- unless you are paid to do so, for example in the capacity of policymaker or journalist
- yep, always
- i do not know by what overall percentage your life improves with the purchase of good scotch
- these last two are related
- certainly this applies categorically, and so therefore also, obviously, to yourself
3 comments:
"les stroud": i deleted your comment because i don't know what the F you are talking about. feel free to 'splain and repost, or respond to something actually here.
Last night I was watching the great Bill Maher show and Janeane Garofalo was a guest panelist. While watching, I had a drunken revelation:
I have as much respect for Garafalo as I do Anne Coulter.
They both take circumstantial evidence, false information or even trivial small facts/tidbits and turn them into broad generalizations that they present as facts and paint with a broad brush. It's not so much this method of argument that i am against, but it is that shit eating smug look they get when they do it. They assume what they are saying is so common sensical that anyone who doesn't agree with them are dumb and/or evil in some way. It's that "why don't you understand me, oh its because your dumb" look they give as soon as their mouth closes. Our current administration does this also.
My point last night (probably not written intelligibly) was that if you (the broad you which includes me) discount anything that colter/limbauch/hanity/or the bush administration spews, then the same standard should be held against crazies across the board.
Garaffalo is not helping with her smug, broad brush stroke, know-it-all craziness.
On a separate note, she will be staring in 24 (fox's terrorist torture-fest show, but also really good tv). There has to be some irony in there somewhere.
I guess that was it. She just got under my skin.
On another separate note, she was hilarious on the ben stiller show.
Thanks for the forum, and keep up the good work and the good blogg.
Post a Comment