Kimmell has a soft place in my heart, going back to the Man Show days.
I mean...girls on trampolines...can't beat that.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> >
> > For me Kimmell is very hit or miss. Some stuff is worse than any
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> For me Kimmell is very hit or miss. Some stuff is worse than anything
> SNL puts out, but some of it is pure genius.
I agree. They started doing the ad in the beginning and that's pure
SNL garbage. I scrip passed that.
> My favorite segme
For me Kimmell is very hit or miss. Some stuff is worse than anything
SNL puts out, but some of it is pure genius.
My favorite segment is something like 'inappropriate censorship' where
they have famous people speaking (mostly politicians) and they put
'beeps' in at places where, with the beep, i
tCheck.org Campaign Whoppers of 2010
The only thing voters should be told by a candidate are: 1. What have
they done to gain experience that makes them a good fit for the
position to which they are seeking election; 2. What they plan to do
if they get elected; 3. Where they stand on issue
1.7 million viewers. Not bad. I like the show occasionally, can't
stand Letterman anymore, Leno always sucked. Conan? Why was he on TV?
I was joking anyway, he was in the news. I'm sure of it.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Maureen wrote:
>
> His show is on ABC. That's about as major as me
His show is on ABC. That's about as major as media gets.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> I don't think many people watch him.
> Certainly not major media.
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> Jimmy Kimmel, last I checked was on TV. TV = Media
>>
>> On Thu
m: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:52 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: FactCheck.org Campaign Whoppers of 2010
>
>
> Alvin Greene is his na
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Antholo
I don't think many people watch him.
Certainly not major media.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Jimmy Kimmel, last I checked was on TV. TV = Media
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Sam wrote:
>>
>> Probably Jimmy Kimmel, it was like two months ago.
>> Ions in cybernews
pretty much a crock of
shit. Kieth was the first to even talk about him.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:52 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FactCheck.org Campaign Whoppers of 2010
Alvin Greene is his name
On Thu, Oct
I watched from "very close" while the events discussed in that ad were
happening. Offlist, I'll tell you why I find that ad to be totally
laughable.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> what you didn't like the demon sheep ad?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRY7wBuCcBY
Jimmy Kimmel, last I checked was on TV. TV = Media
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Probably Jimmy Kimmel, it was like two months ago.
> Ions in cybernews years
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> You don't even know the guy's name, but you've seen an ad by
what you didn't like the demon sheep ad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRY7wBuCcBY
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Here's my favorite political ad from the California governors race:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTuJ65et0E
>
> "Just buy me a sun dress and put me in
Alvin Greene is his name
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> You talking about the vet that is going against DeMint that seems to have
> come about the money to run out of nowhere? Kinda heavy set black guy?
~~
: FactCheck.org Campaign Whoppers of 2010
His opponent mentioned it in an ad?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> If the media hasn't mentioned it because he's a Dem, how do you know about
it?
>
~~~
Probably Jimmy Kimmel, it was like two months ago.
Ions in cybernews years
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> You don't even know the guy's name, but you've seen an ad by his
> opponent? Do you live in South Carolina? If not, where did you see
> the ad, and how did you find ou
You don't even know the guy's name, but you've seen an ad by his
opponent? Do you live in South Carolina? If not, where did you see
the ad, and how did you find out about it?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> His opponent mentioned it in an ad?
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:40
His opponent mentioned it in an ad?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> If the media hasn't mentioned it because he's a Dem, how do you know about it?
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.a
If the media hasn't mentioned it because he's a Dem, how do you know about it?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> What about the felon that won the primary? He sure as hell isn't going
> to mention it and since he's a dem the media wouldn't mention it.
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:
Obama would have lost
He had no past and ran against Bush and Palin.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> The only thing voters should be told by a candidate are: 1. What have
> they done to gain experience that makes them a good fit for the
> position to which they are seek
What about the felon that won the primary? He sure as hell isn't going
to mention it and since he's a dem the media wouldn't mention it.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I think that you should be banned from mentioning your opponent in any
> ads. I don't want to know abou
Ideally, but that would require a system that actually worked that
way. If we could have mandatory candidate questionnaires that then got
given out to all the voters and we could easily fire an elected
official based off of lies/omissions/etc on the survey, then yeah,
that might work.
As it is, I
To use the analogy of a job interview, don't you think it is up to the
voter to do background checks and check references before hiring the
candidate?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I can see this from a job interview sort of point of view. We, as
> voters, are interv
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> The only thing voters should be told by a candidate are: 1. What have
> they done to gain experience that makes them a good fit for the
> position to which they are seeking election; 2. What they plan to do
> if they get elected; 3. Where th
bwahahaha
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:39 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FactCheck.org Campaign Whoppers of 2010
Damn you...I was just going to reply with something along those lines
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7
Pretty sure the media would take care of notification of any felon who
is running, along with any misdemeanors like a spit-ball fight in five
grade. They are much more about spreading the dirt than discussing
the issues.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I understand thi
For the record, I don't think anyone _should_ tell the voters that one
of the candidates running for office is a life long felon.
Again, if someone wants to know, they can easily find out through
public records.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I understand this positio
Here's my favorite political ad from the California governors race:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTuJ65et0E
"Just buy me a sun dress and put me in a Prius!"
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Pretty sure I know who I would vote for based on that clip...and I
> don't
The only thing voters should be told by a candidate are: 1. What have
they done to gain experience that makes them a good fit for the
position to which they are seeking election; 2. What they plan to do
if they get elected; 3. Where they stand on issues that are important
to voters. Period.
If th
Pretty sure I know who I would vote for based on that clip...and I
don't care that I have no idea where each stands on what issues.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Some of the ads running out here never mention the candidate they are
> for except in the "I approved this" line
I understand this position and can see the appeal. What I'm trying to
find out though is who, exactly, should tell the voters that one of
the people running for the office is a life long felon with a rap
sheet a mile long. I'd argue that *someone* should mention it. If you
agree that voters should
ursday, October 28, 2010 6:19 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: FactCheck.org Campaign Whoppers of 2010
>
>
> If your opponent had pertinent information about their background, say
> Michael Vick runs for office and we think it is important to mention
> that he has an animal ab
Some of the ads running out here never mention the candidate they are
for except in the "I approved this" line at the end. The result being
I end up knowing more about their opponent that I do them, which is
nice when their opponent has the same positions on the issues that I
do.
Did you see the
I suppose, if he is running for animal catcher...
-Original Message-
From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:19 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FactCheck.org Campaign Whoppers of 2010
If your opponent had pertinent information about their
I think it would be ok to say Michael Vick was convicted of animal
cruelty..but that is not the way a current candidate would say it.
They would say something like "A million animals were killed this
week. Michael Vick supports animal cruelty". The distortion of the
second example is what needs
I don't care if I am running against a life long felon with a rap
sheet a mile long, none of my television ads nor mailings should be
allowed to mention them or anything they may have done. They should
only be allowed to mention what I have done/will do in the position to
which I am seeking to be
If your opponent had pertinent information about their background, say
Michael Vick runs for office and we think it is important to mention
that he has an animal abuse background, should the opponent not get to
mention that? Would you leave it to outside groups but not allow the
candidate? Should
I think that you should be banned from mentioning your opponent in any
ads. I don't want to know about them, I wan tot know about you.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> I've been advocating that for years.
>
> If a politician lies while campaigning, they should be removed from
I've been advocating that for years.
If a politician lies while campaigning, they should be removed from
the ballot. All campaign ads should be vetted for truth and absence
of spin and disinformation before being allowed on the air.
If they lie after elected, they should be removed from office.
> I would love to see an obsessively honest and fair group emerge, whose only
> driving purpose is truth and impartiality, like a modern priesthood of
> truth.
>
> Then turn those folk loose on politicians. Anyone found lying would be
> instantly disqualified from office.
>
> A. C'mon, imagine
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Jerry Johnson wrote:
>
> Yeah, they both are lying sacks of excrement.
>
> How does that help me, again?
>
> I would love to see an obsessively honest and fair group emerge, whose only
> driving purpose is truth and impartiality, like a modern priesthood of
> tru
Yeah, they both are lying sacks of excrement.
How does that help me, again?
I would love to see an obsessively honest and fair group emerge, whose only
driving purpose is truth and impartiality, like a modern priesthood of
truth.
Then turn those folk loose on politicians. Anyone found lying wou
I think that saying the two parties are basically the same is a false
equivalence.
It's a way of excusing actions that really are a little more lame than
other actions.
It sucks that there are "sides" to things, but here we are. Forced to choose.
And like Rush says, even not making a choice is
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:19 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
> This paragraph sums the entire article up for me nicely:
> "Republicans accused Democrats of favoring cuts in Medicare benefits,
> while Democrats claimed their opponents would cut Social Security
> benefits. Republicans accused Democ
This paragraph sums the entire article up for me nicely:
"Republicans accused Democrats of favoring cuts in Medicare benefits,
while Democrats claimed their opponents would cut Social Security
benefits. Republicans accused Democrats of planning to unleash a huge
tax increase on ordinary families a
How much better would that whole post been without the "especially" phrase?
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> http://factcheck.org/2010/10/whoppers-of-campaign-2010/
>
> An interesting set, especially the ones from the Republicans. Simply
> shameless some of these ads.
45 matches
Mail list logo
