Do liberals really think this way? (in Debates)

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/two-cheers-for-double-standards/

Just wondering it his is representative of the liberal ideology?

And yes, Rush was wrong to call that "expert" in women affairs a slut and prostitute.

I'd say he's an idiot... that language was inappropriate in all cases.

Heh heh. Yeah.

When he's not engaging in more boorish liberal bashing and showing some double standards of his own, I tend to agree with what Bill O'Reilly said here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/bill-oreilly-msnbc-schultz_n_1353287.html

Maher likewise defended Limbaugh without defending his statements, thus annoying his liberal fan base.

Maybe Maher didn't get criticized because he spoke of politicians, everyone already thinks of them as lower than what he called them...

There are two distinctions here.

1.) Comedians tend to get away with more because they do it under the banner of comedy. It's an excuse both Maher and Jon Stewart have used in the past. Whether that's justified is open to interpretation. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of free speech for all rather than free speech for a few or free speech for none.

2.) Palin was a public figure, and therefore in the opinions of some open to the minds of attacks not normally levied at non-public citizens. Again, whether you agree or not is up to you.

Bill Maher had it half right, but I tend to agree with O'Reilly more. It sucks when an entertainer, even a bloated sack of putrescent filth like Rush Limbaugh, has to go away because of a gaffe. Public advocacy groups need to stay out of it and realize this is friggin' America and we can express our opinions any way we want. However, entertainers like Limbaugh and Maher, who was ousted from ABC after his gaffe about 9/11, need to realize that they don't have a right to a TV or radio show. They are members of the private sector, and like all businesses, if you screw up and nobody wants your product anymore, you go away. If you screw up and say something so revolting that listeners don't want to hear you anymore, and other private businesses no longer want to support your show, then to complain about that is to rail against the free market. Are conservatives really prepared to do that?

Once Fluke spoke in front of Congress she became a public figure.

Unlike the Rutgera women's BB team of which Imus ridiculed. B

One can certainly try to make that point.

Not to mention the fact she has since appear on:

The View
The Ed Schultz Show
MSNBC
The Today Show
NPR

I think that can now qualify her as a public figure.

Especially as she herself has stated she went to Georgetown University to change their policy on contraception and is head of the club at GU in "reproductive justice".

"Do liberals really think this way?"

assuming any group of people all think one way is likely your first mistake and indicative of a major lack of forethought or a sad attempt at trolling! ; )

I know entire groups of liberal do not. But read a lot on the subject on the net and you can see quite the double standard when it comes to Rush vs people like Schultz or Maher.

I was just wondering if the liberal on CB had the same double standard.

Not trolling just asking. Seems I have gotten my answer.

it must be true then! ; )

yes, you do have your answer if your answer is: it would be ridiculous to assume i understand anyone's viewpoint without actually asking them what their viewpoint is.

I have not read on article supporting Rush's use of the word slut.

However, I have read quite a few condemning Rush while at the same time not condemning Left wingers who use the same or worse.

I was just asking if this is prevalent in liberal circles.

Sorry if this offended you and made you think I have no foresight.

Neither have I.

But as I wrote, I have heard plenty, from liberal and conservative sources, condemning those who want to censor him, including Bill Maher who you are always so quick to dismiss.

The only liberal I have heard say anything positive about Rush is Maher. Because he know he has said things multifold worse and did not want to be called hypocritical.

I have yet to read another liberal who stood up for him. Perhaps you can quote me a few articles on people that have.

Kirsten Powers in fact wrote a scathing article about the liberal hypocrisy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

However, she did not stand up for Rush, in fact called him misogynist.

i am a bit confused as to what your point is?

are you saying that liberals can only criticize conservatives if they also criticize themselves? are you saying that you are surprised that the libs with the loudest voices and the outlets available to them aren't representative of the masses? that they aren't giving equal time to criticize themselves?

perhaps the better question is why do you spend so much time reading this liberal nonsense when it only makes you cross-eyed?

I wanted to know if liberals really have this double standard. CB is very liberal leaning and we have quite a few hardcore liberals. I wanted to see if they would defend Maher or Olbermann or Schultz while at the same time going after Rush.

Being able to criticize Rush while at the same time saying Maher is "different". Or Schultz, or Olbermann or any of the number of other liberals that use profane language.

I read both conservative and liberal sites to see how people think. But thank you very much for your concern as to my eyesight.

And so far I have yet to see someone on the liberal side say that Maher is a "bloated sack of putrescent filth". I have read half hearten attempts to excuse what he has said under the guise of comedy and public figures.

Certainly a double standard exists here in CB. As far as I can read.

LB did, however, state that America is free and anyone can say anything.

it is telling that you constantly make posts on cb in order to convince yourself that the liberal idiots here are as bad as you have decided they are. why is that?

it seems pretty basic to me that as humans we are adept at ignoring our own hypocrisy while excelling at seeing it in others. do you see that in yourself or do you feel you are above that?

Your trollrific title doesn't even seem involved with the subject....
Anyhoo...Rush can say what he wants. That said let's go into the differences in the insults. Skip to "Rush was a fool" if tl;dr
Maher's "bimbo" cuz Palin is dumb. Duh, big deal, and it's PG on an everything goes HBO. Guessing Schultz was speaking of how Ingraham has completely sold out. If you've ever heard her show she's practically spread eagle by the hour. Pun(s) intended. Either way a suspension or fine is fitting for him. Rush called some lesser known woman worse and I'll explain why. Break it down and you'll see it's an attack on the private matter of sexuality, skips to women rights if played right, rather than attacking a broad ideology or even personality traits. The chick was also moving for one policy rather than a grouping. Unlike the other two women mentioned.
Think about this for a minute. Condoms costs money, so some loose girls might not use them for that reason, and this student wants these girls using condoms. Don't support universal rubbers, but be a fool to go witch hunting wouldn't I. The girl had simple reasoning with and Rush made the very bold mistake of assumption without a scale and a duck. If you gave records that she slept with the dean then he would be right. Otherwise there seems to be an irregularity between the show hosts opinions. What the student was asking, what the two women were actively being, and who was paying the bills. Moving on...
Rush was a fool, the ad revenue stopped coming in, thus he's a victim of his own words like Maher & Schultz before him. The severity may be quite different but so were the circumstances for each no matter the side.
Nope. As the typical liberal, so I've been called ;), I don't have strong feelings about what either said. Not anger, nor glee, not surprise, nor have I condemned any of the three for their vulgar word. Oh and I will be drumming that title up again as I read it "flawless victory" and Tebowed last time.
Since I brought up this history. Do you feel there is a double standard when you give me such a title, or openly call someone else an idiot on a loop, or that CB is a liberal bastion, and we can't label you or your affiliations as openly? Not as loaded as the last I assure you. Just want you to consider your behavior and that of the hosts. ;)
Which inspired the last line.

I do condemn Rush for his language as total wrong if that help your thinking.

Otherwise I have been quite consistent in my posts.

Guess you missed his constant use of the "c" word when talking about Palin. Or the multiple other profane words he uses. Selective memory or selective posting?


She is asking the public to pay for her birth control. Yes, I understand her quite clearly. And she states it cost 83 bucks a month for it.

So, in your opinion, it is the context in the word use, not the word use itself? That is quite the double standard and is quite in line with the article in the OP. Basically it is right use since we are right in our thinking. Thanks for clearing that up for me!!

You do of course realize that condoms had no part in the conversation at all?

I don't give a whip about your feelings on Rush. Didn't ask for them either. Unless we are talking about the most awesomest trio ever.
Says you.
Plain not caring and you are missing the point entirely again.
This is so beside the point you might as well call me the S word while we're here.
/facepalm
Thought I was alluding to how his words were taken so harshly. I gave no emotional basis or siding to be living on the double standard claimed. I knight you Sir Bonk.
You do realize I'm a typical liberal. ;) Should have included this with your birth control post instead of spamming. btw your liberal bashing bias should have no part in this but *shrugs*
Though you keep searching for an answer you never seem to find what you're looking for. You know what it means to walk along the lonely street of dreams. Here you go again on your own. Going down the only road you've ever known. Like a drifter, you were born to walk alone. And you've made up your mind. You ain't wasting no more time. Just another heart in need of rescue. Waiting on love's sweet charity. You gonna hold on for the rest of your days.

Sorry Gun,

But now you are being downright nasty. Getting away from the topic and getting into personal accusations and lies.

I knew you were upset when I said you could dish it out but not take it. However, you are now going well out of your way to attack me and my points of view no matter what they are.

Is the 5 year old now done ranting?

Lol now that's trolling! *claps* srsly you can't hate whitesnake this much

This explains a lot. I would have never typed something as wrong as that. Just because someone does not agree with you, in this case Ingraham.

While Fluke was using "simply reasoning".

Thank you for proving the point.

Uhhh dude that was a word play to spreading the will of America or how ever you wish to say it. That's why Pun(s) was included. Played off his words, her words, and your own perverted thoughts. What wrong with you? =/

Sorry I just don't "get off" (pun intended) reading word play about a woman spread eagle.

Yes you do. That was a five post spray of madness.

Since I got time reading Natty's Drunk Tales I'll give you what your kind words were obviously asking for. ;)
Was quite polite in bestowing the history you've given us. =/ Think we've covered your name calling but not the potentially racist outlook towards your patients & president. Never been a good time to bring that up so let's get this over with while we mud wrestle. Unless you want to try your hand at staying on topic? Which could be a debate as to what the topic is at this point.
All you babe. That big post was on topic. Took to the events in question and denying your group assertions. Again. If explaining how such blows might have come to pass was not the topic then I'm guessing the topic is proving something to yourself or so I'm re-reading.
O.M.J. Must be a year since your uncovering and you STILL think that got my goat? By Jon, man. Got tiger blood in ya. I'll take this as an admittance to guilt. *grins*
Touche! Wasn't so out of my way to push your terms which were in the way. Look up. Were you trying to cultivate rage on such a simple matter we all are likely to agree on? Then, I call you out on behavior BOOM Gunny is the criminal! Dare say you have a fixation for self fulling prophecies. Think we are practically the same guy at this point. What say you liberals? Am I Maher to his Limbaugh?

Right to the racism card. And to use it for my patients as well.

Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley would be so proud right now.

So currently we have the vile sexist humor toward Republican women and charges of racism to boot.


The topic is you proving the original post. The author of that article was not a wacko part of the liberal viewpoint. It seems to be quite mainstream.

I will give LB credit on his consistency to a degree. But you sir, prove that article is on target.

Here's how some liberals think: (although I think 'liberal' is too right wing for my liking. But there you go, that's just me)

We wonder how the right want less government, less welfare, less taxes. And yet want 'more' government over people's private lives ie. the pro-life lobby wanting more controls over women's bodies. We wonder how they want less welfare and yet want less taxes on their income, which in effect is a welfare handout of their own. Hipocrisy of a very right leaning kind. Some of us wonder how some people sleep at nights.

If you saw that one coming you really are racist. ;) Oh, and I saw two women atm, so you are proving your point with yourself too.
Explain how. :)

No, no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO!

Yes yes yes. See discussion about subsidies to business. Same thing.

You come to my farm, I hire you, you plow my fields and help me care for my cattle. I pay you

Next day you come by and do nothing and I pay you.

One of these is not like the other.

You earn ten dollars every day. On Tuesday I take 2 dollars from you in tax. On Wednesday I take 1. You're richer because I haven't taken it from you, not because you've earned more, given that you're total earned hasn't gone up. Handout.

You earned $10 both ways. There's no discussion to be had if you can't see common sense.

If you believe that all the money you earn is not yours but the governments then that statement is correct.

If you believe the money you earn is yours and the government is taking it away, that statement is laughable.

I believe the second statement to be correct.

If you believe the first, there is nothing to chat about.

Technically the money IS the governments... I think we mean 'wealth' or 'value' here. That said, if you expect the government to protect your ability to generate wealth (which we all do to some extent, we aren't pirates) then they have implicit ownership of some of that wealth.

To what extent they 'own' the wealth generated in their country is open to debate, but anyone getting wealthy who feels they should pay no taxes at all is just naive.

I never and very very few conservatives believe we should pay NO taxes.

How many conservatives have you seen stick up for Maher? And what point are you trying to make here?

As a big fan of his, I don't think he is. I'm not judging Rush solely on his use of the word slut either. There's quite a bit that goes into that scathing assessment I offered earlier.

Most of it coming from you. I'm not going to get into the whole Fawkes vs. Ranger catastrophe, but I do want you to answer one of Dudemus' questions:

And somebody add Maher and O'Reilly to the spell checker. Limbaugh too if it isn't there.

I didn't say you did.

I was merely making the point that not every dollar you 'earn' is yours. There was an example earlier stating that if you earn $10 then you earned $10... this isn't really correct as there is a legitimate claim by the government upon some of the wealth that is created.

No,

It is my money I earn. Then I pay to the government in taxes for the services it provides. Just like I pay anyone for services they provide. But I give the government the money.

The money I earn is not the governments of which they decide how much of it I keep.

Huge difference in philosophy.

You pay the government for the services it provides? That's your ideal, not the reality.

You pay for the services it provides to everybody, you pay for the wages of it's staff, you pay for police and army and navy and airforce. Most of those things are carrying out a service you do not see any benefit from. And if you withhold payment you can go to prison, unlike withholding a payment to say a carpenter who has done some work for you.

Not the same as paying any service provider.

Not to join the argument, but you might want to use a better example, unless you actually get to decide what you pay for people's services. I doubt you allowed people decide how much to pay you for your services.

Yes, you're right, it is ideal.

Wait, who decides which services you use from the government? What if I feel I don't benefit from National Defense, do I get an opt out? I also don't have any kids so education doesn't benefit me either.

The prison system? I prefer rehabilitation, but since I'm not locked up and neither is anyone I know why should I spend here?

Foreign aid, pfft, forget that too. While we are at it, only the roads I drive on should be paved with my tax dollars!

This is the problem, everyone (or nearly everyone) would opt out of services they didn't use. Things would go down hill, fast.

Viewing the government strictly as a service provider is short sighted to the point of blindness.


Yeah, improving the efficiency and transparency of government is great, but treating it like any other business is foolish.

If you can show me my hypocrisy in this thread, I will be more than happy to admit it. Far easier than my liberal friends in this thread.

i was asking you what your opinion of yourself is:


to be clearer, can you admit your own hypocrisy or do you see it only in others?

i would also love to see your response to the other question posed in the post that you quoted as well.

I answered that in my post above.

Now will do the same?

If you think what Rush said and what Maher said were similar you certainly have a double standard. That sir, is my point.

I've been wondering... Who is Maher?

Ranger does like to confuse questions doesn't he.
I don't care to count how many times you have done so in this thread, but the liberal friends part is one. ;)
To be polite, I'll give a helping hand.
"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.[1] Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie."
Ranger is not a hypocrite in this instant as he believes everything he says. Right?
Ranger, taking to the quote you used, you proved dude's point. You denied any in yourself. Then claimed others around you were more hypocritical. Taking no account to his first sentence of the two was applying to human reasoning outside of the thread gives no excuse to withstand my bonk. What I'm saying is you've made yourself his example as you were not above his basic understanding.

Not calling you a hypocrite, this time, but would like to see what might deny or explain my views of you.
Within your accusations of liberal bias towards these hosts you in turn showed your own by attacking Schultz & Maher and perhaps defending Palin & Ingraham if so subtly. Bob himself defended no one, not even Fluke, in his top post. Yet you attacked as though he was a rival. You did this with me as well. I'm guessing circular reasoning and reciprocity is involved here . Though no one is claiming to be a liberal, some of us will deny it, and someone might just be a democrat. You assume that any dislike of Rush or eagle lady means liberal and thus in favor of Maher or Schultz. Which doesn't translate well as personal opinions were given, not akin to branch political statements, and no one said either of the three wasn't a fool. Despite the neutrality. You have claimed repeatedly that there is double standard. As asked for myself earlier, would like you to explain why the title link was right.
If you can't explain the double standard of ourselves to us. Try to explain why I might see so much in your words.


Yes my liberal army I know that my two questions could easily be used against me, but this is probably the best bait to get him to answer one of us well enough. ;)

Bill Maher, just google him. You'll find a lot of stuff.

Google: Bill Maher

Then Google: bill maher sarah palin c word

Then please put that word in the spell check.

Did you not read my first post. What Rush did was completely wrong. But not in the line of what Maher called Palin, on numerous occasions.

Rush is completely unrelated to the quote, but do go on.

No, but Rush is completely related to the thread and comparisons to him, Schultz, Maher, etc.. are perfectly relevant to my OP.

But please rant on.

So it's not about what I asked at all is it? You use to be better at dodging. ;) Answer me coward! Be a man!

But then let me explain since you have a hard time reasoning in this thread.

You state I am hypocritical and used "Within your accusations of liberal bias towards these hosts you in turn showed your own by attacking Schultz & Maher and perhaps defending Palin & Ingraham if so subtly." as you example.

Understood and well done IF I only criticized the liberal talk show hosts. However, even though you did not mention Rush, I mentioned him to show I was NOT hypocritical as I criticized him for the comment he made.

Now to the degree of criticism. What Rush said was not nearly in the same dimension of nastiness as what Maher stated. If you cannot see this, then your values IMO are quite warped.

As in the initial article I quoted, you have proved my point in that there certainly is a double standard in liberal circles when it comes to criticism of conservatives with a sheltering of liberals.

Again, thank you for your honesty in this thread.

Didn't think of this before but your timely hate of Rush could be a ruse so you could say just that you were balanced. Hypocrite! ;)
Still going off Bimbo and will continue to as that is what was in the link. You seem to have found a new fixation with a word we dare not say as much as you do. Either way this wasn't what the thread was about. Thus, you are now lying.
What point? What circle? What sheltering? Do you take more bong hits than bonk hits?

Wish you were as honest as me. :)

Whoa, whoa, wait a second. The question was not limited to what has happened since yesterday at 1:40 PM.

"Well, I haven't done anything hypocritical TODAY," is not a valid defense here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDyFLsV4bow

2:26-3:12
7:00-7:35

Great points.

Now, tell me one thing you have that wasn't given to you, either genetically or nurture-wise.

Go ahead. Name one thing.

I'll wait.

Hint: and after that, you'll have to defend whatever you come up with by explaining how what you DO have, that you worked harder for it than anyone else. I'm just being forthcoming here, because it's that SECOND conversation I really want to get to. You know, the whole "worth" thing, that you never really quite got a handle on (and Titan just stopped playing, waaaay back).

If you haven't figured out yet that that is what the difference is between liberals and conservatives/reactionaries...well, then JCIASC (Jesus Christ In A Side Car), you really are just trolling. I mean, for frack's sake, dude, if I started a thread titled: "The Rich: oO they really think they should just own EVERYTHING!" would you let that stand? Or would you (correctly) consider that trolling?

My medical degree.

My business that I eventually sold.

There are 2.

O, you can certainly try to discuss how my genetics gave me a better intellect (as most if not all CB players have) so it gave me a better shot at getting my degree.. blah blah blah.

I worked hard for my degree. Nobody gave it to me. I took out loans to pay for school, nobody gave me money to pay for college except the government via 8% interest loans.

And if you want to discuss how genetics gave me everything I have today, then there is reasoning with you.

Again and yet again and again, please show me where I have been inconsistent in my posting. Where I have been hypocritical.

If you posted an article where a "rich" person stated that exact premise and asked if rich people really thought that way, I would say you were not trolling but asking if that was just a wacko or a true conservative philosophy.

And as a conservative I would tell you it is not.

I would not defend that article, if there ever was one, and then go after you personally for trying to learn about conservative.

But that is just me. Obviously others in CB feel a lot differently.

No, "liberals" don't think this way.
The HYPER-FRINGE CARICATURE OF WHAT SOME PEOPLE DERISIVELY CALL LIBERALS (which are not really any actual persons) actually "think" (as much as any non-existing entity can think) that way, or better said, have their straw mouth filled with straw words to do with the straw man that they are.

There's no such thing as "liberal ideology", nor is there any such thing as "conservative ideology" anymore.
There's only excessive posturing, chest-bumping and other equally ineffective for practical purposes (but highly effective for PR reasons) methods of mock "communication".

The overwhelmingly huge bulk of people are neither conservative nor liberal but a mix of both depending on issue being discussed. This excessive polarization towards the false dichotomy between "republican" and "democrat" is a nauseating spectacle of "bread and circus" fit to stuff the mouths of the gullible masses that gobble it all up gleefully then gladly pick the side they were USED to picking before anyway.

Humans are stupid. And that's not an insult, merely an observation.

LiberalBlender would jump the poster of said link too. Especially if they had an extra agenda. Which is why you don't see them here. The marginal posting forethought of our liberal double standards.
White power?
Get off the cross! We got real crooks to put up there. Dr. Roy! Get over here...


Going to liberal buckshot this and see what sticks this time. Since he keeps dodging everything else. The above lines are to be included so Ranger won't feel as cornered.
-That's just a title.
-Rich is subjective. (and not necessary to form an opinion)
-Hopefully they would cite a study. ;)
-You aren't making any attempts to learn from liberal directorate. Been months since your guise was recognized.
-CB is still making attempts to understand your side. Really.
-When we go after you personally it's broadcasting your impeding personal problems.
-The liberals aren't the problem. <-- repeat that out loud three times please

Challenge accepted. Here are a few threads where I have called you out on your hypocrisy.
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002kYy&all_p=1
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002qkD&all_p=1
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002vqC
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002y6H&all_p=1
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003AT4&all_p=1
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003CiU&all_p=1
http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003DMj&all_p=1

I still have four more pages of forum threads to search through. For now, it's 3:42 AM. I'll finish tomorrow.

Holy crap some of those videos are old.

Sorry LB,

Perhaps a sum of each thread on where I was a hypocrite would be better than me rereading countless old posts.

And here is the king of all hypocrites our own president:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-should-i-expect-your-call/

Here's a guideline :
- saying person A is an idiot is an opinion which might be unpleasant ; saying *all* persons of {gender/race/political orientation/siding with issue B/doing what person A does} are idiots is sexist/racist/inflamatory/offensive and generally totally uncalled for and shunnable
- lambasting person X for something they did or said (which you don't agree with without giving decent objective and REAL reasons as to why) is merely unpolite ; pelting group Y with pejoratives/invectives for wanting something not entirely unreasonable, while yourself not having a decent counterpoint other than the torrent of unsubstantiated bile spewing forth, now that's completely despicable
- saying you don't agree with how a particular person in a group handles things and suggesting alternatives is actually ok ; IMPLYING that the entire group lacks any morals whatsoever because they don't totally disagree with that particular person you disagree with is quite disgusting

If you catch my drift as to why one is sort of barely passable (worth a slap to the back of the head) while the other is worth a kick in the groin. With a steel-toed boot.

Please. Do your own work.

I hope to finish the list later today.

Actually, I'll make it easier for you.

Do a search on each page for "hypocrisy" or my usual phrase, "it's only ok when you do it," or variations of that.

Since I'm up and it's raining hard. Will see your Palin-wailin' with some thunk'in.
1) Seems Obama was calling on support for a supporting issue. Rubbers. Them dems love rubbers.
2) Reaching out to students to encourage leadership. Good voter stuff.
3) Wants his girls speaking up for what they believe just like her.
So in great essence he's supporting the first amendment grassroots style as well.
4) Wasn't about the verbal morality stature. Just ended as such.
Seems Bristol left some context out.
5) Seems Bristol is the public citizen and Fluke was the private citizen. At least until Fluke writes a book.
6) I like Chris Matthews' JFK take. Associated cival rights could also be a reason. Good flag.
7) Obama doesn't watch Maher. Nor has Maher directly caused such a scandal with his words for the prez to take notice.
8) Bristol will probably get a text and affordable law school spam. ;)
9) Bristol be trollin'.
10) This Bill Burton isn't as polite as I was in separating the gunk.
11) As Bristol cited, she was defended by Obama, why buy the same land twice? He already showed care and at the right time.
12) Wouldn't calling Bristol bring her back to the baby bash? Wouldn't Obama get right-slammed for political pandering to the likes of teen moms? Wouldn't it be best if they talked to each other at an oval office party instead of this public begging for acknowledgement? ;p
13) He shouldn't still be rattled about what happened nearly a term ago.
14) His not-calling is not hypocritical at all. Double standard if forgetting about Bristol would count.
15) He probably didn't want to see news Fluke OD'd on pills next week.
16) Mud slinging over one lousy supportive phone call. There is nothing wrong with who he called or didn't call. Bonk to Bristol, the madbaggers in her comments, and to me as for paying this 16 points of mind!