Libtalker says: Elderly 'Teabaggers' Not Dying 'Fast Enough'

[deepatrax]

Attorney and "Ring of Fire" radio show co-host Mike Papantonio, guest-hosting on MSNBC Ed Schultz's radio program yesterday, revealed two things -- he hates old people and wants tea party retirees to hurry up and die.

"you have these senile old boneheads that are ol-, I mean, check, look at the pictures, I don't even have to say, look at the pictures, Rich. Run any film, who is there for the teabaggers?! The people that are being paid for by the Koch brothers are there for the teabaggers, but take a look at the age discrepancy. They've used our school system. They've used our infrastructure. So the American Majority is busing these old feeble nuts to there and so they're called, do you realize there's, there's a, calling our teachers pigs. Calling our teachers pigs and the teachers take it and that's OK, that's what they oughta do because you know what? The more light you shine on these senile, look, you know (laughs) truthfully, they're the last days of their lives, they really are, these old, fuddie-duddies or curmudgeons are at the last days of the lives and you have students there that are in the protest that say, well look, we want to have the same thing you have. We would like to have infrastructure. We'd like to be able to educate our children. We'd like the same quality of life that we gave you. And unfortunately, you know, I guess the bad news is they're not moving through fast enough because we can keep people alive a long time with good medication. But that's who you have showing up as teabaggers."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2011/02/23/elderly-teabaggers-not-dying-fast-enough-laments-libtalker-mike-papant#ixzz1Ev2Bab8L


What is it that makes someone think like this?

[A Laughing Baby]

Idiocy and a desire for ratings. That was pretty easy.

[deepatrax]

Idiocy and a desire for ratings. That was pretty easy.

ratings?

I'm willing to wager there are Libs who think like this who don't even have a radio or television show.

So, I'll go with just Idiocy.

[AlBell]

A desire to fit in with the rest of the liberal-progressives?

[BenBurch]

Idiocy and a desire for ratings. That was pretty easy.

As Rush showed us, saying outrageous things is good for ratings. Then later you can claim it was just humor.

[A Laughing Baby]

ratings?

I'm willing to wager there are Libs who think like this who don't even have a radio or television show.

So, I'll go with just Idiocy.

It's the same formula a lot of talkers use. Say something outrageous, get press for it, people listen to you "to see what [you] will say." Worked for Howard, worked for others, will work in the future. I'm sure there are people who would agree with him, but I was of the mind that you were asking what made him in particular say it. If you want to extend your population to include people who are non-pundits and agree with him, then yes, I would say it's most likely a degree of idiocy.

[deepatrax]

As Rush showed us, saying outrageous things is good for ratings. Then later you can claim it was just humor.

well right wing talk on radio and television does get good ratings...but the lefties can't claim the same.

so there must be other reasons.

[dudalb]

A good example why I have a solid dislike for talk show radio hosts, regardless of what politics they have.
That most of them come from a Morning Zoo/Shock Jock radio background explains a lot.

[Zep]

I don't think that's an accurate transcription of what was actually said. People don't talk like that - it's a garbled mess that makes no grammatical or syntactical sense at all, never mind the content or intent. None whatever, like it's complete word-salad from a madlib. So I'm suspecting it's been very selectively cherry-picked, including leaving out some of the other parts and people in that conversation. And given the source, why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

[Piscivore]

What is it that makes someone think like this?

Asinine blind partisanism. The same sort of tunnel-vision, emotional thinking that leads people to "wager" that other people "think like that" because they might occasionaly vote the same way.

[deepatrax]

I don't think that's an accurate transcription of what was actually said. People don't talk like that - it's a garbled mess that makes no grammatical or syntactical sense at all. None whatever. Like word-salad. So I'm suspecting it's been very selectively cherry-picked, including leaving out some of the other parts and people in that conversation. And given the source, why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

they have a link to the audio on that site.

[deepatrax]

Asinine blind partisanism. The same sort of tunnel-vision, emotional thinking that leads people to "wager" that other people "think like that" because they might occasionaly vote the same way.

I'd win the bet.

[Zep]

they have a link to the audio on that site.I did try - it's locked out to me here.

Frankly, if you read that transcript aloud to yourself it is just a complete grab-bag of random words and phrases. Makes no sense at all. Maybe the guy IS full of nastiness or whatever. But I'm not getting it from THIS transcript. This is just word confetti.

You want to compare this to some of the right-wing hate-speechers? At least they seem to be able to get a comprehendible sentence out (although in some cases, only just). Then at least you know what it is about them that is detestable.

[Zep]

I'd win the bet.But you don't understand why. ;)

[A Laughing Baby]

I did try - it's locked out to me here.

Frankly, if you read that transcript aloud to yourself it is just a complete grab-bag of random words and phrases. Makes no sense at all. Maybe the guy IS full of nastiness or whatever. But I'm not getting it from THIS transcript. This is just word confetti.

You want to compare this to some of the right-wing hate-speechers? At least they seem to be able to get a comprehendible sentence out (although in some cases, only just). Then at least you know what it is about them that is detestable.

I disagree. That actually much more closely follows natural, informal and excited speech patterns that you would hear in normal excited conversation or during a largely improvised radio rant than nicely structured sentences would.

[leftysergeant]

I think Pap was making the point that the teatards' bodies had been kept alive longer than their brains.

[Zep]

I disagree. That actually much more closely follows natural, informal and excited speech patterns that you would hear in normal excited conversation or during a largely improvised radio rant than nicely structured sentences would.I do understand that. But not having heard the audio, I can't say. To me, it's a whole bunch of unformed ideas and words mixed together and running over each other. Incomprehensible.

Can I ask: Were there two or more people in that conversation exchanging ideas? Or was that one guy so high on caffeine he was barely able to complete one thought before adding two more?

[Zep]

I think Pap was making the point that the teatards' bodies had been kept alive longer than their brains.Heh. That's not a condition limited to that group alone. Just that Fox seem to consider this lot "sage due to age". ;)