Gutfeld hits a home run

[CommonCents]

Not much I can add to this commentary. It hits the nail on the head.

Anger is a Right

So as the anger surrounding the health care bill escalates, many in the media are reporting how the anger surrounding the health care bill is escalating!

Now I've been down this road so many times I could navigate it blindfolded and covered in peanut butter.

It goes like this: for the media, anger is only okay if its targets meet their stereotypical, romanticized criteria. Meaning: the corporation, the conservative, the daddy who never loved them.

Here's a list of people doing angry things the media is okay with:

-People calling Bush a Nazi
-Students and non students rioting on college campuses
-Animal rights freaks dousing rich folks with paint
-Actors wishing average folks would get rectal cancer
-Bureaucrats labeling military vets as potential violent right wing extremists
-Radical environmentalists advocating violence against loggers
-Pranksters throwing pies at conservative commentators (you know, somehow they never pie Michael Moore, which makes him sad; he likes pie)

But this health care bill anger is different from all that - not just because it's right, but because it involves Obama. And being angry at Obama is like being mad at Santa Claus. How can you be mad at Santa, when he brings us so many gifts?

And so, this anger is scary! It's a mark of incivility! It's deadly!

But you have a right to be angry. Unlike the entitlements we're saddled with until death, being angry is free and actually works! But we need to define why we're angry - instead of letting our adversaries do it for us.

We are angry not because we lost, but that we lost to losers. I'm not talking about Obama, or the Dems. They're winners, sadly. I'm talking about progressivism. The reason why I'm angry, my friends are angry, and my imaginary unicorn Captain Sparkles is angry - is because the greatest, most winningest country in the history of the world, just embraced the loser's doctrine.

For two hundred plus years we've kicked ass, and we're now choosing the belief system of the idiots whose asses we've kicked.

So that's why I'm angry. And why you're angry too.

And when jackasses try to take away your right to be angry - by calling it racist or extremist - tell them they're the racists. Because it's those tools who assume that anger can only be about race. And if they disagree with you, then clearly they're not just racists - but probably homophobic cannibals, too.

http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4529

[CommonCents]

This sign says it all.

[slowhand]

Maybe you should consider anger management..Just sayin'

[Boogie man]

Bullseye. I especially liked the part about Michael Moore likes pie. Michael Moore not only likes pie , he likes pie after pie after pie..........

[Boogie man]

Maybe you should consider anger management..Just sayin'

Ya know, trolling is kinda fun once in a while, but after a while your inability to argue against the truth is very evident. Sometimes it's better to just ignore stuff it it's true. You'll look less like a moonbat. Just offering ya some helpful advice.

[slowhand]

Ya know, trolling is kinda fun once in a while, but after a while your inability to argue against the truth is very evident. Sometimes it's better to just ignore stuff it it's true. You'll look less like a moonbat. Just offering ya some helpful advice.

Argue the truth with you? :lmao2: The truth is, that would be a waste of time

[Boogie man]

Argue the truth with you? :lmao2: The truth is, that would be a waste of time

I hope you die of rectal cancer.

[Boogie man]

Argue the truth with you? :lmao2: The truth is, that would be a waste of time

If you saw some truth you'd piss on it.

[slowhand]

I hope you die of rectal cancer.

What are they teaching you at that Christian church you go to?

[Boogie man]

What are they teaching you at that Christian church you go to?

I learned that from Sean Penn. He's one of yours.

[slowhand]

I learned that from Sean Penn. He's one of yours.

You better stick to the Hallmark Channel

[Moby]

I thought Bill O used to call people Nazi all the time. I guess that never really happened.

[John Galt]

Not much I can add to this commentary. It hits the nail on the head.



http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4529
You should be angry. Just so you know how it feels.

The Bush family did business with the Nazis...did Obama's?

We were angry because we saw through the 'slam dunk' bullshit, and our current deficit was all too easy to foresee.

Say nothing of the lives that were destroyed by the Bushco blood for oil campaign....one which never produced a drop of oil, but put billions of dollars in Bushco pockets.


Be angry....it's nice to see that you know how it feels. Just keep your head low, if you plan on venting that anger with Palinlike methods.

[Boogie man]

You should be angry. Just so you know how it feels.

The Bush family did business with the Nazis...did Obama's?

We were angry because we saw through the 'slam dunk' bullshit, and our current deficit was all too easy to foresee.

Say nothing of the lives that were destroyed by the Bushco blood for oil campaign....one which never produced a drop of oil, but put billions of dollars in Bushco pockets.


Be angry....it's nice to see that you know how it feels. Just keep your head low, if you plan on venting that anger with Palinlike methods.

Obama associated with a known terrorist and a couple of racist preachers. We're even.

[CommonCents]

The Bush family did business with the Nazis...did Obama's?

What would a liberal response be with out an attack on Bush. So typical.

We were angry because we saw through the 'slam dunk' bullshit,

At this point, I think you need to be reminded that the "Slam dunk" assessment concerning Iraq's WMD, was made by Clinton appointed CIA director George Tenant, not George W. Bush.

and our current deficit was all too easy to foresee.

Really? You knew 6, 7, 8 years ago that the housing bubble would burst in 2007, the mortgage lenders would go belly up, and that the president who preceded George Bush would run trillion dollar budget deficits?

Man, your good.

Say nothing of the lives that were destroyed by the Bushco blood for oil campaign.... one which never produced a drop of oil, but put billions of dollars in Bushco pockets.

You liberals just can't get enough of that old "Blood for oil" line of crap, can you? You people will never waste a good lie, will you?


Be angry....it's nice to see that you know how it feels. Just keep your head low, if you plan on venting that anger with Palinlike methods.

I have to hand it to you progressives. When you guys make a game plan you sure stick to it, even when everyone knows your full of shit. Must be nice not to have a conscience or any measurable amount of moral standards, that could interfere with your agenda.

Now that you've posted your typical "Bush rant" and gotten that out of the way, would you care to comment on the topic of this thread?

Since you may have forgotten, it's based on this article by Greg Gutfeld:

Anger is a Right

So as the anger surrounding the health care bill escalates, many in the media are reporting how the anger surrounding the health care bill is escalating!

Now I've been down this road so many times I could navigate it blindfolded and covered in peanut butter.

It goes like this: for the media, anger is only okay if its targets meet their stereotypical, romanticized criteria. Meaning: the corporation, the conservative, the daddy who never loved them.

Here's a list of people doing angry things the media is okay with:

-People calling Bush a Nazi
-Students and non students rioting on college campuses
-Animal rights freaks dousing rich folks with paint
-Actors wishing average folks would get rectal cancer
-Bureaucrats labeling military vets as potential violent right wing extremists
-Radical environmentalists advocating violence against loggers
-Pranksters throwing pies at conservative commentators (you know, somehow they never pie Michael Moore, which makes him sad; he likes pie)

But this health care bill anger is different from all that - not just because it's right, but because it involves Obama. And being angry at Obama is like being mad at Santa Claus. How can you be mad at Santa, when he brings us so many gifts?

And so, this anger is scary! It's a mark of incivility! It's deadly!

But you have a right to be angry. Unlike the entitlements we're saddled with until death, being angry is free and actually works! But we need to define why we're angry - instead of letting our adversaries do it for us.

We are angry not because we lost, but that we lost to losers. I'm not talking about Obama, or the Dems. They're winners, sadly. I'm talking about progressivism. The reason why I'm angry, my friends are angry, and my imaginary unicorn Captain Sparkles is angry - is because the greatest, most winningest country in the history of the world, just embraced the loser's doctrine.

For two hundred plus years we've kicked ass, and we're now choosing the belief system of the idiots whose asses we've kicked.

So that's why I'm angry. And why you're angry too.

And when jackasses try to take away your right to be angry - by calling it racist or extremist - tell them they're the racists. Because it's those tools who assume that anger can only be about race. And if they disagree with you, then clearly they're not just racists - but probably homophobic cannibals, too.

[Moby]

What would a liberal response be with out an attack on Bush. So typical.
Actually you posted an article about Bush and Nazis. Don't you even bother to read what you post? :confused: I do understand your programmed response in your last post but you should really read the articles before you post them.

At this point, I think you need to be reminded that the "Slam dunk" assessment concerning Iraq's WMD, was made by Clinton appointed CIA director George Tenant, not George W. Bush.
Have you ever heard of The PNAC? They were pushing for the war in 1997. Almost all original members were Bush advisers and Cheney was a member.

Really? You knew 6, 7, 8 years ago that the housing bubble would burst in 2007, the mortgage lenders would go belly up, and that the president who preceded George Bush would run trillion dollar budget deficits?

Man, your good.

Look through the history of this board. We were talking about it since the board started. In fact, the obvious economic crash was one of the main reasons why Tommy started this board. Take a look. You'll find plenty about the bubble.

In my case my timing was off, just like the Iraq war and the claim of victory. I also didn't have a clue how massive the economic loss was going to be but it was obviously coming once the election results of 2000 were in. History repeats itself if people will only turn off the pundits and learn from life.

[CommonCents]

Have you ever heard of The PNAC? They were pushing for the war in 1997. Almost all original members were Bush advisers and Cheney was a member.

So they are the ones that said Iraq having WMD was a "slam dunk?" Funny, I could have sworn that it was George Tenant who said that.

You know, maybe I was wrong and it was someone from the Clinton administration, or possibly a democrat from the senate or congress who said that about Iraq, considering that so many of them said Saddam had WMD prior to Bush being elected president.

Now if it isn't too much trouble SirMoby, could you provide some evidence that supports your claim that PNAC were the ones who said Iraq having wmd was a "slam dunk?" It's the least you can do considering that was the basis of my response to Mr. Galt, that you quoted and commented on.

[Moby]

So they are the ones that said Iraq having WMD was a "slam dunk?" Funny, I could have sworn that it was George Tenant who said that.

You know, maybe I was wrong and it was someone from the Clinton administration, or possibly a democrat from the senate or congress who said that about Iraq, considering that so many of them said Saddam had WMD prior to Bush being elected president.

Now if it isn't too much trouble SirMoby, could you provide some evidence that supports your claim that PNAC were the ones who said Iraq having wmd was a "slam dunk?" It's the least you can do considering that was the basis of my response to Mr. Galt, that you quoted and commented on.
You think the President should make a decisions of such magnitude by listening to one man? Do you really think that he was that incompetent?

Do you even understand the PNAC?