Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Monday, July 23, 2012

Gun Control Idiocy From Those Wacky Folks Over at ...Fox News

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


Here, I thought I had flown into Ohio, turns out, I overshot Ohio and ended up on the Bizarro planet. A little jet lagged and behind in my blogdasarian duties, I brought dinner back to the hotel and passed on an HBO movie where absolutely no one in the cast wore any clothes (okay, they were animated birds!), after having been assailed by a promo for Real Time with Bill Maher. (The primary problem being that Real Time isn't Real Funny!) Notice how many shows on HBO tout themselves as "Real"? Real Time, Real Sports, Real Sex. Reminds me of the lady who said, "Honey, if you have to hang a sign around your neck saying you is, then you ain't!" But, I digress...

So I watched a little bit of Special Report with Bret Baier, without Bret Baier. Charles Krauthammer was on the panel, so I thought it might not be too bad. I couldn't tell you of anything spectacular ventured on the program until this blonde, whom I surmise to be A. J. Stoddard, said something spectacularly ill informed.

Speaking of the Colorado theater shooting, she said of the ammunition he purchased, and I speak from memory, that "none of this ammunition is used for self defense."

Fancy that! I have a Glock .40 that I have personally used for self defense, which uses, wait for it, .40 cal ammunition. He carried an 870 Remington shotgun, which is an excellent home defense weapon, and an AR-15, chambered in .223. Some of you might be old enough to remember the LA riots, where Korean shopkeepers climbed up to the roofs of their shops, armed with guns very similar to the AR-15, to defend their property against looters and arsonists. I don't know if they ever had to fire a single shot, but their presence served as a deterrent.

Let's recap: All three varieties of ammunition have been used or could certainly be used for self defense. If you want to argue about the quantities of ammunition he ordered, that's another story. But, if you don't know what you're talking about, please educate yourself before you enter the adult world of discussions on firearms laws and regulations.

Which brings us to Bill O'Reilly. He hit the trifecta tonight. I almost never watch Mr. O, but after yet another lap of the channels available, I saw he was going to have Bernard Goldberg on, so I thought, Aha! Another bright spot.

So I turned it on in the background and looked up as Bill was launching into a rant. First, he made some crack about buying bazookas without the Federal government knowing about it*. This, of course, is patently absurd, particularly if you are speaking of a functional bazooka with ammunition. These are highly regulated devises that are not commonly available to civilians.

I thought it was just part of his "Shtick", that he was saying something so hyperbolic for comic effect. He followed that up with a statement that one can buy machine guns without the feds knowing about it. He generated quite a bit of faux outrage at this! Unfortunately for Bill, it isn't true. The only people who can purchase machine guns are those who have Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL).

These weapons are tightly regulated and FFLs are not easy, or inexpensive to obtain. I cannot explain why, buy Mr. O'Reilly was getting quite incensed over something that simply is not true.

He compounded the idiocy with a parting remark about how it is "irresponsible to take a six year old to a midnight showing of a movie to be killed", as if it were somehow responsible to take a six year old to a movie matinee to be killed.

Hindsight is 20/20 Bill. Except for one deranged person, taking a six year old to the movies is hardly the act of an irresponsible parent. Bad judgment? Maybe. I wouldn't have done it, but like your rhetoric about bazookas and machine guns, your use of the word "irresponsible" was, well, irresponsible.

* I heard the quote a second time. It was more like "terrorists can buy bazookas without the FBI knowiung about it. Sheesh!

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Curiosity About the "Character of the Candidate"

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Just a small note on Juan Williams' performance on Fox News Sunday this AM. Juan had this to say about the reporting on the alleged high school prank or hazing incident, from fifty years ago, in the life of Mitt Romney:
People just want to know about the character of the candidate.
Really?? Has the press shown any real curiosity at all about the dope smoking, girl pushing, dog eating, domestic terrorist befriending, Jeremiah Wright disciple who may or may not have claimed to be a foreign student to get preferential treatment in college? Name any one of those things that the press has pursued with any passion or energy at all.

Get back to me on that one, Juan. People just want to know about the character of the candidate.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Blacks No Longer Native Americans

...according to some Cherokee tribal leaders.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
I hear rumors that this guy was an Italian!



MSNBC, the "Face of Diversity", reports on the Noble Red Man who, incidentally, used to own the Noble Black Man:

OKLAHOMA CITY — The nation's second-largest Indian tribe said on Tuesday that it would not be dictated to by the U.S. government over its move to banish 2,800 African Americans from its citizenship rolls.


Always interesting to see how lily white liberals view one oppressed group of people that oppresses another oppressed group of people.

"...The dispute stems from the fact that some wealthy Cherokee owned black slaves who worked on their plantations in the South. By the 1830s, most of the tribe was forced to relocate to present-day Oklahoma, and many took their slaves with them. The so-called Freedmen are descendants of those slaves.

After the Civil War, in which the Cherokee fought for the South, a treaty was signed in 1866 guaranteeing tribal citizenship for the freed slaves.

The U.S. government said that the 1866 treaty between the Cherokee tribe and the U.S. government guaranteed that the slaves were tribal citizens, whether or not they had a Cherokee blood relation."


You know, some have been so cynical as to suggest that this wasn't about any kind of "racial purity" at all, but rather, how the benefits that accrue to Native Americans from the government, casinos, oil, etc. are divvied up by the tribal members.

Personally, I'm shocked. Shocked! That any of you would think this way!

The change meant that Cherokee Freedmen who could not prove they have a Cherokee blood relation were no longer citizens, making them ineligible to vote in tribal elections or receive benefits.


Well, and then there's that!

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
MSNBC, the "Face of Diversity"


H/T spartacus

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel

Friday, August 5, 2011

John Kerry to Media: Don't Cover Tea Party

Senator Lurch coming out against the First Amendment:



Via Real Clear Politics:
The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual. It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do."


First of all, Senator Kerry, shame on you! It's "the media have...". You'd think someone married to Teresa Heinz could afford a good English tutor!

Second, the Tea Party, as it is loosely associated, stands for fiscal responsibility and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. Are those the "absolutely absurd notions" you don't want the public to hear about? Are their ideas not "legitimate" because they differ from yours? In a society that prizes freedom of speech, exactly whom would you make the arbiter over what is or is not a "legitimate idea"?

Oh, and by the way, did you realize that John Kerry served in Viet Nam?


H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Quote du jour

"Whoever controls the media-the images-controls the culture."

-Allen Ginsberg

Saturday, May 14, 2011

What's Up with Chris Matthews' Combover?

I hadn't seen little Chrissy Matthews in a long time. As a mark of just how bored I was this afternoon, I watched a little bit of his show. (Full disclosure: I think it was more Norah O'Donnell that held my attention than Chrissy's political acumen)

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


Anyway, what's going on with his combover? I looked on line for a picture, but nothing quite compared with the Donald-Trump-dead-muskrat-on-the-forehead look he was sporting on TV. Something about the studio lights shining through his thinning hair and bouncing off his forehead like a sunlight bouncing off a full moon.

If Chrissy's head were a globe, the combover would start up above the arctic circle, sweep down through North America, round the tip of Baja California and on out to Hawaii.

One of his friends really should tell him. Send him this post if you can't bring yourself to do it yourself. Tell him "High foreheads are in". Just don't let David Axelrod be the one to tell him.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Saturday, May 7, 2011

"Obama bin Laden Dead"

For all of you who think that calling Osama "Obama" is a slur concocted by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, look who else has joined the party:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


More at Full Metal Patriot

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Classless and Clueless: Obama Takes on The Donald at White House Correspondent Dinner

by the Left Coast Rebel

In grade school, what did you do with the persistent bully or annoying kid that didn't like you and was always nipping at your heels? Remember back, I'm sure it sounded something like this:

"Ooh, look at junior's shoes, haha, did your mom dress you?" "You throw like a girl!" "My friends are waaay cooler than yours...."

All of us have been there, albeit a long time ago.

So what did you do with said bully? Take him head-on and fight at every point? Or just ignore him, which eventually made him go away.

Not Obama, no, no, no. The leader of the Free World thinks that a guy with a dead cat on his head is public enemy numero uno.

Here's video of Teh One from last night's White House Correspondents' Dinner Useful Idiot Bobbleheads Mouthpieces for the Leftist Cause Dinner. One only has to go 10 seconds in to get the idea:



The Donald was taken aback (and laughing all the way to the bank) by the fact that the focus of Obama's speech was focused on his truly:
"Well, I really understood what I was getting into — I didn't know that I'd be virtually the sole focus," Trump said. "I guess when you're leading in the polls that sort of thing tends to happen. But I was certainly in a certain way having a good time listening. I don't think the American people are having a good time with $5 gas. ... I was thinking to myself as they were doing this, you know, the American people are really suffering and we're all" having fun at a gala.

And....Obama plays right into Trump's trump-card hand, how genius of him and for the press to go along with it all.

Even George W. Bush -- for all of his faults and failures as President -- would have known better than to have attacked every one of his detractors as Obama has (Fox News, Chamber of Commerce, entrepreneurs, business, bitter-clingerers and The Guy With the Dead Cat on his Head who is most likely part of a giant conspiracy for Teh One's reelection...).

Obama's petulance highlights a man not comfortable in his own skin; someone that has never had to face criticism of any kind; a petulant man that tripped and stumbled into the presidency and has no clue what the hell he is doing.

Seriously, I'm no Trump fan but addressing him directly like this? So weird and Dear Leader-esque.

On a related note, I have been thinking about the entire Trump/birth certificate/presidential run/media attention deal and think that there is a high possibility that something beyond fishy is going on: Trump may be a Democrat plant, inserted by Soros and the ruling class and a Perot-like spoiler that runs on an independent ticket and keeps a genuine conservative from having any chance in the general election.

What do you think?

Added: The Donald shows up last night and is promptly booed by the lapdog Obama press (who are stupid enough -- all of them -- to go along with the whole charade):




Cross posted to LCR contributor sites Rational Nation and RightKlik.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Is Jay Rockefeller Married to Anyone Who Might Profit from an FCC Muzzle on Fox and MSNBC?

A wonderful touch of irony hypocrisy to follow up on LCR's piece on Jay Rockefeller wanting to silence Fox and MSNBC. Turns out his wife is heavy into public broadcasting. Can you say, "Conflict of interest"?

Sharon Percy Rockefeller has served the public broadcasting community for more than 25 years as a leader and policymaker. She has been president and CEO of WETA, Washington, D.C.’s flagship public television and radio stations, since 1989. She continues to guide WETA to outstanding accomplishments in broadcasting and production. Before assuming the top post at WETA, she was a member of WETA’s Board of Trustees for seven years and a member of the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for 12 years, including four years as chairman. In 2006, Rockefeller was elected to the PBS Board of Directors for her fifth term.


H/T Mark Levin

Cross posted at LCR.

Quote of the Day: Senator Jay Rockefeller

by the Left Coast Rebel

What is inside the cranial-wiring of a member of the ruling class of the United States that creates an insatiable appetite to control the lives, diets, incomes, futures and even what is seen and heard on the airwaves?

An honest moment from a United States Senator, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia:

"There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: 'Out. Off. End. Goodbye.' It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future."
No joke. The nonsense before this quote that Rockefeller babbles on about is the height of Orwellian, as well. Watch it:



Imagine if Jim DeMint had said this? X-posted to LCR.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Herman Cain on the Fair Tax



Herman Cain on tax reform and dishonesty in advertising by a certain political party, whose symbol is a donkey*, who shall remain nameless.

More at the Blog Prof

*To put it charitably.

Juan Williams Hammers Last Nail Into NPR

Another schadenfreude moment:



Mr. Williams goes through a litany of things liberals have said on NPR without losing their jobs. As they say on Sesame Street, Can you say...double standard?

Kudos to Bill O’Reilly for giving him a forum to air his grievances.

Via American Glob

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel

Friday, October 22, 2010

“I Always Thought the Right Wing Were the Ones That Were Inflexible, Intolerant”

Juan Williams on Good Morning America:


It's been said that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Perhaps we can consider this as Juan Williams' mugging?

Video via Say Anything

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel

NPR: Thought Police

by Lady Cincinnatus


Ah. So, we now learn that Juan Williams has always been a thorn in the side of NPR. And according to NPR, it is expected that proper political analysts must, "give his own analysis – while carefully choosing his words on any given subject."

And if those words are not chosen carefully enough for p.c. muslims and NPR, then you'll be fired...or just fitted with an electro shock collar. The electro shock collars just haven't come in yet.

NPR also goes on to whine that, "NPR's values emphasize fact-based, objective journalism" except when the "fact-base" relates to the real unease of a modern plane boarding caused by 19 muslims who flew planes into buildings that sent almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children to a fiery, violent and hellish death all in the name of Allah (peace be upon him).




Cross posted at Lady Cincinnatus

Saturday, October 16, 2010

The Democrats' Maginot Line

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


John Harwood, Washington reporter for CNBC, was on NBC news tonight, reporting on what the Democrats are doing to prepare for November. As he spoke of the Dems retreating from funding several races, he used an unfortunate* metaphor. He said that the Democrats were drawing a Maginot Line to defend against losses in the Fall.

Perhaps the French could tell Mr. Harwood just how successful that was?**

Here's hoping you're right on the money, John! Heh.

*Depending on which side you're on!

**It was expensive, provided a false sense of security and ultimately failed at its intended purpose.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Rasmussen: 67% Americans Better Informed Than 10 Years Ago

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Rie Rasmussen (no relation)


Rasmussen is reporting poll results where "two-out-of-three Americans (67%) feel they are more informed today than they were 10 years ago." At first blush, this seems to indicate a triumph of the New Media over the old. And to a certain extent, this is true.

Adults ages 30 to 49 believe that more strongly than those in any other age group
That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If you asked me if I was better informed at 29 than I was at 19, although the answer is "yes" it is largely irrelevant. What I knew at 19 was largely academic. What I knew at 29 had some real world experience to back it up.

Then, there's the phenomenon about lying to pollsters. "Are you better informed?" This question might be one that people might be inclined to fudge a bit on, even to an impersonal pollster. People are sometimes embarrassed to admit ignorance, even to strangers. Like asking adolescent boys how much sex they've had.

And finally, there's the reliability of the Internet.
Forty-four percent (44%) of all adults say the Internet is the best way to get news and information.

I agree. But, I have also seen too many people search the Internet merely for examples to bolster their ignorance and misconceptions. Truly informed individuals have learned how to sift through much of the dreck and misinformation on the web. After all, WhiteHouse.gov may have a better creative writing staff than say a FlatEarth.org, but in the end, you have to be able to compare more than one source to test the veracity of their claims. A closed mind will only look for or accept evidence that reinforces its own world view.

With those caveats, I am mildly encouraged. The demise of the stranglehold of the Old Media was unleashed by virtually unlimited access to information, via the Internet. Sans traditional filters, the consumer must be more discerning about what they receive, but then there is an abundance of material with which to fact check.

Persons today who are uninformed, choose to be.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

September 11th - The Reason

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

-------------------------------

Two years ago, during the presidential campaign season, as the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann demonstrated yet again why he is not only one of America’s most colossal jackasses, but an undisciplined dullard. (The extraordinarily obvious is sometimes more beneficial than the simply obvious). Olbermann's repulsive on-air reaction to a video played at the Republican National Convention paying tribute to the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was beyond the pale, even for him. When the video was finished, Olbermann hoisted his holier-than-thou head and had the unadulterated nerve to apologize to the viewers for the network's decision to broadcast the segment. To Keith, and others of his leftist strain, this was a tasteless exploitation by Republicans. To others, it was counterfeit indignation wrapped in political expediency. As one blogger to the Olbermannwatch.com website commented, “His outrage is always so phony, it's hard to believe anyone could buy into it.”

Phony or not, Olbermann's outrage at the mere mention of anything related to the September 11th attacks by anyone other than conspiracists, Bush-haters and film documentarians is not exactly uncommon. I used to believe it was confined only to the fringe left, but I was mistaken. Almost all Democrats instinctively believe that Republicans only mention the attacks as a means of procuring a political advantage. The fact that the main-stream media is, at worst, sympathetic to the American left helps explain why September 11, 2001 is the enormous elephant in this country’s living room.

It's another example of how the American left truly believes that it simply isn't possible for any of us on the right to simply disagree with liberals without having sinister motives. It isn't possible for conservatives to simply think differently from liberals without being some form of bigot or xenophobe. It isn't possible for us to oppose someone like Barack Obama without being a hater of some sort. It isn't possible to pay tribute and honor the heroes and victims of the worst terrorist attack on this country without trying to score political points.

We are not only wrong, we're bad.

You'll also recall last year the date of September 11th was being hailed as America's "first day of service" - a day to volunteer and "encourage and facilitate community service across the country." As "Greater DC Cares" said on its website, it was to be a day for cleaning parks, serving meals to the hungry, restoring our national monuments, and much more.

As I wrote four years ago, there is a peculiarly conspicuous gap in our cultural landscape when it comes to horrific events of September 11, 2001. It is almost as if the images of that fateful day have all but been purged from our societal canvas. The sights and sounds of September 11th - save for the occasional scene of the burning towers in a random news story - are almost entirely tucked away from the American public’s senses by purveyors of news and information, in a way that’s almost conspiratorial. The result is that Americans in large numbers have almost forgotten how it felt on that morning to witness the murder and destruction that unfolded before our eyes, on live television. It’s almost as if it never really happened, or that it occurred so long ago as not to be relevant anymore. In a culture where barely-watched, insipid sitcoms of the 1970s and 1980’s merit their own DVD boxed sets, the images of that morning remain practically hidden.

Consider, for example, how the American people for several years were peppered daily with images of bombed-out vehicles in Iraq, the remnants of body parts and ambushed convoys from road-side bombs, the wreckage of mangled helicopters and images of burning buildings in busy Baghdad neighborhoods. It was a veritable brochure of How-to-do-it terrorism furnished by the mainstream media to illustrate the horrors of what happens while American forces continue to “occupy” a foreign land. But go ahead and try to find anything that depicts the savage murder of civilians in this country by fanatics, and you might as well be looking for Republicans on the New York City Council.

Today, it has been nine years since the horrific attacks that claimed nearly three thousand innocents. Regrettably, the very event that forever changed the course of the world has dissolved into our daily lexicon as two innocuous numbers spoken in succession: nine, eleven. How detached we’ve become to the sheer brutality; it has become a hyphenated four-syllable point of reference without visual reinforcement. In this fantastic age of image stimuli, where everything is instantaneous and accessible, it is criminal that the defining event of this generation – and arguably in our nation’s history – has slipped from our ever-shrinking attention spans.

True, often times we cannot go a single day - sometimes hours - without hearing those two words in some context: nine, eleven. But its impact has diminished. And while it is perfectly natural for the raw emotions of that day to wane, we’re still at war. Unbelievably, only nine years after the fact, the images of 9/11 are less vivid than the faces of rejected American Idol contestants. It is an injustice of the highest order to the victims and a profound disservice to those who serve in harm’s way.

I fully appreciate that there are many who don’t wish to see the horrific footage of that Tuesday morning ever again – especially those directly affected by the attacks and aftermath. Indeed, I have a friend who spent many days at Ground Zero in the days following the attacks, digging through the rubble and remains of the pulverized World Trade Center. He’s told me that he personally could go the rest of his life without ever seeing those pictures again. However, he was quick to add that America should revisit that day, even if only once in a while, to remember why this war continues to be fought.

The people of this nation must be reminded over and over again exactly why we are fighting, with whom we are fighting and what these brutal unconscionable killers have done to us – and what they will do to us if given the opportunity. The harrowing images of the evil that is terrorism – such as those desperate souls leaping from the burning towers - should never leave us. We owe it to the victims of the September 11th attacks, to all those who have sacrificed to defeat this enemy, and to future generations to not only defeat terrorism wherever it is but to understand precisely why we’re doing it.

For many like me, the memories of that day have not dissipated, nor should they for any American.

Unfortunately, for many it has, and with it, that sense of urgency to pursue and eliminate those who did this to us before they can do it again.

Would there even be a debate about opening an Islamic cultural center and mosque at Ground Zero if it hadn't?

America today, more so than at any time in her history, is a visual society. We crave stimuli at an incessant pace. We’ve evolved into a seeing-is-believing culture where almost anything on God’s green earth is a mere click away. Images serve as our prime validators. Additionally, we are a people easily distracted and quickly-bored. Out-of-sight, out of mind. We are a culture of channel surfers pulling our dinners from microwave ovens. We keep in touch with friends and loved ones via instant-messaging and broadband internet connections. We can take pictures, download files, zap e-mails and balance our check books on a cell phone.

But we are not a heartless society. We are, without a doubt, a most forgiving people. And it is specifically that otherwise admirable quality I fear has begun to take hold across the map before its time. Now is not the moment to forgive the enemy. They still exist. Inasmuch as we have to be reminded exactly what they did to us, with troops in harm's way, and terrorists continually plotting to hit us, it is perfectly reasonable to those of us who fully appreciate the scope of the war to be utterly disgusted with images of road-side bomb craters and other negative stories about our forces while an almost purposeful effort is made to shield us from the 9/11 attacks - like we might actually rally around the war effort.
Am I talking about the need for establishing a 24-hour 9/11 satellite channel?
Of course not.

But how about an actual clip of one of the twin towers collapsing into the streets of Manhattan the next time a news story about the 9/11 attacks hits the air? Or how about that second plane slamming into the south tower when a story about the War on Terror and terrorism in the United States plays? After all, it did happen, despite the attempts of the American Leftocracy to pretend it didn't.

In anecdotal terms, the video images of the September 11th attacks are powerful weapons. I have watched the faces of those who hadn't seen the "as-it-happened" accounts of that day for years, and it is a profound experience. (You'll recall that a video documentary I produced chronicling the events of that day was roundly criticized by a New York Times columnist recently as "rhetoric"). Those of us who were paying attention eight years ago obviously haven’t forgotten the event. Indeed, we all have our own memories of that terrible morning, just as we have memories of anything that occurred in our past. But actually affording one’s self the chance to relive that particular Tuesday morning by seeing the events unfold once again conjures up a different type of "memory" – one seeded in an indescribable kind of outrage and violation, of inexplicable horror and seething anger – the kind of “memory” this nation needs to hold on to while American men and women serve in harm’s way. Indeed, after viewing the tapes of that morning with a selected gathering of people, my closest friend turned to me and said, "I forgot how horrible it was."

That's what I mean. He obviously remembers the day as we all do … but images speak volumes.

To the great credit of MSNBC, that network has rebroadcast its original coverage of the 9/11 attacks, as it happened nine years ago today.

For those of us who do not need to be alloted a specific day by the government as a time for service - those of us who view everyday as a day to do onto our neighbors as we would have them do onto us - I choose to remember September 11th as the day evil revealed itself with stunning clarity on our home turf, wiping nearly three thousand innocent lives from the face of the Earth. I choose to remember it as a day wrought with unspeakable horror and unparalled heroism. I choose not to diminish its incalculable impact on all of our lives, nor dishonor the dead and their family members, by attempting to purge it from American consciousness.

September 11th is the day I remind myself of how fortunate I am to live as a free man in the greatest country on the planet - and how quickly everything we take for granted can be taken away.

-

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

"He's the Cotton Pickin' President"



Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute! I heard that some cotton pickin' pinhead might fire this guy just for using a cotton pickin' idiom???

If this is true, this is political correctness on steroids! As a native Son of the South, I can't tell you how many times I've used the phrase "cotton pickin'", and to my knowledge, none of them were even remotely racial. There have been a lot of us Persons of Pallor picking cotton. This is a tempest in a teapot. A cotton pickin' teapot, I tell ya! Sheesh!

H/T "Beautiful Loser"

Twitvid

Update: He issued a cotton pickin' apology! Didn't have the bolls for it, I guess!

Rick Sanchez Apologizes After Labeling Obama the 'Cotton-Picking President'

Note: If you cotton picking liberals are so cotton picking thin skinned as to let something as trivial as this bother you, then you can cotton picking well guess what my new old favorite phrase is. And you may quote me!

Cross posted at Say Anything

Update II:Rick Sanchez speaks! : "I just said cotton picking because it was a term that I've used because I grew up in the South. It's a point that is often used to illustrate frustration."

Cotton picking Yankees bitterly clinging to their racial stereotypes! Heh.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Karl Rove Fills In For Rush Monday

I have it on good authority that the eeeevil Karl Rove will be filling in for El Rushbo on Monday August 9th.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


The most powerful man on the planet on the most successful radio network evah?

Let the liberal heads 'splode now!