Tuesday, December 27, 2011

My New Favorite Dennis Miller Joke

On Barnie Frank - he's Nancy Pelosi with a spittle problem.

25 comments:

w-dervish said...

Dennis Miller *IS* a joke. Didn't you hear that he endorsed Herrmann Cain? (this was before he predictably dropped out).

Rusty Shackelford said...

Yet another outstanding comment by the outstanding blogger WD whose own outstanding blog I will be visiting outstandingly soon.

dmarks said...

There was nothing predictable about Cain dropping out prior to the sex scandal.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...nothing predictable about Cain dropping out prior to the sex scandal.

Sure there wasn't... 9-9-9, LOL!

dmarks said...

Sweeping campaign slogans aside:

"There was nothing predictable about Cain dropping out prior to the sex scandal."

w-dervish said...

Cain was never a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. He's never held elected office. His dropping out was TOTALLY predictable.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I tried to explain this to you before, wd. I don't base my assessment of people based solely upon their political views. IN FACT, I don't particularly care what their politics are. It's irrelevant, basically.

Vigilante said...

My favorite Dennis Miller joke is Dennis Miller.

w-dervish said...

Will: I tried to explain this to you before... I don't base my assessment of people based solely upon their political views.

Nor do I.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I've never heard you say a good thing about a conservative ever, wd. You even went out of your way to dig up dirt on a well-respected moderate/statesman, Chuck Hagel.......And, honestly, you don't find Dennis Miller funny anymore because he once endorsed Herman Cain and now tends to make fun of liberals? I'm sorry, dude, but that's wack.

dmarks said...

"Cain was never a viable candidate for the Republican nomination"

His strong poll numbers for a long time, higher than anyone else, prove you wrong. I would have agreed with you if not for the fact that Cain did lead the other choices.

Huntsman, who never really charts, now that is someone who has never been a viable candidate.

w-dervish said...

Pat Robertson won the Iowa strall poll in 1987. So Herman Cain was up in the polls briefly. So what? Even without the sex scandal there was ZERO chance Herman Cain would have been selected the Republican nominee for president. ZERO.

Will: ...you don't find Dennis Miller funny anymore because he once endorsed Herman Cain and now tends to make fun of liberals? I'm sorry, dude, but that's wack.

The "joke" that's now your "favorite" isn't funny. Dennis Miller does a hell of a lot more than "tend" to make fun of Liberals. He supported the Iraq war and now appears on the Fox propaganda channel regularly. If you can't fathom why people on the Left (like me) might not like Dennis Miller... I'd say you're wack.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks: "There was nothing predictable about Cain dropping out prior to the sex scandal."

Except for the fact that he was utterly clueless about anything a presidential candidate needed to know in order to intelligently answer routine questions on domestic and foreign policy.

Herman Cain was another Sarah Palin. All bells and whistles, looking glamorous, but without any understanding of what a candidate for the presidency needs to actually know about this country and the world.

dmarks said...

WD said: "So Herman Cain was up in the polls briefly. So what?"

So what? This proves that he was a viable candidate for a while. He was viable by the most objective measure possible.

"Even without the sex scandal there was ZERO chance Herman Cain would have been selected the Republican nominee for president. ZERO."

What do you base this on?

"The "joke" that's now your "favorite" isn't funny. Dennis Miller does a hell of a lot more than "tend" to make fun of Liberals. He supported the Iraq war and now appears on the Fox [news] channel regularly."

Great. He knew enough about what was going on in the world to support retaliating against aggressive terrorist leaders, and he gets interviewed on news channels despite hardline idealogues like you wanting them silenced for daring to criticize those in power.

dmarks said...

Shaw: Your list of insults have nothing to do with the fact that Cain led for a while. At least you didn't bash him for being black (something you did support on your blog earlier). It's all partisan, anyway: as anyone on the Right can come up with a similar list to bash Obama.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, wd, because somebody supported the Iraq War and appears on O'Reilly's show (I've never seen him on any other Fox show), ergo he now can't be funny? Again, that's wack.............As for the joke not being funny, that, dude, is a declarative statement. A more accurate statement would have been for you to say that the joke isn't funny to you.

Rational Nation USA said...

dmarks comment @ Shaw - Bingo! Now, is it time for substance?

w-dervish said...

Will: ...because somebody supported the Iraq War and appears on O'Reilly's show... he now can't be funny?

I don't know. I've got no interest in him anymore so I don't know what any of his other current jokes are. If your new "favorite" is one of the best... then I'd say no. Although I would not say he could not be funny, just he's choosing not to be.

I actually used to be a fan.

dmarks: Shaw, your list of insults have nothing to do with the fact that Cain led for a while. At least you didn't bash him for being black...

Shaw bashed Cain for being black? Why would she bash Cain but support Obama? Obviously dmarks is lying.

Also, dmarks keeps insisting that because Cain was briefly up in the polls that means he was viable. As I pointed out earlier, the homophobic crackpot Pat Robertson won the Iowa straw poll in 1987! Do you think Robertson had a shot too? (I'm guessing no, seeing as you completely ignored my pointing that out).

dmarks: What do you base this on? (Re my saying, "Even without the sex scandal there was ZERO chance Herman Cain would have been selected the Republican nominee for president. ZERO."

What Shaw said. Herman Cain isn't qualified to be president. His candidacy was a joke.

dmarks lied: ...you wanting [Fox Nooz] silenced for daring to criticize those in power.

I've informed you previously that I don't want anyone "silenced", yet you continue to say I do. You're lying.

Also, Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist leader... George bush botched the "retaliation" against the real terrorist leader when he let him go at Tora Bora. Anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq supported an illegal act.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Shaw bashed Cain for being black? Why would she bash Cain but support Obama? Obviously dmarks is lying."

I am telling the truth. Shaw did not specifically bash Cain for being black, but she supported it. A few months ago on her blog she presented a list by a supposed "humorist" about why the different Republican candidates should not be elected. The reason listed for Cain was that he was black.

I pointed out that this was blatantly racist, and she defended it as being funny instead.

"Also, Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist leader"

He was at the time the world's most major terrorist kingpin, hosting a large number of terrorist organizations, and promoting terrorism in other nations (a significant, aggressive, and material violation of the cease fire agreements. That you claim he wasn't a terrorist leader proves you have no idea what you are talking about on the subject whatsoever.

"George bush botched the "retaliation" against the real terrorist leader when he let him go at Tora Bora."

You are referring to another terrorist leader. And there is no evidence that he 'let' him go.

"Anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq supported an illegal act."

Lying about something does not make it so. There' no crime, not even any evidence of it. Your use of "illegal" has nothing to do with international law, and is merely a shorthand for "WD does not like it"

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks, that post from my blog that you're complaining about again did not offend anyone but you. And that included an African-American who saw it and determined it was not bashing or being racist.

You have an annoying habit of seeing racism in all the wrong places and ignoring it when it is really used.

Mr. Cain himself played the race card when he whined he was being unfairly investigated on the sexual harrassment charges only because he was black.

From the LATimes:


Cain plays the race card, unfortunately

Editorial


Herman Cain thinks his race is a factor in the publicizing of sex harassment complaints, though he has no evidence of a racially motivated conspiracy against him.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...she presented a list by a supposed "humorist" about why the different Republican candidates should not be elected. The reason listed for Cain was that he was black.

That's bashing Republicans for being racist, not Cain for being black. Shaw is right about you. you DO have an annoying habit of seeing racism in all the wrong places and ignoring it when it is really used.

This explains your ridiculous belief that Affirmative Action is "racist"... when the purpose of it is to combat racism.

dmarks: Lying about something does not make it so.

Indeed. I advise you to stop doing this.

fyi, all your objections to my calling bush's invasion of Iraq illegal are shorthand for "dmarks doesn't like it".

dmarks said...

Shaw said: "dmarks, that post from my blog that you're complaining about again did not offend anyone but you."

The post and the reaction there was just one of many examples of how the left thought it was OK to bash Cain for being black. Yours was just an earlier example of it. I saw several more later.

"You have an annoying habit of seeing racism in all the wrong places and ignoring it when it is really used."

Annoying by being factual. Bashing Cain for being black is rather racist (fact). Racism is not funny (my opinion). I only see racism where it is. There's no possible way you can reasonably "spin" criticizing Cain for being black as anything but racist.. I've also seen plenty of bashing of Obama for his race (which is also obviously racist), and excuse me for being "annoying" there also and disliking racism.

"Mr. Cain himself played the race card when he whined he was being unfairly investigated on the sexual harrassment charges only because he was black."

He did. I fully agree with you. But this was after, and had nothing to do with Cain being bashed for his racs on your blog (and your admission that everyone thought it was OK except for me).

dmarks said...

WD dissembled: That's bashing Republicans for being racist, not Cain for being black."

Yet, it did nothing but do the latter.

"Shaw is right about you. you DO have an annoying habit of seeing racism in all the wrong places and ignoring it when it is really used."

The opposite is true.

1) I only point out racism where it actually occurs.

2) I never ignore actual racism. Show me one place where I have ignored or defended it.. You won't be able to.

"This explains your ridiculous belief that Affirmative Action is racist... when the purpose of it is to combat racism."

The opposite is true. As we discussed, the affirmative action programs in question treat people differently based on skin color. You agreed with that, and defended it. The problem is that this meets the defiition of racism.


"fyi, all your objections to my calling bush's invasion of Iraq illegal are shorthand for "dmarks doesn't like it"."

I stand with the law. You have made up your accusations and slander of the former President from whole cloth. It's not am matter of me not liking it. The ICC and those with actual knowledge and authority reject your claims. I stand with those who know what they are talking about.

w-dervish said...

dmarks lied: You have made up your accusations and slander of the former President from whole cloth.

More lies from dmarks. I "made up" nothing from "whole cloth". bush broke international law when he invade Iraq, but it isn't me saying this (I'm only agreeing with others who are).

On 11/17/2008 the Guardian published an article that said (in part), "[Lord Bingham], one of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures [describes] the invasion of Iraq... as a serious violation of international law..."

If proof of nothing else, this article MOST CERTAINLY proves that the accusations are not *mine*, and *I* did not make them up (assuming they are "made up", which they are not).

The accusations come from others... people I agree with (but I am not the source of the accusations). dmarks lies when he says I am the source.

He also lies about the "whole cloth" part. The basis for the accusations is international law. Specifically bush violated Article 39 of the UN Charter, which says, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

Bush clearly violated international law because the UN did not authorize bush's invasion of Iraq. This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that dmarks, in his defense of bush and insistence that "those with actual knowledge and authority reject your claims", is full of shit and has no clue what he's talking about.

What dmarks really means when he objects to bush being labeled a war criminal is, "dmarks doesn't like it". That is all, nothing more.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, wd, if China and/or Russia veto a military action, that de facto makes it a war crime? That kind of hampers us, don't you think? And I don't believe that there was ANY U.N. authorization for the drone strikes in Pakistan. Does not that also make THEM a violation of international law and, hence, Obama a war criminal, too? And what about L.B.J.? That war never had a U.N. authorization (not to mention a Congressional declaration), either. Does not that make L.B.J. a war criminal, too? I'm asking here because you only seem to want to put that "war criminal" label on Republicans.