Sep 20, 2012 at 07:58:03
“No doubt you're also concerned about the celebrities who have been seen in public with alcoholic beverages.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?”
logicdog on Sep 20, 2012 at 20:59:45
“Yes, hopefully the PARENTS will think of the children. Learning mores, habits and right and wrong is supposed to happen in the home. But MOST parents abdicate, and let television do it. Reap what you sow. . .”
“The problem is, of course, that the study is functionally useless. Everyone who supported the repeal already (rightly) assumed what the study set out to prove, and everyone who is against the repeal will ignore the results, just as they ignore the strange feeling they get when they think about two men kissing.”
“STOP! Valued commenter,
Before penning your scrawling missive about perceived impropriety of an blogged article, make use of this handy checklist!
[ ] Article under "Huff Post Comedy."
[ ] Banner links include the terms such as "hilarious" and "Colbert,"
[ ] Video in article is from known comedy website Funny or Die.
[ ] Sidebar links include popular comedy websites such as Cracked, or College Humor.
[ ] Article links to Huffington Post Laugh of the Day.
[ ] Article addresses the body of work of a known comedy writer.
[ ] Article is tagged under "comedy news."
[ ] End of story conveniently links to Huffington Post Comedy Twitter account.
[ ] End of story conveniently links to related comedy articles on Huffington Post.
IF any of the above boxes have been checked, posting your comment may make you liable to public shaming and mockery. Be warned!
IF more than half of the above boxes have been checked, DO NOT post your comment. It is objectively of poor quality will probably result in your own embarrassment.
IF you have already posted your comment, and all of the boxes can be retroactively checked, you probably knew the article was a joke, and intentionally subjected other commenters to your platitudinous pontification. Shame on you.”
julesneuman on Sep 5, 2012 at 09:37:14
“Thank you for looking out for me. I see now that this is a joke...though with the way most of Huffpost's book articles go, it could've fooled me! disregard my previous comment, I'm too lazy to delete it.”
“The myth pictured at the top of the article strangely wasn't addressed. Fortunately, I am here.
MYTH: Unicorns power your computer.
WHY IT'S WRONG: Unicorns, while magical and certainly capable of powering electronic devices, do not power your computer. In fact, they are highly magnetic and will cause your hard drive to be wiped clean of information (possibly causing irreparable damage in the process). Unicorns also require a steady diet of dream dust, and while Cheeto dust is similar in composition, it is not a suitable dietary replacement for this majestic beast.”
“What I meant was you think you've read the article but you haven't, so don't say that you have. And with that doubling down on areading comprehension failure, I'm going to step away because this is boring. If you don't understand that this article was about a specific event, there's no helping you. The fact that Democrats also lie has nothing to do with the argument article. ”
“Me: You don't understand this article, and are misdirecting your disagreement with it towards me. You don't seem to understand that I did not write the article. You are probably not particularly sharp.
You: I don't understand what you're saying.
HagueAbductions on Sep 3, 2012 at 06:02:21
“I still don't think anyone understands what you're saying but you keep saying it. Keep trying. You'll get there someday.”
“I was, and am saying that you are wrong. And you are. Yes, the article mentions past lies relative to Colbert's character and term. The article is about the RNC convention last week.
Your problem is that you think this is an open article subject to multiple, equally correct interpretations. This is wrong. It was a narrow article specifically about how the last RNC set a new bar for number of lies told. Whether or not Democrats have lied in the past has nothing to do with this article. If there was a time when Democrats, in one sitting, told an equal or greater number of lies, THAT would be a meaningful contribution. Yours have simply been asinine.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that the fact that you think what you quoted is me calling you a liar, and that you continue to claim I am lacking in reading comprehension. I'm sure you don't understand why that is funny, but trust me, it is. ”
“I don't believe that I called you a liar, but I can't bring myself to reread your inane thoughts on a subject that no one is talking about. I said that you haven't properly read the article. If have read the article, I am mistaken, but you then have very poor reading skills.
Yes, the first few paragraphs were background (an introduction) of a concept that was essential to explain the argument of the article. The following paragraphs were about how this past RNC was the first time lies had been told at this capacity. It was not about how only Republicans lie. It was about a specific event that was a specific example of a specific concept.”
“There are so many things you don't understand. You don't understand the article. You don't understand that what I wrote was a description of the article and no my own opinion. You still don't understand that whether or not Democrats also lie completely misses the point.
Some advice: address your problems with the article towards the author. I am not the author. You should, therefore, not address your complaints about the article to me. Do you follow? Probably not. ”
HagueAbductions on Sep 3, 2012 at 03:58:42
“Unfortunate that HuffPost doesn't make it easier to see comments in their full context, because I read fluffy posts like yours and have no idea what you're talking about or responding to even though HuffPost sent me an email saying someone responded to me.
I'm not sure that anyone follows you so I don't take it personal though.”
“If you had actually read the article (don't say you have, you haven't) you would see that it is about the lies specifically at the RNC, and how these lies are being told in heretofore unseen amounts. That's the entire premise of the article. It did not mention "many other things." The story had nothing to do with Republicans qua Republicans, so your whining that both sides lies is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.”
timesjoke on Sep 4, 2012 at 07:21:38
“There you go again calling me a liar, I did read the thing and that is why I commented. You want me to have the exact same thoughts about it you do, but I can see the overall political attack on just Republicans while excluding the lies Democrats say, all I am doing is what the writer refuses to do, offer both sides of the issue for consideration.
Too bad this is what passes for journalism these days.”
timesjoke on Sep 3, 2012 at 08:46:48
“No you made the assumption that I had never read the story and decided to act all high and mighty with a front loaded claim that if I should try to claim I had read it then I was a liar.
As I already said, this story started out talking about the creation of a new word and detailed how it was due to Republicans telling lies.
Yes, he offered the convention as a modern example but never restricted his idea to just the convention. So now you want to talk about telling lies in one sitting? Well we will see how things go with their convention but to be honest, you could possibly be right........Democrats tend to never say anything at all when they speak.......just a ton of hot air.”
timesjoke on Sep 3, 2012 at 03:58:36
“"If you had actually read the article (don't say you have, you haven't"
You are calling me a liar before I even comment, lol. Yoiu can;t remember that?
The story is all about this new word to describe Republicans starting in 2005, if you can't see that you need to learn better comprehension.”
timesjoke on Sep 3, 2012 at 02:56:51
“So you decide to come out and call me a liar? Well you are dead wrong, I did read the story and saw how it started out all about the creation of the word "truthiness" and former political events from 2005 that helped to create the word, of course the other examples were only about Republicans.
Yes, the writer did offer the convention as his current example but he in no way restricted his comments to only be about that narrow segment of time.”
“The story is about a specific example of there being a new low for massing lies in a single speech. Perhaps your post would make sense AFTER the DNC, but as of right now, it has nothing to do with partisanship.”
HagueAbductions on Sep 3, 2012 at 02:58:45
How old are you 15?
There's nothing new under the sun and no level of dishonesty that both parties haven't already sunk to in the last 10 years.
The RNC was just more of the same. The DMC will be too.”
timesjoke on Sep 3, 2012 at 01:01:00
“Actually it is not, the story did mention that but also mentioned many other things. The general message from the story was how only the Republicans were not being honest, I am simply pointing out that both sides lie.”