Time's Joe Klein claimed GOP candidates with multiple marriages "live like liberals"
In a column titled "The Second Commandment Republicans" in the March 15 edition of Time, columnist Joe Klein asserted that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and former Massachusetts Gov.Mitt Romney (R) are "moderate candidates who live like liberals," citing the fact that they "have had nine marriages among them: Giuliani three, Gingrich three, McCain two and Romney one" as his only evidence. The leading Democratic candidates for president -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) -- have each been married once.
Media Matters for America has previously noted instances of media figures referring to Giuliani and McCain as moderates (here, here, and here). Media Matters has also noted NBC Today host Meredith Vieira's conflation of issues purportedly raised in the public's mind over the "multiple" marriages of Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich and Sen. Clinton's "marriage troubles."
From Klein's column in the March 15 edition of Time:
Then again, the Republicans are fielding a motley crew right now: if you count Newt Gingrich, who'll probably join the fray in the fall, the four leading candidates have had nine marriages among them: Giuliani three, Gingrich three, McCain two and Romney one. The Republican faithful are left with a devil of a choice: moderate candidates who live like liberals, or religious conservatives who talk like liberals.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Is Gingrich a moderate?
just for starters...multiple marriages Reagan, McCain, single marriages Clinton, Obama....
... and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Nancy Reagan was pregnant when she and Ronnie got hitched. How "liberal" can you get?
Stupid comment, Klein...
Too bad we can't challenge these putzes immediatelly after.
reagans married march 4, 1952. patti davis born oct 21, 1952. kitty kelly's book on nancy [really about the both of them] was pretty good. about how nancy shipped ronnie's kids with jane wyman off to boarding school. all the astrology stuff too. then you have newt's serving divorce papers on his wife while she was coming out of cancer surgery. then there was bob dole. his first wife was the nurse who cared for him when he was badly wounded in ww2. don't know if it's true, but i have read that his wife and kids had to get support from their church to make it after the divorce. klein is a joke, making such absurd statements.
I'm liberal, and I've only been married once.
So far. <;->
Yeah, Nancy Reagan's faith in astrology... I totally forgot about that.
Of course, these days you have Neil Bush hanging out with the Moonies--a destructive cult, in the fundies' estimation--but all the Washington conservative elite sit there and read their Washington Times and nobody among them says a word about it.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Joe Klein is a DINO, and nobody's liberal outside of ABC and Fox!!!
He can't speak for the liberals! He personifies the worst aspect of pandering to the right's need to cloke Democrats in their own discretions. That way everybody in the conversation is dirty, and they don't feel so out of place!
Joe Klien has been so tied-up in the spin on 'The Beltway,' he has managed to choke the air to his brain!!
Damn, when am I gonna get to live like a liberal?
"Is Gingrich a moderate?"
Compared to what? Even Pat Buchanan looks like a moderate these days compared to the newer breed of American conservatism. Just ask yourself this: Would Rick Santorum approve of multiple divorces, adultery or fornication, generally, without the benefit of marriage?
That's rich, liberals like to have multiple marriages. Actually I would say that liberals FORGIVE marriages that don't work out, whereas conservatives (and yes I'm generalizing) desire that miserable people stayed locked together because that's what Jesus wants.
"miserable people stayed locked together because that's what Jesus wants."
Well...sort of. I would word it differently though: "miserable people stayed locked together because THEY THINK that's what Jesus wants.
The classic marriage vows say "let no man put asunder what God has joined together"...ok, but if the marriage was not successful (i.e. not "made in heaven") then WAS it "joined together" by God? Or only by people?
I read "that's what Jesus wants" as snarky sarcasm, but maybe that's just me.
"I read "that's what Jesus wants" as snarky sarcasm, but maybe that's just me"
Oh sure, so did I...but there was just enough of a grain of truth in it that I had to comment on.
Actually Mr Mickd you are incorrect. If young people would take time rather than rush into marriage, we wouldn't have this tone of conversation.
Actually, the conversation would go away if right wingers would stop pretending to own the "high ground" of marriage. They preach, but don't follow their own preachings.
Marriage has little to do with government, and shouldn't be part of Presidential race.
That's not saying that the hypocrisy of, what, nine marriages amongs the three leading contenders for the Republican nomination vs. a total of three for the three front runners on the Democratic side isn't juicy.
Us liberals also like to have lots of sex. Especially me!!!
so do television evangelists. when they're caught, they cry "i have sinnnned" and then remind you to send money because they might have to go off the air, and the jaguar payment is due.
That's right. We liberals constantly marry trophy wives to act as fashion accessories to our careers and dump them at the first opportunity because we're more in love with ourselves than anyone else. That's us. That's why we argue for gay marriage! So gay men will be able to divorce their husbands as soon as they get cancer or AIDS! Can't be seen in public with a chemo patient on your arm, not good for the image. Right, Newt?
yeah, like the Clintons who are still married and, get this outrage, they DID NOT raise their kid to be a drunken s*ut who abused the SS detail following her! OMG how dare they!
I hate when people rely on stereotypes, a journalist should know better. Check out these divorce rates, by state.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar&div.pdf
No we (journalists) don't. We're stupid and lazy. Which proves to be a deadly combo.
Interesting figures, Lynn. What is really surprising over the past 12 years, the divorce rate seems to be trending down in almost all states. However, the marriage rate also seems to be taking the same trend. What does this all mean? I haven't a clue. All I can say about the high(er) rates in the Southern states is, "So many cousins, so little time."
If a southern marriage ends up in divorce, are they still legally brother and sister?
Is it not true that Conservatives, in general, have a higher divorce rate tha Liberals?
Yeah, but to be fair, for a lot of cons,staying married involves listening to a Republican talking at you everyday.The difficulty factor should be considered.
It's amazing more of them don't murder each other, since their homes are filled with guns.
LOLOLOLOLOL... maybe if liberals new how to use a gun, well, anough said!
I know how to drink. Yet despite this knowledge, I choose not to be become an alcoholic.
Your logic is insanely stupid.
Damn, do you take EVERYTHING I say as a direct poke? I was joking.
Maybe if your jokes were funny...?
Trust me, we know how to use guns. That's why we don't need assault rifles to hunt bambi.
I use my paintball gun for that. I do not own a gun otherwise. But if I could, i would have a few fully automatic riffles.
Aren't automatic rifles illegal?
Aren't automatic rifles illegal? - Worrierking
Yes, but are the automatic riffles he wants?
Yes, yes they are.
Not if you have a class III license, but it's irrelevant.
then ya may as well go all the way and buy tracer rounds. easier to lead bambi with, and it skins and cooks him on the spot. less work all around!
LOLOLOLOL... I do not hunt. i collect weapons. Mostly swords, asians fighting weapons, ya know, the kind I can get medi-evil on ya with!
Big ol' compensating phallic swords.What a surprise.
Really? I have an AWESOME Katana. A replica of the Highlander Katana used by Adrian Paul.
Isn't a "riffle" a small wave? I think those are legal, EL.
I thought it was a form of light shuffling in which the cards from two halves of the pack are interleaved... which AFAIK is still technically on the books in Mississippi.
Not in Tunica, Vicksburg, and Biloxi!
Yes, a perfect riffle shuffle is to interlace one card from each half of the deck on top of each other. In fact, if you like to make bar bets with very drunk people, get a new deck of cards and tell them that you can keep shuffling it until the cards return to their original order. 7 or 8 perfect riffle shuffles (I forget), keeping the Ace of spades on the bottom at all times, will bring the cards back to the way they started. If you put the bottom card of the deck as the second bottom card every shuffle instead it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 shuffles (yes, I was sick from school one day during a power outage, and was obviously supremely bored).
I've had at least one person try it and told me they won a bet doing it. Extremely trivial and very slightly profitable knowledge.
Yes Rusty. and the world spins at a B flat.
Okay, EL, I've thought about this and I still don't get it. Sounds like an interesting musical reference. What do you mean?
I think it was a stab at the worlds record for dumbest pun
You've probably heard of catch and release fishing. For a real thrill try shoot and release hunting. Shoot a grizzly with a paintball gun.
That may be the topic of the new Court TV series, about married couples who kill each other.
Difficulty factor, like diving.
Staying married to a liberal is a single pike from a low board whereas staying married to a conservative is a triple summersault half double pike twist off a 100-foot cliff into a drinking glass.
My step-mother, who has been married to my Bush 43 worshipping father for 27 years, should get TEN medals.
Randy
Is it not true that Conservatives, in general, have a higher divorce rate tha Liberals?...by Nerzog
Not in Liberal Hollywood
Sorry I couldn't resist that one ;-)
I wonder? I don't know the answer, but I wonder which has the higher divorce rate among Republican and Democratic lawmakers. I wonder if it's higher or lower than Hollywood. It would be interesting to see figures on that. I'll go use The Google and see if I can find anything.
Don't know about lawmakers, but this is quite interesting:
"In the "No Religion" category measuring lifestyles of the 29-million or so members of this cohort, 33% were single, 22% single and co-habiting, 19% married, and 9% divorced. Six percent were widowed. Only Buddhists (47%) and Muslim/Islam believers (37%) exceeded the numbers in the singles category. But the "No Religion" group showed low rates of divorce compared to religious counterparts. Pentecostal Christians had the highest divorce rates at 14%, followed by Episcopalian/Anglicans at 12%, Baptists at 12%, and the Assemblies of God at 10%. Non-believers had comparable divorce rates along with Methodists, Roman Catholics, "Christians," Church of Christ members and others. ARIS noted, "the no religion group was far more likely to be either single, never married or single, living with a partner than any other group." Evangelical Christians and Assemblies of God followers were more likely to marry (73% and 74%), thus possibly contributing to the high divorce rates."
Got that from here: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist4.htm
LOLOLOLOL... and not in my family! My con uncles, married once.
My liberal parents, 7 times between them! LOLOLOLOLOL
That explains more than you think it does.
I just keep wondering what you think "LOLOLOLOLOL" stands for...
LOLOLOLOLOL is the sound a Bush apologist makes when he plug his fingers in his ears and gibbers while someone tries to tell him the truth. As in:
LOLOLOLOLOLOL, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!
This explains Evillib's psychosis to a tee.
Randy
I guess a tight-wad liberal like you has no sense of humor. Are you done laughing for the century?
BTW appeaser, i did not vote for bush the first time, nor the second. In fact, I did not even vote for a president. THEY WHERE ALL SORRY ARS CHOICES! That, negates me being a Bush appologist.
Ironically, pinko commie George Carlin does a joke that's pretty similar to your reasoning.
As far as I'm concerned, if you don't vote, you pretty much negate your right to protest your government's actions as well.
I used to argue that exact same point. I thought they both sucked. The thing that changed my mind is that I don't think a Democratic administration would have taken us into Iraq. Probably the biggest single political mistake in my lifetime and maybe the last century.
Although, I have mostly been an Independent, that is a big enough difference for me to now vote enthusiastically for Democrats for a while (although I think the best government is Democratic executive and at least one branch of Congress controlled by Republicans). I don't like giving either party the "keys to the castle" --so to speak.
By the way, lets get as many Americans killed as possible warmonger I dont CARE who you voted for, You are STILL a moron.
Doesn't though!
I am chuckling for gods sake!
Jeter,I don't even know why they bother getting married there, but to be honest if we lived life styles where both partners are constantly traveling and clawing to the top how long could we sustain marriages. I would guess about 2-3 yrs just like them. Seriously though and this is pure conjecture on my part. I do know that in very religious families there is this pressure not have sex before getting married and a lot of people that are way too young to really handle the demands of a marriage get married generally so that can have guilt free sex. Sex cannot sustain a marriage. When these kids grow up they realize they really don't like that husband/wife they swore lifetime fidelity and allegiance to at the age 18 because they made them horny and they fly the coop.
I agree Lynn. One of the reasons I waited till I was 32 to get married was because i wanted to be a Rock Star. I knew the fight would be tough, and there would be no room for a wife and kids until i got it out of my system. At 32 I gave up the desire to be a Rock Star and married my wife. I am getting back into bands now, but in a relaxed atmosphere.
I agree Lynn, Hollywood is a entirely different culture and doesn't reflect the way most of the rest of us live.
I don't know if there are even any credible studies out there that have determined who has more successful marriages--Liberals or Conservatives. I've been married to a Liberal for 27 wonderful years, so maybe MIXED marriages are the best :-)
I also agree with your point about some kids marrying too young in order to have LEGAL sex. Of course in this day & age I'm guessing that may not be as huge of a factor as it once was. Religious upbringing or not.
Bottom line: Klein makes a ridiculous statement here then doesn't even try to back it up.
Not in Liberal Hollywood-Jeter2
How many times did Hollywood Ronny Reagan make wedding vows?
How many times did Hollywood Ronny Reagan make wedding vows?...by roundhouse
Twice.
What's your point?
Guess you didn't get my tongue in cheek remark? Or figure out the ;-) was a clue which meant I was being facetious about Hollywood & Liberals.
The lack of a sense of humor around here is...well, kinda funny ;-)
Are you that sensitive about Reagan? What makes you assume what you assume? Where is your sense of humor?
Do you not like me Jeter : ( ; )
I know you're not mean spirited, Jeter. But right now, I'm not sure where your previous post is coming from? Annoyed or playful. I'm guessing playful.
Since you asked what my point was, I'll answer..with a question. Isn't it strangely amusingly ironic that the only recent president that Republicans are not chafed by was a Hollywood alum? I mean Republicans can't seem to attribute enough cultural foibles to Hollywood, yet their favorite son was a Hollywood Lib...er...uh Hollywood guy.
Hey Roundhouse,
The first part of my post--where I asked for your point--was serious...but not grumpy serious ;-)
The second half was "playful", though I have run across a few posters here that always seem to be soooooo angry they find no humor in anything [not meaning you]
I've no problem with second marriages, hey it happens. I'm sure everyone who takes the vow the first time means to keep it...well unless they're from Hollywood, which is more like a musical chair game of marriages ;-)
Hollywood does have a reputation for being more Liberal than Conservative, and yes I agree Conservatives generally loath Hollywood, so having their all time favorite Prez come from there does have a touch of irony to it.
I liked Reagan, BUT I'm not one of those hard core worshipers of the man. He was far from perfect. All Presidents have their flaws...the present one has more than any before him, but that's another subject.
P.S. I like you just fine :-)
Roger, Roger.
Over, Unger.
Are there more cons than libs?
No, it just seems that way because they're always complaining.
LOLOLOLOLOL.... I hear equal complaining from both sides.
Good answer Evil. I was trying to get you to complain and then I was going to respond that you proved my point.
By not complaining you ruined my punchline.
LOLOLOLOL...I am learning!
Now if only we can just get you to drop the LOLOLOL Homer Simpson drooling sound...
I guess I should show no sighn of happiness on this site? Laughing out loud bother your uptight ars? Is it against MMFA's rules?
I think they are making fun of the multiple LO's. Are you saying "laugh out laugh out laugh out laugh out loud" or "laugh out loud out loud out loud out loud"?
And I thought it was "Liberals, Oh Liberals, Oh Liberals, Oh Liberals......."
(chuckling)
Does this mean we're going to see "COLCOLCOLCOL" now?
I need to stop, might get in trouble by the MMFA police.
Remain at your keyboard and let me see your license and registration.
If that means what I think it means, I do it at the doctor's office once a year...
I am laughing!
"LOLOLOLOL" doesn't mean anything. "LOL" means "Laughing Out Loud," but that means "LOLOLOLOL" means "Laughing Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud" - that is, it looks like you're stuttering or something.
Perhaps you mean "ROTFL".
HTH.
Oh, the irony of that statement, coming from the #1 liberal complaint site........
;)
"coming from the #1 liberal complaint site........"
Since when is Worrierking a "liberal complaint site"?
Poorly phrased........should have said "coming from a poster on the #1 liberal complaint site".
So in your book, quoting conservative lies usong their own words is "complaining," but you going into every thread railing about the reasons they were created isn't complaining? You do almost nothing but complain.
Asking me to stop my 'LOLOLOL' is a fine example of YOU, the Liberal complaining. Are you tolerant? Sure does not seem so.
I don't think anyone really cares as much about your odd use of "LOLOLOLOL"as you seem to think. It seems kind of odd that you posted that your "liberal parents" were married "7 times between them! LOLOLOLOLOL", which I would think would not really be funny at all...actually quite the opposite -- very sad. But then again, I am just a stupid liberal. What do I know? Maybe there is some hidden hillarity in there.
That is what apparently sparked Valentinian to check whether you really understand what LOLOLOL... means in the first place.
If this is truly the #1 site of liberal complaints, then we have a lot of catching up to do with the Freepers, drudge, and Fox.
Evil,
I'll be like Klein today and offer my opinion as if it's fact- I think most people are middle of the roaders, not me of course I am what I am. Now I have no facts to back up my middle of the road assertion, but if not using facts to back up assertions is good for a seasoned journalist then damn it it's good enough for me. But seeing how easily voters swing between electing Democratic and Republican majorities I'd say the electorate is pretty much centered and they don't seem to like extremes in either direction.
Kinda like walking down the middle of the road drunk off yer @ss...
Excuse me?? The divorce rate is highest in the Bible Belt and lowest in the Northeast. It could be traced, perhaps, to concentrations of latter evolving Protestant denominations being more populated in the South and having higher concentrations of Roman Catholics and Episcopalians in the NE, but in this day and age, I don't think that's accounting for the distinction. There seems, still, to be a remnant resistance to divorce in the NE even when the individuals involved are not bound to religious restrictions. It's even obvious within Northeastern culture that divorce is still perceived as some tragic ocurrance. Persons who have divorced- especially at a young age - still deal with unstated judgment of being perhaps "impulsive" or not possessed of good character judgment.
When I hear "three marriages" in someone not yet 60 and of someone who has never been widowed, I don't think "New Yorker" or "Bostonian". I think "Southerner". I'm a native New Yorker and have never met another native New Yorker who has been married three times (I'm from the middle class). Rudy Giuliani is fairly extraoridnary in the experience for his region. Romney, far more typical I'd say.
I didn't have contact with persons who had been married multiple times in their lives until I became active on the internet, meeting more people from the South and Texas.
So since when is multiple marriage and divorce "living like a liberal"?
I wonder if it could, in fact have more to do with culture in general than religion or politics. Here in the South, you have a lot of people who fit into that country/western honky tonk redneck stereotype. They'll swear up and down that they're Christians...and most are Republican...yet their lifestyles are hardly consistent with the "conservative" ideal. They also get divorced and remarried a lot. Maybe they're skewing the statistics.
Nerz, I've often wondered if it has to do with attitudes towards pre-marital sex and/or being prepared for pre-marital sex. As you say, there are segments of Southern and Texan culture that engage a great deal of pressure to appear to be "Christian" in the definition that it obsesses on sexual personal piety.
Maybe that pressure compels unsuitable marriages in order to either have sex or legitimize a sexual relationship. Or maybe the appearance of being prepared for pre-marital sex, such as the use of birth control, is considered SO unseemly, that the rate of non-marital pregnancy is higher, also compelling unsuitable marriages at young ages.
Marrying for the first time after age 30 and most certainly after age 25 is not deemed unsual in NY in the least. It isn't assumed that one will remain a virgin until 30. Neither is it considered important.
Knowing an intended spouse for a long time, however, that seems to be a New Yorker/liberal type of obsession. Marrying someone you've known less than a year is STILL a cause to gain the scary eyeball from many in regular society - and most certainly due to send many a NY mother of any class or race into an ER.
You hit part of it on the head, FabTemp,a lot of it seems to do with pre-martial sex, but also about babies.
We in the north are seeing what you could call a "Southern Effect" now.
As many schools switch over to Abstinence Only education and making it harder for teenagers to gain access to condoms and other forms of birth control, both birth rates and STD infection are increasing. And than to top it all off, you teach the fathers to do the right thing and marry the mother (in the case of babies, not STD's).
Which is good, but a lot of these kids, are just that kids. They were not thinking long term relationship, just sex.
I owuld add the parent probably had little interaction with their kids about sex. I do not believe it is the governments responsability to teach kids sex-ed. I believe it is up to the parents. I am all for classes in school, do not get me wrong.
Evilib
It is the responsability of schools to EDUCATE young people & to arm them with the FACTUAL INFORMATION that they will need to make intelligent decisions in life. Educating them about the realities of sex is no different than educating them about mathmatics, english, history, science, etc. It is most certainly the governments business to do its best to produce a reasonably educated citizenry.
Its NOT however the governments business to to either keep young people in a state of abject IGNORANCE on such a vital subject as sex, in order to placate the religious beliefs of parents who CANNOT neccisarily be counted on to do the job themselves. Nor is it the government's business to WARP & DISTORT this information in order to socialize young people into following the religious right's party line. Such attempts to deny or distort such knowledge result in higher pregnancy rates & transmissions of STDs.
As a nation, we owe it to our young people to give them the highest level of education possible. We owe it to them to give them the TRUTH. It is the parents responsability to give them whatever religious training that they see fit, & the government should stay out of THAT. If those two positions conflict... oh, well. I guess its then up to the individual to sort it out through the powers of their own reasoning & come to their own conclusions.
At least this way, they'll be prepared to make intelligent dicisions.
Oh, by the way, Joe Klein is a jackass.
Yes and no Evil,
Most studies, and reports show that the majority of parents are fairly ignorant when talking about sex to their kids (yes some of it could just be that its a little uncomfortable to talk about with your kids). I believe in a two step approach. The schools provide the science and technical info (the truth). And the parents can handle the faith side.
In truth the abstinence only education model basically says, "No sex before marriage, and all you gay kids (who can't get married) can just get AIDS and die." I know that sounds harsh, but do you think parents are going to sit down with junior and say, "now just in case your gay, here is the proper way to put a condom on and how to have anal sex."
On the whole, the level of sex ed in this country is declining drastically. (and HIV infection is going up, hhhmmm). Also most parents tend to self delude themselves. They have problems believing their "innocent" child could be sexually active, so they put off talking, until its too late. By the time my friend Shane's parents even brought it up, he had already dated three girls and had sex with two of them.
ADifferentMcCain,
What I've always seen behind the "Abstinence Only" education is an actual DESIRE on the part of sponsors and proponents that it be effective in separating the "wheat from the chaff", so to speak. Most persons I've spoken to who endorse Abstinence Only believe that the best way to scare kids out of sex is to allow a few of them or a lot of them to get pregnant or contract STDs for "not listening".
I know one such pinhead who wants kids to be taught that condoms do not impede the spread of STDs at all. Citing HPV and herpes as her examples, she wants those two focused on as examples of the "uselessness" of condoms in the effort.
Those who believe in "Abstinence Only" really DO tend to view sex as something that needs to be "punished" and there is a near mystical quality in their perceptions. (e.g. punishment from God)
Or maybe it's that all those liberal programs in the Northeast make people more solvent, thus less likely to divorce.
This dirtbag gets paid to write this drivel?
AMAZING!!
""moderate candidates who live like liberals,"
No use of sterotyping there, right Joe? Live like a liberal: recycle, volunteer at the homeless shelter, donate to the Girl Scouts but not buy any cookies ( I just give them cash, exposes them to the temptation to just pocket the fiver ) plant xeriscape grasses instead of bluegrass.
Oh, and married once to the same woman for 20 years, even though she drives me up the walls from time to time.
Don't forget joining the Peace Corps as service to the country.
And I suppose the Democrats without multiple marriages are living like conservatives. Klein has got his morality mixed up with political labels. trying to fit people into categories and finding the shoes don't fit. More misguided attempts to put labels on the 'others', the ones you should hate instead of Americans with differing opinions. The reality is of course just that these are the facts...Affairs are dishonest. Trust is betrayed. So it becomes very difficult to trust the involved parties due to a history deceit. "I'm sorry", just don't get it.
This Joe Klein is a clown...WTF does he even mean by claiming having multiple marriages is a "liberal" trait? I guess Oxycontin Limbaugh is a big "liberal" then...what a joke.
1. a moderate liberal is like a fried snowball. 2. religious conservatives may SEEM to talk like liberals, they walk like conservatives which means their talk is not to be trusted. 3. Is there still anyone with a working brain on this planet? Then how come people as malicious as this are still around? With all those handguns around it seems that American bullets only find their way to the smart victims and steer away from idiots, morons, criminals, cheaters, liars and seemingly pure evil people.
I've always hated the way these comments work. Just sayin'.