How will you remember Alan Colmes? Hopefully better than the people at Slate

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so apparently according to the OP et al,

it was politically incorrect for this whoever he was at Slate to be brutally honest about his view of Colmes.

Gee, I thought Trump had normalized political incorrectness. I thought you people LOVED political incorrectness now.

Once again you try and twist things into something they are not.

The discussion isn't about PC it is about whether or not Slate is correct in what they published and would they do the same to other blacks.

This is absolutely political correctness from the OP and those agreeing with him. You're attacking someone who said something that you consider offensive. You're saying that he should be PC and not say such offensive things.

Being respectful and being PC are two different things.

No, actually, they're not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Parroting? Can you name those liberals, then prove they read the Slate piece and then 'parroted' it?

See post 46. Lol. I've also seen other definite libs, such as joeB, talking the same shit. I could go through the existing threads on this, then again so can you.

Can you prove "it was only one guy"? If that hair splitting nonsense is all you've got your gun isn't loaded.

How many 'guys' did the OP name?

It was not the op I was replying to, it was your statement.

Weak.

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lol. I remember that clip. The phony-assed Clinton's in a nutshell.

I think it's hilarious when people defend these two as the honest, wrongly persecuted public servants, and just think "well, there's an idiot"....

Maybe it's just us on the right, but there's a time to put politics away and deal with people as human beings, or at the very least, as fellow Americans. It's the left that looks at anybody who disagrees with them as mortal enemies until death......or even past death.

I love politics and take it seriously, but never to the point of pure hatred.

I agree. I actually liked colmes and have said as much in other threads.

We've gotten so divided that even a show of some amount of respect for someone that doesn't agree with our politics 100% is grounds for total vilification.

Even death is now political.

See: Obama: Thatcher funeral.

The left has this obsession with attacking the dead. Whether it's making movies against Republican Presidents after they're gone, attacking one of their own because they were not left enough for them, or even taxing dead people, it's some sort of weird hangup with those people.

You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes. There are more RW'ers HERE in the past few days that attacked Colmes after he died.

What is wrong with you?

An opinion piece in a well known "news" outlet is hardly one person. Again twisting in the wind.

It is absolutely one person.

Do you think that when the NY Times runs an editorial by someone that the staff at the NY Times is endorsing every opinion in the editorial? Are you that stupid?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, as many cable news TV viewers mourn the loss of Alan Colmes, it seems the liberal talking heads at Slate have no mercy. They published a less than complimentary article on the late Mr. Colmes referring to him as a buffoon and patsy.

Usually I enjoy watching Democrats attack their own, but only when they have the ability to fight back. Colmes often brought the liberal point of view to the table in a decent and adult way. I guess that's why hard left people like Slate despised him. So just a few quotes from the Slate article:

"Colmes was the most absurd, useless, and mocked television personality in America for many years, precisely because he was nice. In the context of Fox News, being a nice guy—and a "liberal" nice guy at that—meant being a buffoon, and a patsy. Colmes not only played the part to perfection—he defined it."

"I wrote that Colmes was a nice guy, and we should all be able to separate the personal from the political, and the personal from the professional, etc., etc., etc. But while Colmes may not have been a genius, he wasn't a complete moron either; in short, he was smart enough to know he was being used, and to take the money that his services demanded. If this is something less than morally reprehensible, it is still pretty gross. We can mourn that Alan Colmes won't be around to watch the political era he, as an important cog in the Fox News machine, helped usher in; unfortunately, the rest of us have no choice."

To think some on the left get their political information from sources like this. Deplorable.

Liberal News Site Publishes Obituary Attacking Alan Colmes

No question Colmes was a decent man and it is sad he died before his time

But at the time of someone's death it is appropriate to examine their life. Colmes made his career as the "token liberal" at Fox News. He acted as straight man to set up Conservative rants. Someone described him as The Washington Generals of Fox. There to give up easy lay ups while giving the appearance of legitimate competition

I only watch Bill O' regularly on Fox, so I didn't see much of Colmes after he and Hannity ended their show years ago. But when O'Reilly did have Colmes on, I didn't see any of what you describe.

I've been to plenty of funerals in my life, some of not so great people. But nobody eulogies the person by saying "he was a rotten" this or "he was a cheap" that. You don't examine somebody's life at their death, you examine their life while they are alive. The same holds true for criticisms of their life as well.

 

[rightwinger]

Colmes was one of the few on Fox who did not come off like a complete jerk

But he was there for one reason....to be the token liberal
Someone to represent the left and quickly be shouted down and mocked.

 

[Vastator]

lol, so apparently according to the OP et al,

it was politically incorrect for this whoever he was at Slate to be brutally honest about his view of Colmes.

Gee, I thought Trump had normalized political incorrectness. I thought you people LOVED political incorrectness now.

Once again... You thought wrong.

 

[Fueri]

See post 46. Lol. I've also seen other definite libs, such as joeB, talking the same shit. I could go through the existing threads on this, then again so can you.

Can you prove "it was only one guy"? If that hair splitting nonsense is all you've got your gun isn't loaded.

How many 'guys' did the OP name?

It was not the op I was replying to, it was your statement.

Weak.

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

Where in the world are articles or opinion pieces generally written by more than one person?

And again, I was responding to YOUR statement which I apparently do have to quote back to you

You said "You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes."

I simply, and correctly I will add, pointed out that there was more than ONE guy, actually a number of libs here and elsewhere, running around pissing on the guy's grave.

Sometimes you're just wrong. This is one of those times.

 

[Vastator]

lol, so apparently according to the OP et al,

it was politically incorrect for this whoever he was at Slate to be brutally honest about his view of Colmes.

Gee, I thought Trump had normalized political incorrectness. I thought you people LOVED political incorrectness now.

Your inability to discern class, from the character one projects,lay bare both as possessed by you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so apparently according to the OP et al,

it was politically incorrect for this whoever he was at Slate to be brutally honest about his view of Colmes.

Gee, I thought Trump had normalized political incorrectness. I thought you people LOVED political incorrectness now.

Your inability to discern class, from the character one projects,lay bare both as possessed by you.

You win ironic post of the year.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many 'guys' did the OP name?

It was not the op I was replying to, it was your statement.

Weak.

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

Where in the world are articles or opinion pieces generally written by more than one person?

And again, I was responding to YOUR statement which I apparently do have to quote back to you

You said "You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes."

I simply, and correctly I will add, pointed out that there was more than ONE guy, actually a number of libs here and elsewhere, running around pissing on the guy's grave.

Sometimes you're just wrong. This is one of those times.

Is there more than one guy mentioned in the OP? Yes or no.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Colmes was one of the few on Fox who did not come off like a complete jerk

But he was there for one reason....to be the token liberal
Someone to represent the left and quickly be shouted down and mocked.

We must have been watching two different Colmes. Here is what liberal / conservative debate usually looks like on Fox:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It was not the op I was replying to, it was your statement.

Weak.

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

Where in the world are articles or opinion pieces generally written by more than one person?

And again, I was responding to YOUR statement which I apparently do have to quote back to you

You said "You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes."

I simply, and correctly I will add, pointed out that there was more than ONE guy, actually a number of libs here and elsewhere, running around pissing on the guy's grave.

Sometimes you're just wrong. This is one of those times.

Is there more than one guy mentioned in the OP? Yes or no.

Oh please, does any news outlet allow their employees to go stray if the organization doesn't agree with them??

Slate published it so obviously Slate shares pretty much the same feelings. No, they are not going to have ten different people write ten different opinion pieces, but it's pretty reassuring that the top people of the organization allowed this to get on the net.

 

[Fueri]

It was not the op I was replying to, it was your statement.

Weak.

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

Where in the world are articles or opinion pieces generally written by more than one person?

And again, I was responding to YOUR statement which I apparently do have to quote back to you

You said "You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes."

I simply, and correctly I will add, pointed out that there was more than ONE guy, actually a number of libs here and elsewhere, running around pissing on the guy's grave.

Sometimes you're just wrong. This is one of those times.

Is there more than one guy mentioned in the OP? Yes or no.

Good lord, your point is that one guy wrote the piece.

Really, that's what you're going with. Lol. Lame-O. In Dante's Hell of Lameness, that's gotta be at least 7th circle material.

And, for the I think 3rd time now, I am pointing out that I took issue with your statement.

I'd you'd like to continue to run in circles on this go ahead. I've got a shit ton of woodwork and other shit sitting in the garage waiting to be sprayed, so I've gotta get on with my day here.

I'll be happy to keep laughing at you between coats if you like but really I think this has run its course.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so apparently according to the OP et al,

it was politically incorrect for this whoever he was at Slate to be brutally honest about his view of Colmes.

Gee, I thought Trump had normalized political incorrectness. I thought you people LOVED political incorrectness now.

Your inability to discern class, from the character one projects,lay bare both as possessed by you.

So is it 'class' if I call you mentally challenged instead of a retard, or is that political correctness?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

Where in the world are articles or opinion pieces generally written by more than one person?

And again, I was responding to YOUR statement which I apparently do have to quote back to you

You said "You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes."

I simply, and correctly I will add, pointed out that there was more than ONE guy, actually a number of libs here and elsewhere, running around pissing on the guy's grave.

Sometimes you're just wrong. This is one of those times.

Is there more than one guy mentioned in the OP? Yes or no.

Good lord, your point is that one guy wrote the piece.

Really, that's what you're going with. Lol. Lame-O. In Dante's Hell of Lameness, that's gotta be at least 7th circle material.

And, for the I think 3rd time now, I am pointing out that I took issue with your statement.

I'd you'd like to continue to run in circles on this go ahead. I've got a shit ton of woodwork and other shit sitting in the garage waiting to be sprayed, so I've gotta get on with my day here.

I'll be happy to keep laughing at you between coats if you like but really I think this has run its course.....

Read the thread title. Who are 'the people' at Slate the OP refers to?

 

[Vastator]

lol, so apparently according to the OP et al,

it was politically incorrect for this whoever he was at Slate to be brutally honest about his view of Colmes.

Gee, I thought Trump had normalized political incorrectness. I thought you people LOVED political incorrectness now.

Your inability to discern class, from the character one projects,lay bare both as possessed by you.

So is it 'class' if I call you mentally challenged instead of a retard, or is that political correctness?

Trick question... It is a display of the weakness of your argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

Where in the world are articles or opinion pieces generally written by more than one person?

And again, I was responding to YOUR statement which I apparently do have to quote back to you

You said "You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes."

I simply, and correctly I will add, pointed out that there was more than ONE guy, actually a number of libs here and elsewhere, running around pissing on the guy's grave.

Sometimes you're just wrong. This is one of those times.

Is there more than one guy mentioned in the OP? Yes or no.

Oh please, does any news outlet allow their employees to go stray if the organization doesn't agree with them??

Slate published it so obviously Slate shares pretty much the same feelings. No, they are not going to have ten different people write ten different opinion pieces, but it's pretty reassuring that the top people of the organization allowed this to get on the net.

If you say so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so apparently according to the OP et al,

it was politically incorrect for this whoever he was at Slate to be brutally honest about his view of Colmes.

Gee, I thought Trump had normalized political incorrectness. I thought you people LOVED political incorrectness now.

Your inability to discern class, from the character one projects,lay bare both as possessed by you.

So is it 'class' if I call you mentally challenged instead of a retard, or is that political correctness?

Trick question... It is a display of the weakness of your argument.

It's not a trick question at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I WAS replying to the OP who made the retarded statement that the left is obsessed with attacking the dead,

and his 'proof' of that was to cite ONE guy.

I brought up a couple of examples. Maybe you should have a few cups of coffee before trying to read threads.

Where in the OP are more persons mentioned than the guy at Slate who wrote whatever he wrote.

Where in the world are articles or opinion pieces generally written by more than one person?

And again, I was responding to YOUR statement which I apparently do have to quote back to you

You said "You found ONE guy who 'attacked' Colmes."

I simply, and correctly I will add, pointed out that there was more than ONE guy, actually a number of libs here and elsewhere, running around pissing on the guy's grave.

Sometimes you're just wrong. This is one of those times.

Is there more than one guy mentioned in the OP? Yes or no.

Good lord, your point is that one guy wrote the piece.

Really, that's what you're going with. Lol. Lame-O. In Dante's Hell of Lameness, that's gotta be at least 7th circle material.

And, for the I think 3rd time now, I am pointing out that I took issue with your statement.

I'd you'd like to continue to run in circles on this go ahead. I've got a shit ton of woodwork and other shit sitting in the garage waiting to be sprayed, so I've gotta get on with my day here.

I'll be happy to keep laughing at you between coats if you like but really I think this has run its course.....

Go do your woodworking. Enjoy. I do that sort of thing myself but I'm a woodworker to the extent a 20 handicapper is a golfer.

 

[leftwinger]

A knee-jerk serpent liberal. Never a Clinton crime or Obama spin twist lie this SOB would not read his talking points to provide cover. 100% Donkey. Paid off by Clintons or DNC would be my ASSumption, Like the rest of MSM exposed.

I tried to think of something nice, but I heard him. The idiot even had a radio show for a bit.

Leftists are now at war with Americans. They must be eliminated. Colmes was full on leftist scum.