I have two things to cover today, the Hillary Clinton appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, and the trouble with talking points.
First, Hillary. Having watched the first of the two parts, I can say that Hillary, to her credit again, did acquit herself well. Although she did manage to duck and weave a few questions like a hunting trip with Dick Cheney, she was forthcoming enough to win a few more voters over. I'll admit to not being transfixed, as I'm not willing to believe much that comes out of her mouth. But I do give credit to anyone who steps into a hard interview.
Also, during the segment, I learned senator McCain will be subjecting himself to O'Reilly's interviewing skills, which the senator likened, humorously, to his vacation in the Hanoi Hilton. Which makes me ask: When will senator Obama will grow a pair and step in the Thunderdome.
I know that's not much of an analysis, but if we don't know what the Clintons are about by now, then it's time to play chicken with a freight train on a tricycle.
Now on to the terror of talking points.
My issue with talking points is that they are a rote response to any reasoned argument. Now I understand that every campaign uses them due to the need for a consistent response. But it's the utter and mindless dependence on them, as well as the inability to supply a cogent response to a thoughtful and probing question that annoys every tingly hair on my sack. In essence, it's a political lobotomy for the masses. And left and right there are morons who cut and paste the same responses every time.
You know who you are.
You're either one of the business is evil, Bush lied and soldiers died, Robin Hood complex liberal moonbats, or you're one of the machine-gun lovin', bible thumpin', queer hating far right wingnuts.
So as a testament to your ability to think, try to state something new when you attempt to emote. Don't fall back on the same tired rant, spew mindless invectives, or make rash and ridiculous assumptions about anyone. Otherwise, someone is liable to not think much of what you have to say.
9 comments:
By the time I turned it on that douche bag Hannity was already on there talking about Wright again. I think he's gay for him. I wished I could have seen it.
Why would Obama stoop to Oreilly's level. No one who watches Oreilly would vote for a black guy or even a Democrat anyway. Why bother? Unless of course just to put Oreilly in his place then that would be funny.
I may remind you that Bush did indeed lie and 4000 soldiers have died. By stating a fact it doesn't make you some dress wearing, communist, liberal. Some businesses, some corporation are evil. Until you figure out that not every corporation is our saviour and has your best interest on their mind, it will be very hard for you to open your mind. No one said every corporation is terrible but when you see the double standards this country has with corporate America it makes you want to puke. "If you can't pay your mortgage your a dead bead, if you can't pay a million mortgages you're Bear Stearns and we bail you out."
I'm not saying Bear Stearns is as evil as they are stupid and simply a bad company who couldn't figure out that they shouldn't buy loans from the homeless in a declining housing market. If we simply let the heard be thinned, all the other investment bans would benefit but we couldn't have that because America owes Bear Stearns. Its a crock of shit.
Just knock off the namecalling. it's so third-grader.
Now, here's why Obama should go on O'Reilly: It will expose him to some people who haven't listened to much he's said. In addition, if he acquits himself well, it can only help him. I'm guessing Hillary may get a bump out of her appearance.
Why would Obama stoop to Oreilly's level.
Because he's asking for a job and he has to interview with millions of people, including O'Reilly.
And now to discussions why you are a moonbat. I picked the "Bush lied" mantra because it is exactly the kind of childish drivel that has no nuance and requires no thought to utter. And you made my point.
As for the double standard, yes. The Bear Stearns bailout shouldn't have happened. This is another example of government trying to manage an economy. It never works when the government tries.
And I really don't think I'm the one who needs to open his mind. That is what differentiates the thinkers from the moonbats and wingnuts.
I didn't watch all of Hillary's interview but I did see some of it. She did fairly well although, she did do some pretty quick tap dancing when she tried to say that the "experts" said that torture doesn't work and then Bill said he had spoken to numerous experts who said it had.
She was then screwed so she tried to change the premise of why she was against it and it didn't really work. Again, even though she did the interview because she was desperate and to pander I think it can only help her.
So you are saying that there were WMDs and Saddam was about to Nuke the USA and was working with Al Qaeda and anyone who disagrees with that is a crazy moonbat?
No, Toad, I'm saying that incessantly spewing the same talking points, some of which are disputable, and never attempting to persuade but to just vomit the same things over and over is a moonbat.
So what do you call it when you refuse to face the facts that Saddam had no WMDs, Bush Lied about that and therefore Exxon became the most profitable company in history, Halliburton and many other companies including ones where James Baker, Bush Sr. sit on the board and other companies owned by big Bush contributors got no bid contracts and ripped off the government.
I am sorry if those facts upset you but they aren't talking points, they are facts. That is exactly what happened. I can't imagine that you are too dense to make those connections.
Now this is the part where you again call me a moonbat saying I am repeating the same thing over and over again and avoid the issue and face the facts.
Now this is the part where you again call me a moonbat saying I am repeating the same thing over and over again and avoid the issue and face the facts.
I really don't need to, do I?
Facts don't make someone crazy or a "moonbat", they make the person who refuses to believe them crazy.
If you're citing facts to bolster an argument, sure. However, when you spew an assload of 'facts', many of which are dubious at best and hallucinations at worst, it makes you a moonbat.
And I don't 'believe' facts. I accept them when presented with evidence and cogent argument. Do so, and I might listen.
Post a Comment