliable barometer by which to separate the "rino traitors" from the "real conservatives."
|
Alias Emily 2
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:25 pm |
|
Coverpoint wrote: palinoscopy: examining a Republican's conservative credentials.
Best post!
|
Alias Emily 2
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 08:53 pm |
|
| To palinfy: to vilify while shopping (on taxpayer's dimes) in Saks.
|
InfraredCow
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:08 am |
|
ringotuna wrote: This one is hilarious dem. Robinson himself states that the big story should be the republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey, but what does this pulitzer prize winner do instead? Vent his liberal frustrations with the same old tactics, trying to tie mainstream republicans with the Rush/Palin croud. Robinson himself appears here as much a wackjob as Beck, asking stupid questions like these.
"Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views? Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying "Republican In Name Only" as penance? Will there be re-education camps? Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?"
Anyone with common sense would recognize it for nothing but sore losers lashing out. This isn't reporting, it's not even op/ed. Robinson should learn, like any good internet savy blogger knows...Never post when you're angry or drunk. I giggle and snicker snootily with my nose raised in his general direction. 
You're missing the whole point! The article was meant to be ridiculous... it's more satiracal than literally worryful -- as I see it. It's ingenious too! Just look at your reaction (not that it's outrageous, or anything... but it's not "the same ol' tactics" -- I mean, it's an old tactic, but more effective than what you were insinuating!)
You can't actually think that him writing:
"Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views? Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying "Republican In Name Only" as penance? Will there be re-education camps? Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?"
was a literal attack? It's all in good fun... with some hilarious truth rubbed in between the cracks a little.
Last edited on Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:11 am by InfraredCow
|
ringotuna
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:19 am |
|
InfraredCow wrote: ringotuna wrote: This one is hilarious dem. Robinson himself states that the big story should be the republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey, but what does this pulitzer prize winner do instead? Vent his liberal frustrations with the same old tactics, trying to tie mainstream republicans with the Rush/Palin croud. Robinson himself appears here as much a wackjob as Beck, asking stupid questions like these.
"Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views? Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying "Republican In Name Only" as penance? Will there be re-education camps? Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?"
Anyone with common sense would recognize it for nothing but sore losers lashing out. This isn't reporting, it's not even op/ed. Robinson should learn, like any good internet savy blogger knows...Never post when you're angry or drunk. I giggle and snicker snootily with my nose raised in his general direction.
You're missing the whole point! The article was meant to be ridiculous... it's more satiracal than literally worryful -- as I see it. It's ingenious too! Just look at your reaction (not that it's outrageous, or anything... but it's not "the same ol' tactics" -- I mean, it's an old tactic, but more effective than what you were insinuating!)
You can't actually think that him writing:
"Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views? Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying "Republican In Name Only" as penance? Will there be re-education camps? Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?"
was a literal attack? It's all in good fun... with some hilarious truth rubbed in between the cracks a little.
Of course I didn't take him literally and recognized the obvious satire. They're antagonistic stupid questions designed to tickle the liberal bias, further divide, and insult. It's old hat and far from genius. It's a nonsensical article from an angry liberal lashing out over their losses in NJ and VA.
|
InfraredCow
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:44 am |
|
Ha! He's not lashing out... really! And he may be angry, but not in this article -- not like you think.
The right made a big deal out of an election -- that, sure... had a somewhat-kinda'-sorta' insight into how the country is viewing the president's role, thus far. But the point -- again, in my opinion (though, I do view it as pretty-obviously communicated) -- is that that doesn't make him uneasy. The satire was in his "anger", because he isn't angry... or worried.
And they're not "questions", they're stupid sure... but they're not literally questions. And YES, I sorta' agree... they are certainly of bias (not to engage, per se), and meant to insult! It's a part of politics, and I love it. It's on both sides, though, don't forget that emphatically-needed-for-justification, addition.
But hey? The both of our arguments? Let's not lead this too far, I take your point... and may disagree on some things, but I think you're sensible and should be able to judge this as you wish.
|
ringotuna
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:04 pm |
|
InfraredCow wrote: Ha! He's not lashing out... really! And he may be angry, but not in this article -- not like you think.
The right made a big deal out of an election -- that, sure... had a somewhat-kinda'-sorta' insight into how the country is viewing the president's role, thus far. But the point -- again, in my opinion (though, I do view it as pretty-obviously communicated) -- is that that doesn't make him uneasy. The satire was in his "anger", because he isn't angry... or worried.
And they're not "questions", they're stupid sure... but they're not literally questions. And YES, I sorta' agree... they are certainly of bias (not to engage, per se), and meant to insult! It's a part of politics, and I love it. It's on both sides, though, don't forget that emphatically-needed-for-justification, addition.
But hey? The both of our arguments? Let's not lead this too far, I take your point... and may disagree on some things, but I think you're sensible and should be able to judge this as you wish.
I've no plans of taking it any further. We'll simply disagree on the authors motivation and intent here. No big deal. Welcome to P.com
|
InfraredCow
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 6th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 12:24 pm |
|
That's a very encouraging response -- as regards to my encountering-of-civility on this forum. Thanks for the welcome ![[abduction]](/forums/themes/default/very_first_smiley.gif) .
|
dem4life
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:07 pm |
|
Young Turks: Sarah Palin Idiotic Coin Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hzuHKkX8rQ
|
noetsi
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:16 pm |
|
Actually Palin's policies as governor were hardly republican orthodoxy. She supported signficant federal transfer of wealth into her state, including campaigning for the bridge to nowhere in her election campaign. She signficantly increased the fees energy companies paid and transfered that income to Alaskans generally (that is you had to do nothing other than live in the state to get the money). Closer to socialism than conservatism. In general she seems to have taken no signficant policy position that supports private markets, as compared to her rhetoric once nominated for VP.
The right appears to have ignored her actual economic record in adapting her as a "true republican." Economically she has not been.
|
belvedere
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1109 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 08:25 pm |
|
ringotuna wrote: InfraredCow wrote: ringotuna wrote: This one is hilarious dem. Robinson himself states that the big story should be the republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey, but what does this pulitzer prize winner do instead? Vent his liberal frustrations with the same old tactics, trying to tie mainstream republicans with the Rush/Palin croud. Robinson himself appears here as much a wackjob as Beck, asking stupid questions like these.
"Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views? Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying "Republican In Name Only" as penance? Will there be re-education camps? Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?"
Anyone with common sense would recognize it for nothing but sore losers lashing out. This isn't reporting, it's not even op/ed. Robinson should learn, like any good internet savy blogger knows...Never post when you're angry or drunk. I giggle and snicker snootily with my nose raised in his general direction.
You're missing the whole point! The article was meant to be ridiculous... it's more satiracal than literally worryful -- as I see it. It's ingenious too! Just look at your reaction (not that it's outrageous, or anything... but it's not "the same ol' tactics" -- I mean, it's an old tactic, but more effective than what you were insinuating!)
You can't actually think that him writing:
"Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views? Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying "Republican In Name Only" as penance? Will there be re-education camps? Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?"
was a literal attack? It's all in good fun... with some hilarious truth rubbed in between the cracks a little.
Of course I didn't take him literally and recognized the obvious satire. They're antagonistic stupid questions designed to tickle the liberal bias, further divide, and insult. It's old hat and far from genius. It's a nonsensical article from an angry liberal lashing out over their losses in NJ and VA.
No, it's humor. Something conservatives seem to lack a sense of.
|
Axis Mundi
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
noetsi wrote: Actually Palin's policies as governor were hardly republican orthodoxy. She supported signficant federal transfer of wealth into her state, including campaigning for the bridge to nowhere in her election campaign. She signficantly increased the fees energy companies paid and transfered that income to Alaskans generally (that is you had to do nothing other than live in the state to get the money). Closer to socialism than conservatism. In general she seems to have taken no signficant policy position that supports private markets, as compared to her rhetoric once nominated for VP.
The right appears to have ignored her actual economic record in adapting her as a "true republican." Economically she has not been.
She was put on the ticket solely to pander to the religious right (sic).
While her economics are far from conservative, her social agenda can be said to be pegged hard right, right in among the religious right (sic).
|
Current time is 10:53 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
