Carlson on Sen. Clinton: "Could you actually live in this country for eight years having to listen to her voice?"
On the May 24 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, commenting on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) decision to have the public choose the theme song for her presidential campaign, host Tucker Carlson said: "But this does nothing to make me like her. And it raises the question: Could you actually live in this country for eight years having to listen to her voice?" When former New York Gov. George Pataki (R) responded that "of course" he could live in the United States with Clinton as president, Carlson responded: "You're a man of steel." As Media Matters for America documented, media figures have repeatedly attacked Clinton for the tone and volume of her voice, including MSNBC hosts Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, and Time's Ana Marie Cox.
Carlson later said of Sen. Clinton: "Do you know when she's most charming? You know that she's got a sly, nasty sense of humor and she uses profanity a lot in private. You know that to be true, of course. If she would just drop the F-bomb on the trail or let the real Hillary Clinton out -- why doesn't she do that? I think that would work."
From the May 24 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: This, obviously, Governor, is part of the Clinton campaign's charm offensive. I think there's a lot to recommend Senator Clinton as a candidate. I think she's more responsible than most of the other people running on the Democratic side. But this does nothing to make me like her. And it raises the question: Could you actually live in this country for eight years having to listen to her voice? Do you think you could?
PATAKI: Well, sure I could --
CARLSON: Do you really think you could?
PATAKI: Of course.
CARLSON: You're a man of steel.
PATAKI: You know -- obviously, I don't want to see her become the next president of the United States. But all those who said in 2000, "If Bush wins, I'm leaving the country," they're still here.
CARLSON: No, of course they are.
PATAKI: They didn't leave. And it's easy to say, "Oh, my God, things are going to be so bad." I'm going to do whatever I can to try to help the Republican nominee win the election the next time out. But if Senator Clinton gets elected, then we should all try to see that she succeeds as much as possible --
CARLSON: Of course that's right. I'm just --
PATAKI: You don't flee. But I'll tell you, I don't think that particular charm offensive is going to help her win the election.
CARLSON: No! Do you know when she's most charming? You know that she's got a sly, nasty sense of humor and she uses profanity a lot in private. You know that to be true, of course. If she would just drop the F-bomb on the trail or let the real Hillary Clinton out -- why doesn't she do that? I think that would work.
Does anyone remember when Carlson (appropriately) got his a$$ handed to him by JOhn Stewart. The good old days.
It wasn't just Jon...
Hillary graciously appeared on Crossfire to hand Tucker a wingtip shoe to eat so he could fullfill his vow to "eat my shoe" if her book sold a million copies.
Too bad the wingtip was in the form of a cake.
Speaking of voices, if there were such a thing as a dictionary of sounds, I bet you'd hear Tucker's voice listed under WATB.
Ahh yes. John Stewart, News icon extrordinaire. MMFA is really reaching here. So he(Tucker) and others don't care for her voice or tone? Where's the "misinformation?"
Sounds like an opinion to me and an opinion that's not very intersting, and certainly not relevant, to anything of importance.
Carlson on Sen. Clinton: "Could you actually live in this country for eight years having to listen to her voice?"
As this lovely little sentence was said I wonder if he was comparing that to having to listen to Bush's vioce skewing the englisg language these last 6 1/2 years with another mind-numbing 1 1/2 yet to go?
Sure would appreciate a link to the Stewart/Carlson set-to if anybody has one.
Tucker, if I can stand 8 long years of "nucular" and "reconize" from a swaggering idiot, I can take anything!
FOUND IT!
John Stewart Handing Tucker his a$$.
Thanks a million! Would disagree with with your characterization tho - first he shredded it and then he handed it back. And wasn't Carlson gracious about it? He looked like a spoiled 8 year old that has been chastised by mommy in front of his friends. Would recommend that anybody who hasn't seen this watch it - at least twice. Actually I realized I had seen it before - and enjoyed it just as much this time.
I tried to sit through jon Stewart's Crossfire appearance but I only made it to 9 minutes. I guess if he said anything of substance it was after the 9:01 mark.
All I heard was the bashing of both Begala and Carlson and their show in general. It was condescending. it was boring. And frankly, it was incredibly RUDE to both of his hosts.
Sure it was SO boorish and made so little sense that the network agreed with him and the show is GONE.
'let the real H.C. out...'- I love the neocons' logic about people... What you see and hear from a person for 20 years is OBVIOUSLY THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what they really are... Tucker needs to put his bow tie back on and have the little spinny clown hat with it..
Pataki gave a very reasoned and sensible response to Carlson's whine.......well done.
Here's your liberal media, in all it's biased glory.
Pete,
Tucker Carlson has never hidden the fact that he is a Conservative/Libertarian/Republican. He doesn't often agree with Dem/Libs. He has his own little show and there are no pretences that he's attempting to be an "independent" or "non-partisan" member of the media. Unlike say, O'Reilly or Olbermann...it's obvious which way they lean even if they don't admit their own bias.
Tucker doesn't like Hillary...he's never pretended otherwise. But Tucker is a pretty shallow fella if it's her voice that has him rattled. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary's either, but I can think of more substantial reasons not to vote for her other than her voice.
What pisses me off is Tucker gets to host his own show, and I don't.
Do you really think Olbermann tries to hide his beliefs?
Are we talking about the same Keith Olbermann?
Deeznuts,
I didn't write anything about Olbermann "hiding" his beliefs.
He doesn't ADMIT or VOICE them publicly...have you ever read or heard him say "I'm a Liberal. I'm a Democrat"
It's obvious he's a Lib and likely a Democrat. Just like O'Reilly is obviously a Con & likely a Republican
I believe I quite cleary stated about Olbermann & O'Reilly:
it's obvious which way they lean even if they don't admit their own bias.
The POINT I was making is that Tucker has publicly stated his political leanings, while O & O don't.
KO has clearly stated his politcal affilliation. NONE. He has stated that he is not registered and does not vote. He believes that journalists should remain absolutely non-partisan. He is quite critical of the right-wing, because they deserve scrutiny, but he is just as apt to call out Dems if they desreve it. I see no reason for him to "reveal" his affilliation. He is a "journalist", not a "pundit".
On the other hand, Billdo claimed to be a registered Independent, but that was clearly shown to be a big, fat lie (surprise, surprise) by Al Franken. Billdo apparently didn't realize that voter registrations are public records, open to public inspection, and his clearly showed a check mark right up next to the word "Republican".
----"he is just as apt to call out Dems if they deserve it."----
Correct. As Keith did just the other night in a scathing commentary.
Yeah, it's what she will say with that voice that makes me dread that scenario. It'll be like we cloned Maggie Thatcher, methinks. The female face of corporatism, fascism in a power-skirt again! She'll screw over the workers and find someone new to bomb, of course. They always do. Hillary is DLC, that's the best reason not to vote for her. She's representing the Democrat wing of the Corporate Party.
Sure wish I could argue with you, Red. Unfortunately, I couldn't have said it better myself.
I think Tucker should leave the country if Hillary wins, like all the Hollywood lefties were supposed to do in 04 but didn't.
"I think Tucker should leave the country if Hillary wins, like all the Hollywood lefties were supposed to do in 04 but didn't."
Um, generalize much? It was like 2 actors and 1 musician (not exactly a "hollywood lefty") that said something to that affect. That certainly does not equat to "all the Hollywood lefties".
Tucky Boy enjoyed his first shoe so much, he is going for the second shoe.
MMFA is a little bit nutty on this one. For six years we have heard the left complain about the way Bush speaks. Why is it fair game with Bush but not with Hillary, who, btw, does have a very annoying voice. Also, her speech is replete with "you knows," which suggests to me that she's not as bright as the MSM portray her.
It is not MMFA that is nutty here. It is Tucky Boy that holds that trophy.
Hillary's VOICE is a much different thing than Bush's GRASP on the English language and, obviously, hooked on phonics didn't work for him...
MMFA is a little bit nutty on this one.
Gee, where have I heard that before?
It is a little nutty, MMFA highlighting these personal jabs that these cable screamers haul out at politicians to fill their airtime....the reason it's here, in my opinion, is so the posters who are so inclined can haul out their own personal jabs at these cable screamers - back at ya!
You say that a lot, and it doesn't make sense. Do you really think that MMFA would write articles simply to provide a forum for a few posters who want to vent about a particular personality? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the comments section is populated by the same handful of people day in and day out. We represent a tiny fraction of the entire MMFA readership. Nobody is writing articles to cater to us. They write articles to be read by a far wider audience than that.
the problem with bush is not "the way" he speaks. it's what he does and doesn't say, his mangling of the language, and his limited vocabulary. there is nothing that could make you like hillary, so if you don't like the sound of her voice that's your opinion.
Good point Kevin. Bush's public speaking has always been attacked, but not without reason. He can hardly be described as glib.
That said, libs have been quite content to attack him on "delivery" rather than "content" or substance.
I don't much care how either of them speak. I'm more intersted in their policies and actions.
I haven't noticed any lack of criticism based on the "content" or "substance" of Bush's material, considering the tiny amount of each coming from him.
It IS substantive to point out that the English language seem to be to complicated for Bush to master. Saying he doesnt like the SOUND of Clintons voice is not anywhere near the same you guys are really reaching. Tuckers inanity is embarassing just like Bushs inability to speak in coherent sentences
The sound of one's voice is not something a person controls. It's like their racial origins. It's not something they can change.
Bush, on the other hand, has mis-learned the English language, and refuses to correct simple errors and makes repeated errors. That is something he could change. It's not the same as one's voice.
Are you giving baseless credit for a potential that might be entirely absent?
Kevin,
The criticism is of Bush's grammar and the WAY he speaks and what he says. It is not about his voice like in this case.
It's not simply the sound of W's voice that grates on some of us, it is the fact that he sounds so inarticulate and unintelligent.
plus, i can't help but point out how funny it is that people harp on Hillary lapsing into a Southern drawl, when the Connecticut Cow-Pie (or the Bridgeport-Buffalo-chip if you prefer) is doing the same with his Texas twang
Granted, neither has a particularly melodious voice, but given the quality of what is spoken by one versus the other, i'd rather hear Hillary...and of all the people to talk about charmless, grating voices, Bow-tie Boy has no room to complain
Good point, crapture. Bush is no Texas cow poke.
Kevin,
You said "which suggests to me that she's not as bright as the MSM portray her."
Hey, if they (the media) can do this for GW, then doing so for Hillary would be the proverbial cake walk!
MSNBC has to ashamed of themselves for letting Tucker get away with talking about a potential president's VOICE as a reason for voting against that person... This media is a f*cking disgrace...
They should be ashamed for letting a known pundit express his opinion on an opinion based show? You might want to rethink that...
Oh, I've thought about it, ed... I if I had a cable tv station and one of MY 'opnion' hosts said outloud that could we 'live in America' because of someone's VOICE, I would fire that idiot at once and genttly suggest he find a job over on the street corner with all the other soap box criers...
Especially when they have a far-left windbag of their own by the name of Keith Olbermann. That man's rants are pretty close to treasonous sometimes. Anyone who directly addresses our president as "Mr. Bush" and proceeds to hurl hateful comments and insults at him needs to be brought down a peg or two. He rambles on endlessly.
Teddy Roosevelt said to say there must be no criticism of a president that we must support him right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile it is morally treasonable to the American public. I agree so I think it is YOU being treasonable. I think you should stop being unpatriotic servile and morally treasonable.
Which is exactly my point. The man can spout off all he likes. I find it offensive so I don't watch.
I was responding to the mention of firing a correspondent for stating that he wouldn't vote for someone with an irritating voice. I personally find her voice extremely irritating and fake.
Perhaps you do. In the grand scheme of things it hardly matters much IF you thought such trivial nonsense belonged in substantive debate about a candidate on a nationally syndicated show I would say you were doing your job poorly and in a very biased manner. Saying he couldnt LIVE in a country where the President had a whiny voice is inane and stupid and doesnt even PRETEND to belong in substantive debate, in fact it debases the whole concept. Callin Olbermanns OPINION treasonous is unworthy of ANY American that has ANY concept of freedom whatsoever. If your argument was it was unsubstantive and debasing to the overall discussion that would be another argument altogether.
I get it, Keith Olbermann is that you?? If not, SOLON sounds strangely similar to you.................what were we talking about again................oh yeah, I guess the comment was as out of place and uncalled for as that silly question that Dan Rather posed to Mitt Romney about having extra-marital sex? I would love to see someone ask HC that same question, but who will dare?
I dont know what Keith sounds like I dont watch him. I do agree a question about premarital sex is worthless unless the one questioned has made it a topic by campaigning on some moral purity issue which I havent seen Mitt has. Yeah sounds like the same tone of inanity to me. I certainly didnt mean to sound like it ONLY comes from the right pundits everywhere seem inamored of inane questions mores the pity
My guess is that in Doughboy's world, anything but unyielding, unwavering praise of The Shrub is "treasonous" because like many of the folks who are part of that remaining 30%, somehow the Primate-in-Chief is the literal embodiment of America as a whole and thus any criticism of his faults, failures and overt wrong-doings can only be interpreted as "hating America."
In short, it's the Arthurian delusion that "the land and the king are one," at least so long as he's a Republican, a concept also known as IOKIYAR (It's OK, If You're A Republican)
Lets be clear what treason actually is here. To take an oath to protect and defend the constitution and spend your entire term of office trying to subvert it - is treason. To place yourself above the rule of law and stonewall one coequal branch of government while ignoring the other with illegal warrentless wiretaps is treason.
More important in the long run, to destroy the sound economic foundation of the once richest country in the world, saddling it with crippling debt in order to enormously enrich the already obscenely rich is treason. Even more important to our security, to take the most powerful military in the world to the breaking point and beyond to satisfy a personal vendetta (Saddam tried to kill his daddy) and steal the natural resources of an entire country to enrich your buddies, using resources needed to fight our real enemies (remember Bin Ladin?) while creating tens or hundreds of thousands more - is treason.
We will be cleaning up the mess this traitor has left for us for generations - if our country and our democracy manage to survive this traitor at all.
Uneasyone: Your post resonates with me. It is the endless din created my the corporate bought mass media that has used the air wave no only for inanity- like Carlson's idiotic remark about HC's voice- to out and out propaganda, "talking points" said over and over again- literally brainwashing many.
And the list of treason is long- let's not forget subverting the 3rd c-equal branch of government- Justice itself- for political control.
And outing a CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction to destroy a political "enemy""- speaking truth.
But in Carlson's world it's Clinton's voice he couldn't deal with. I say- go and go riddance!
Your points are well taken M, but as you know , if we tried to list every assault on the constitution by this most corrupt of administrations we'd still be typing sometime in the middle of next week. I could not however, allow the diversionary tactic of questioning the patriotism of a true patriot like KO by supporters of this most corrupt of administrations go unremarked. It was time for a dose of reality.
KO at least gives nuanced reasons why he does not like Bush's policies. Name one thing he has done or said that almost rises to the level of treason.
If Tucker had given an informed reason why he does not like Mrs. Clinton it would be a different story.
Watch him tonight, I am sure you will see something....he reminds me of the male Rosie O'Donnell.
What does he do that almost rises to the level of treason? He is nothing like Rosie. He brings on Constitution law experts and talks about the Constitution. He gives long, reason-filled points. You are free to disagree with him, but the treason rhetoric is over the top unless you can provide specific, concrete examples.
If you think treason is just disagreeing strongly with the President when there are troops on the ground, maybe DeLay should have been charged with treason late last century. Please tell me when you throw out such a strong charge that you have at least a bit of knowledge as to what treason is and some claims to back it up.
Treason is intentionally giving up the sovereignty and defence of your birth or naturalized country for the profit of a foreign power or an interest, external or internal, that seeks to dominate that nation to the detriment of the whole and the profit of a few.
I call all of Washington DC and the entire corporate media traitors for selling out the American people to commercial interests that seek to mindwash and enslave us into total consumption conformity.
Have you ever thought that this is the best that MSNBC can offer? Maybe there isn't any real talent out their for conservative side. All their talikng points are a different face but same points.
I have to admit Tucker's comments actually made me laugh. Hillary IS pretty annoying. Thanks for sharing this MMFA!
I feel sorry for poor Bill. At least he's on the road a lot.
Tucker would like her to emulate the V.P. and let out with a F.U.? Is this the level of the republican debate? Is this the coursing of our discourse? Or is this what you talk about when your side has the same chance as the communist party does of winning the next election.
Tucker likes the F***er word, it rhymes.
"the same chance as the communist party..."
couple of points...
1) Just because you hate the other side doesn't mean you have to stick your head in the sand. If you think the republicans have no shot and you're willing to call the election for your side in May 2007 then you'd better wise up.
2) A lot could happen between now and the next election. You never know. Like they say, "that's why we play the game."
3) And there's no way the Dallas Mavericks will be the first 1 seed to lose to an 8 seed in the playoffs. Not this yeare...OOPS
yep- a lot IS happening.. I've learned that Hillary is a lesbian, bisexual, has a voice that will drive people out of the country, hates American troops, that Obama grew up secretely as a Muslim, thus he can't be Christain, he put forth no bills in Congress, and *apparently* is not an enemy of America, Democrats hate the troops, get chauffered in limos, are all millionaires, are bad to use capitalism to make money, Pelosi is stuck up because she wants a bigger jet, and so on... Thanks, 'opnion' *news* people!! You've been a big help!
Don't forget the haircut!!!
Hate to see such a crucial item overlooked.
Unless the Republicans turn on the current administration and eat Bush ...er impeach Bush that is, they are done, sick a fork in them.
what he wanted was to see the "real Hillary". Since it is common knowledge that she swears often and can be quite verbally abusive and loud. People who see the real side of people tend to be able to form an opinion on them easier than those who always see a false face. It should be her policies and voting record that matters, but that is not always the case.
It's common Knowledge that she swears and is abusive? It's common knowledge to whom?
those who know her personally and have worked with her.
excuse me, and worked for her.
And have YOU worked for her? Or have you personally heard her engage in abusive and foul language? Probably not but it doesn't stop you from just stating it I guess.
So, you act in private exactly the same way you behave in public?
You never clean your house before company comes over, because it always looks the same, whether you're expecting guests or not?
You talk the same way about your wife to your drinking buddies that you do to your children?
Come on now. Get real.
Lots of people are more crude in private than they are in public. The fact that she is just like almost everyone else in America in how they might talk in private versus what they might say in public is not a badge of shame for her to wear, numbskull.
What he is truly saying is that he got a forward in his email that said she was harsh and cursed a lot. It was the same one that was circulated a while ago with someone else's name.
And if we are going with the cursing a lot makes you bad, perhaps you remember the comments of Bush towards about a journalist being a "major league a-hole" or Cheney telling Leahy "Go F yourself."
And of course the supposed justification for that double standard is that Bush and Cheney are just good ol' boys, but Hillary is supposed to act like a lady. My favorite Bush-is-a-sexist-foul-mouthed-jerk quote is from the '88 Republican National Convention when he told a Hartford Courant reporter that he and his dad liked to talk about "p*ssy."
Mine is when he confronted a journalist in front of his family at a restaurant and let of a foul mouthed obsenity filled tirade at him. The man has less class than pond scum.
Yes, Carlson is a conservative sham...but is MMFA going to change its name to defend-hilary.com? She might as well be republican....her own real conviction is getting elected.
Does anyone with half a brain actually still consider Hilary a liberal/progressive? Any defense of her is borderline sickening
I didnt read this as a defense of Hillar rather a pointing out of Carlsons inanity and irrelevancy
The general theme is to sell Hillary and all the other celebrity candidates, though. It's all party machinery, dancing to the big decisions and the talking points from HQ. Rove and his machine on one side, MMFA and MoveOn and others on the opposite side, all commanded straight from Dem HQ.
I'd really like to know how you can equate Move On and MMFA with Mr. Rove. Whens the last time either got someone installed as a federal attorney, or operated to sucessfully desifranchise maybe a million or so voters. Please I'm fascinated.
As a Green, I get to watch state Democrat parties keeping Green candidates off ballots. That's a form of disenfranchisement. It's also a form of tyranny.
Thats unfortunate, somehow I think there's more to it than what you say here. I'm still waiting for some kind of answer to my questions.
You think the big Dem websites don't get marching orders from Party HQ? Party machines operate that way. The DNC publishes it's talking points, it's commands and recommendations, sends them all over the email list. Heck, I work for a cable company and they send us workers talking points about our services in our emails. This is STANDARD operating procedure. So, yes, MMFA and MoveOn.org and any other Dem sites within the machine get the daily Dem talking points and "catapult the propaganda" for the party product.
The most important thing to keep in mind about any party politics, indeed any politics, is Caveat Emptor....the buyer beware.
- I think there's a lot to recommend Senator Clinton as a candidate. I think she's more responsible than most of the other people running on the Democratic side. - Tucker Carlson, from the same interview.
Ye gods...how did mmfa miss that bit of conservative misinformation?
---------------------
Concerning his critique of her speaking voice...so what. Carlson is a goober...even though he must have a small band of loyal followers...based on his ratings.
Defending Hillary's strident speaking voice from criticism by a clownish talking head is a waste of assets...and shows the depth of mmfa's unwavering support for all things Hillary...
I can recognize a front group when I see one.
if, by recognizing, you mean reading their mission statement, then congrats!
Yeah, I'm fully aware of the mission statement...carefully crafted vehicle to support Hillary's run for president.
Off topic and just for you...and I'll make no more comments on this thread...but I'm going to correct your false assertion that per student spending has been plummeting for years. From the US Census:
- U.S. public school districts spent an average of $8,287 per student in 2004, up from the previous year’s total of $8,019. -
We're spending more and more money on education...with paltry results. There's no charge for the info...hope it helps.
You are full of BS. This site says NOTHING to support Hillary for Pres. It shows rightwing inanity and bias as a form of misinformation. We dont care if you agree it is. Since the rightwing is hysterical about Hillary for whatever demented reason a LOT of the rightwing inanity and misinformation is aimed AT Hillary for that reason she shows up here a lot. Your baseless assertion this site is some kind of Hillary for pres organization is without merit. Ya got nothin
since when is a comment on how HC talks considered rightwing inanity and misinformation? I agree with Wesley.
You are entitled to your opinion but if you cant see how commenting on how a candidates VOICE sounds is inanity I suggest you look the word up. Its pretty much the definition of inane
Spoken like a neophyte...and I know your opinions are more sophisticated than that.
When mmfa devotes an article...claiming conservative misinformation...about some goofball's opinion on Hillary's speaking voice...even pearly can figure this one out.
Is it inane or isnt it? Is there anything even in the ballpark of substantive about it? No, you know it and I know it. Now how MMFA defines misinformation doesnt have to be the same as how YOU define it. Its pretty clear that debasing the public dialogue with inane BS about a candidate COULD be considered an agenda of misinformation as it is another type of dont look at the man behind the curtain dodge. Lets NOT talk about the issues lets talk about how Hillaries voice sounds. At any rate there is NO substance to your claim MMFA is pushing a Hillary presidency.
I still don’t consider it inanity. The comment was made in context with the rest of the conversation, and although it may sound like inane to you, it was somewhat entertaining and humorous to me.
Is MMFA going to concentrate on inanity now?inane lack of sense or substance. Talking about how her voice sounds is the very essence of being inane. I dont care if it amused you because of how you feel about her this isnt really that subjective there just isnt any way to claim its not lacking in SUBSTANCE therefore it is inane by definition
First we need to imprison for felonious speech, every Repugnant candidate, for as soon as they identify themselves, I begin to hate the sound of their voices (individually and collectively.) THEN MMFA will have leave to focus on the inane, such as a number of posters here who complain endlessly about the topics to which they post endlessly.
Oh, candidate inclusive - not limited to Presidential, since the problem is the same with my very own Representative (Mike Rogers).
That's because the general emphasis on education is the corporate arena. Our schools are too heavily tilted towards basic academics and college prep. More trade schools needed, more basic life skills, we could work the cirriculum far better. But all the admin people want to project a corporate image at teaching seminars instead of building great schools. Beware the posers. There's obviously tons of money to use for education if we spend that much already, it just needs a wiser principle to guide it. Sadly, wisdom can take generations to come about, as sayeth history.
Why does Media Matters even bother with a comments section? Get rid of it. Nobody ever contributes a damn thing of substance.
Great call from one of the back benchers...LOL
More like stupid sourgrapes sniping from someone without the wherewithal to actually contribute. If his problem was REALLY there was no substance and he was CAPABLE he could have added some himself he couldnt so he didnt and the same can be said about YOU in this instance if you dont LIKE it here feel free to try the free market of ideas on the several million OTHER websites. If you dont think there is enough substance ADD SOME. Instead you are snivelling I suspect because your point of view is taken apart regularly and not in the majority. WWAAHHHH is not a substantive argument
mmfa...love it or leave huh?
I think I'll stick around...
Do as you choose personally I like your posts for a conservative you tend to make good arguments. The way I was brought up it was considered bad manners to sit at someones table eat their food and complain it wasnt good enough
I was raised the same way...but I was never at someones home for dinner where they had a chalkboard on the wall and invited guests to comment on the food.
In the real world it's called "conversation." If you ever get away from your computer and interact with people face to face you'll notice that you don't need a keyboard, or chalkboard, to communicate.
Thanks Clams. Personally I just couldnt get beyond the total lack of any coherent logical concept behind that totally bizarre post. Chalkboard to comment on food? WHAT????
I just remember getting my hand slapped for feeding the dog under the table.
RO....why are you here?
Why do YOU bother to post since YOU dont contribute one bit of substance?
Aw, lighten up on RO and don't take yourself so seriously.
When did YOU become my boss again? No, that NEVER happened so I guess my own counself will I keep about how I post. Get over yourself
Dunno about this one. I've seen some threads I think would be excellent in any civics class.
I think MMFA should just create a "Why is this here?" box so that those who are so concerned about that could just check the box and move on to more important topics.
Earth to Tucker - people are multi dimensional. They can be many selves and are often even contradictory. But I'm sure HC is hanging on every bit of your advice since you are such a shining example of humanity.
Just to weigh in, I have no problem with Hillary's voice. Maybe that's a perspective from a female who doesn't find it strident or high or any of the other things that seem to bother some men about women's voices. The thing about opinionated women's voices has been around for a very long time. It's just another way of trying to keep women "in their place" and silent. I find many men like Joe Scarborough very strident and annoying. Bill Donahue is also very strident and irritating. But these guys get criticised for their views, not because they sound bad.
Thanks for driving that nail right into the crux of this matter: we don't need to hear what Hillary has to say, since her voice is higher-pitched than the typical adult male, making her opinion inherently worth less, perhaps even worthless.
Tucker you're a f--kin' moron. I know this won't help Hillary any, but I feel much better now!
The little twerp, Carlson, has the nerve to call Clinton "nasty"? Hate to tell you, little boy, but your voice makes me race for the mute button on my T.V. (Watching your appearance, though, used to be amusing. I would leave the picture on for a good laugh at the cute little bow ties.)
the point is that Media Matters squanders any accumulated crediblity by ignoring the faults of dems and acting like cannon fodder against any right wing silly, misguided, or malacious attacks.
Hilary voted for this way and to forgive her for that is revisionist history at best...nothing to do with progressive life in this country.
About us:
Media Matters for America, a web based, not for profit 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting Conservative misinformation in the US media.
But Hillary's a conservative.
she voted for this "war" I mean..typo...should have said invasion and occupation.
They should have used her voice to help the stranded whales off that beach.
They tried everything, I'm sure Clinton's voice would have worked.
They should use YOUR posts as examples to the kids in special ed how NOT to be a moron. Dont post abject stupidity like THIS on a message board, they could tell them. The kids NOT riding the shortbus of course would already know.
That was funny:-)
That was funny?...Uh ... no ... it was disgusting.
Solon, I usually agree with your posts. But you have a disturbing habit of using this "special education/short bus/moron thing to try to denigrate others.
As a special education teacher, I find this highly offensive. My kids have enough to deal with in the world without dealing with lame-ass attempts to make fun of others at their expense.
You usually do a pretty good job of shredding the conservative argument with the facts, which have a liberal bias. You don't need the insults - especially when they come at the expense of those who can't defend themselves.
Show a little class, huh?
Thank you Redking...
Hilary is def. conservative in my book. The editors of this site can't see the forest for the apologist trees.
Then maybe the point becomes that the constant Repugnant cry that she is representative of the "far-left" Democratic party is yet another piece of conservative misinformation? Either they are lying about her, or they are lying about her.
They is part of the party machine.
Who knew just a few short years ago that Tucker's squeaky girly-voice would still be heard on MSNBC. Now THAT'S a voice I never ever enjoy hearing!!!!
Tucker is the kind of guy that has issues with strong women. I'd wager that Tucker's wifie is a stepford type that speaks only when spoken to. He'soo tightly wrapped to parlay his show into anything other than a wingnut destination. i do like Willie Geist though. He'd be a better host by a mile.