DC Tom Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 I think you found your new conner He's not quite there yet. But I have no doubt that through relentless abuse and mockery I can drive him into a fit of apoplexy and ultimately lead him to achieve the full !@#$tardedly Sheentastic connerific potential I know he has.
truth on hold Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) He's not quite there yet. But I have no doubt that through relentless abuse and mockery I can drive him into a fit of apoplexy and ultimately lead him to achieve the full !@#$tardedly Sheentastic connerific potential I know he has. With angry rants like this " ... Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not we agree or disagree. It has to do with you being an idiot. It makes no difference to me what you believe; I am, however highly amused at your stupid and pitiful justifications of it ... " I'd say you're already there! Edited March 9, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
Gene Frenkle Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Take it from this partisan hack who recently received the coveted Geno Frenkle Slam-Wow Partisan Hack Seal of ApprovalTM: when you defend one party, and then attempt to disparage the other party by linking to a seven-year-old story about a sexual harrassment suit as if the lawsuit just happened, or at the very least, was still on-going, you're a partisan hack. Now, I'm not sure if this qualifies you for the official Geno Frenkle Slam-Wow Partisan Hack Seal of ApprovalTM, but keep trying and I'll put in a good word with Geno. Wow, I really got under your skin with that one, huh? I've been thinking about it and I think I'm probably being a dick. I apologize for the personal attack, for whatever it's worth.
ieatcrayonz Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Wow, I really got under your skin with that one, huh? I've been thinking about it and I think I'm probably being a dick. I apologize for the personal attack, for whatever it's worth. Dude in your last avatar picture you were bald and now you have "hair". I'm just saying but everyone is going to know.
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 With angry rants like this " ... Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not we agree or disagree. It has to do with you being an idiot. It makes no difference to me what you believe; I am, however highly amused at your stupid and pitiful justifications of it ... " I'd say you're already there! "Angry rant"?
Gene Frenkle Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Dude in your last avatar picture you were bald and now you have "hair". I'm just saying but everyone is going to know. A guy with hair can't shave his head?
Keukasmallies Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 NPR and other low hanging fruit do present opportunities to slash government waste, but to fix the budget the decision makers need to go where the big time expenditures are in the budget: Man up, make some changes in Social Security, fix/simplify the tax codes, cut some of the long-standing entitlement programs. Make personnel cuts, examine defense spending, cut back on foreign aid payments, do some things that will have a long-term impact. But, the no-cajones legislators we continue to elect have only self-preservation fixed in their sights, so we'll all B word and moan through another budget cycle....
truth on hold Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Speaking of foreign aid, good video on the politics that over ride US public opinion for ending it ...
Magox Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The deal with NPR is largely symbolic, having said that they do push liberal views and they do accept a very meager sum of public funds, and as little as it may be, it still is tax payer money and probably should be slashed. WHat's the big deal? I'm sure NPR can find some rich lefty donor to compensate the difference. If I were them, I'd rather go this route to stop being the target of all the right radio and tv "personalities". Too much negative attention vs. the reward in taxpayer money.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 NPR and other low hanging fruit do present opportunities to slash government waste, but to fix the budget the decision makers need to go where the big time expenditures are in the budget: Man up, make some changes in Social Security, fix/simplify the tax codes, cut some of the long-standing entitlement programs. Make personnel cuts, examine defense spending, cut back on foreign aid payments, do some things that will have a long-term impact. But, the no-cajones legislators we continue to elect have only self-preservation fixed in their sights, so we'll all B word and moan through another budget cycle.... Agreed, but cut, cut, cut, cut, examine? Interesting choice of words.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The deal with NPR is largely symbolic, having said that they do push liberal views and they do accept a very meager sum of public funds, and as little as it may be, it still is tax payer money and probably should be slashed. WHat's the big deal? I'm sure NPR can find some rich lefty donor to compensate the difference. If I were them, I'd rather go this route to stop being the target of all the right radio and tv "personalities". Too much negative attention vs. the reward in taxpayer money. Much of the programming that NPR produces lends itself to academic types who are stereotypically liberal. For example, if you're looking for science news with a conservative bent, well, good luck. I understand where you're coming from, though, and I'm sure NPR wouldn't have a very hard time finding private funding. It's not like we're going balance the budget by cutting funding to NPR, however.
Dante Posted March 10, 2011 Author Posted March 10, 2011 The deal with NPR is largely symbolic, having said that they do push liberal views and they do accept a very meager sum of public funds, and as little as it may be, it still is tax payer money and probably should be slashed. WHat's the big deal? I'm sure NPR can find some rich lefty donor to compensate the difference. If I were them, I'd rather go this route to stop being the target of all the right radio and tv "personalities". Too much negative attention vs. the reward in taxpayer money. Why don't they turn to some of their rich lefty pals in Hollywood? Natural allies I would think. NPR's huge listener base would be perfect to push their ****ty movies to.
truth on hold Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Agreed, but cut, cut, cut, cut, examine? Interesting choice of words. Exactly, they fart around on NPR whose federal funding of $90MM is about 1/2th the annual interest expense financing the US military budget of more than $500 billion. Edited March 10, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
Gene Frenkle Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Why don't they turn to some of their rich lefty pals in Hollywood? Natural allies I would think. NPR's huge listener base would be perfect to push their ****ty movies to. Do you actually have a relevant point or are you just looking to spout some cliches? My point was that it would be difficult to find conservative hosts for many of the types of shows NPR produces.
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Do you actually have a relevant point or are you just looking to spout some cliches? My point was that it would be difficult to find conservative hosts for many of the types of shows NPR produces. Someone want to explain again how NPR isn't biased?
ieatcrayonz Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 A guy with hair can't shave his head? Sure but it doesn't grow back that fast and your more recent photo has pretty long "hair". There is nothing wrong with being bald. Own it.
Gene Frenkle Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Sure but it doesn't grow back that fast and your more recent photo has pretty long "hair". There is nothing wrong with being bald. Own it. You would be right to be suspicious if the old photo were newer than the new photo. Someone want to explain again how NPR isn't biased? NPR is no more biased as any network or cable news network, which isn't saying much. Of course the rub is that it's publicly-funded, which I already said probably shouldn't be the case. I feel worst for all the conservative academics and science proponents who are being held down by George Soros and his hollywood pals with all of their ****ty movies. That's what we should really be focusing on.
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Do you actually have a relevant point or are you just looking to spout some cliches? My point was that it would be difficult to find conservative hosts for many of the types of shows NPR produces. Yup because conservatives are nothing but a bunch of backwater, toothless, gun totin', ignorant, hicks. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
whateverdude Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 The deal with NPR is largely symbolic, having said that they do push liberal views and they do accept a very meager sum of public funds, and as little as it may be, it still is tax payer money and probably should be slashed. WHat's the big deal? I'm sure NPR can find some rich lefty donor to compensate the difference. If I were them, I'd rather go this route to stop being the target of all the right radio and tv "personalities". Too much negative attention vs. the reward in taxpayer money. Thats true but it's not so much about the funding and more about NPR believing that getting government funding gives them the moral high ground over their competition. Face it, NPR is better than you and me.
ieatcrayonz Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 You would be right to be suspicious if the old photo were newer than the new photo. Of course the new photo is newer than the old photo. Otherwise it wouldn't be the new photo. Geez baldy, just up and face reality already.
Recommended Posts