Friday Funnies

Posted February 21st, 2008 at 11:39 PM by Joan Dykstra
in

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On February 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 AM, wayward said:

From lolbama.com

Arvid's picture
On February 22nd, 2008 at 08:53 AM, Arvid said:

-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

justkem's picture
On February 22nd, 2008 at 09:46 AM, justkem said:

 Arvid,

Bwahahahah...

Okay, that hit too close to home.  But it was still really funny.

Kem

akibare's picture
On February 22nd, 2008 at 09:55 AM, akibare said:

Arvid: Hahahahaha. Yeah, definitely hits home here too.  But it's so FUN!!

 

Arvid's picture
On February 22nd, 2008 at 09:56 AM, Arvid said:

-----

"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

On February 23rd, 2008 at 04:18 PM, Joan Dykstra said:

 

On February 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Joan Dykstra said:

One more. Saw this on Powerlineblog. As if the NYT couldn't get any worse...

Arvid's picture
On February 24th, 2008 at 02:22 AM, Arvid said:

As if the NYT couldn't get any worse...

Meanwhile, back in reality:

 

-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08

IlliniPundit's picture
On February 24th, 2008 at 09:32 AM, IlliniPundit said:

Yes, back in reality.

The New York Times' ombudsman strongly criticized the newspaper's insinuation this week that White House hopeful John McCain had a tryst with a female lobbyist 31 years his junior, nearly 10 years ago.

"The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics -- sex -- it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance," public editor Clark Hoyte wrote in the Times' online edition.

Even the NYT knows this story was weak.  (And I'm not a McCain guy, and I can't stand his sanctimonious holier-than-thou schtick.)

On February 24th, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Narc said:

McCain

On February 24th, 2008 at 12:12 PM, xian said:

Gordy, but you can surely see the nuances that Arvid's comic is referring to.

If the National Review accuses me of killing and chopping up 7 people and my family defends me by saying "The National Review is a complete wackjob media source and he didn't kill SEVEN people!" both things might be true, but they still look like idiots.

 

IlliniPundit's picture
On February 25th, 2008 at 12:05 PM, IlliniPundit said:

"Gordy, but you can surely see the nuances that Arvid's comic is referring to.

If the National Review accuses me of killing and chopping up 7 people and my family defends me by saying "The National Review is a complete wackjob media source and he didn't kill SEVEN people!" both things might be true, but they still look like idiots."

Sure I can.

The NYT had the opportunity to write an article about McCain's sanctimonious BS when it comes to lobbyists and campaign finance.  Instead, they chose to focus on the one aspect - a sexual affair - for which they had absolutely zero proof, and had only two unnamed sources and lots of named denials.

That's why the NYT has no credibility with anyone except those already predisposed to hating Republicans.

On February 26th, 2008 at 03:24 PM, xian said:

No, THAT's not why the NYT has no credibility with me. That's not a terrible  reason, but there's much better reasons to hate the NYT.