Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Down Goes Dr. Laura!" video.

@granitehills2t Let me interject. NEO-conservative women who make their liing off selling sensationalism or their good looks for ratings, instead of presenting actual, substantive material are lazy. But that goes for just about any person who does that I suppose. But let's be honest, people may not be tuning in to FNC for anything propaganda. But FNC knows that pretty women help sell their product. And yes, Justice O'Connor worked her ass off to get where she is. She's 1 tough dame.
1
@granitehills2t That's not at all what i said. I said that FNC knew what they were doing when they hired pretty women instead of "accomplished" women. Like I said, being a good cog in a machine doesn't mean you're putting forth the effort to produce substantive work. I didn't need to mention that 30 posts ago. You should've read that 30 posts ago. It's in plain English. What does Larry King have to do with FNC? Wait. I'll answer that: NOT A DAMN THING. Stop making up false equivalencies.
1
@granitehills2t And I guess you want me to approve of you beause you're "deep enough to recognize Chomsky". Here's a cookie pal. Like I said before, This is NOT esoterica. You're not splitting any atoms on youtube.
1
@granitehills2t So now I don't know who Chomsky is simply because I won't play your game? What you're doing is moving the goalposts. Polar opposite of Ann Coulter? You're lost mate. You honestly believe you've said something meaningful simply because you're familiar with Chomsky. You must be a high school sophomore or something.
1
@granitehills2t (cont'd) The last time i looked, Vargas paid her dues too by studying journalism & she too, start paying her dues in the fucking '80s. You're trying to compare the bodies of work done men newswomen who've actually accomplished versus some airheads on FNC. That's why you're losing this debate.
1
@granitehills2t Ah. More Chomsky strawman debate strategy? Since I won't agree about Coulter being smart, you'll keep trying to ram Chomsky down my throat until I recognize you as an intellect? Dude, I gave you a cookie. On top of all these things, you're asking me to name drop? That's pretty frial my friend. Prit-ty frail.
1
@granitehills2t Believe me, if a man is channel surfing, he's gonna slow down to see what an attractive woman is saying. You don't need an advanced degree in psychology to know that. And please, STOP making strawman arguments. Logical fallacies always lower the quality of a conversation. Spare me the "you're a blind idealogue" shit too. What you're sayin' ain't any more esoteric than what I'm sayin' pal.
1
@granitehills2t You're using an exception to the larger rule to disprove the rule. If I have a baseball team who hits .300 except for 1 guy who hits .220, it's still safe to say my team has a great batting average. Right? Ann Coulter is NOT very smart nor is she accomplished at anything substantive. But if you're talking about being "good at what she does" (which is ratcheting up her base) then I'll agree. But she ain't smart. Using MSNBC to proof an FNC claim is not a a good metric.
1
@granitehills2t You're just trying to mount some weak ass ad hominems. But I'll entertain you for a moment. Like I said, Ann Coulter is bright if 1 considers the metric for brightness; she's good at what she does. But upon deeper analysis, you'll find that she flat-out doesn't check her facts & she uses fallacies too much. I'm not sure if it's not on purpose. Like I said, she's ratchets up a particular base; that's her act.
1
@granitehills2t BTW, it's not a strawman argument if I'm making an analogy about someone who is a relative peer to those people in your aforementioned premise. It appears that you don't understand the meaning of "strawman" debate. When you try & fail at that sort of debate, it turns that term into a cliche. Put away the cliches & frame a real argument. I'm talking about real journalists & Rhodes scholars. You're talking about beauty pageant winners & former ambulance chasers. Spare me.
1
@granitehills2t Yeah yeah. Whateva man. Like I said, FNC's female broadcasters & contributors aren't there for their brains. Even the "smart" women in that outfit aren't that sharp. At least Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar. What does FNC have, a bunch of matchbook lawyers? Lemme guess, you're gonna postulate that TYT uses Ana Kasparian for eye candy. Right? Frame a REAL argument.
1
@granitehills2t I'm bringing her up because she's a WOMAN on a competing network. She's also an example of someone who has actually studied public policy that's COMMENTING on public policy. That's not a strawman my friend. That's an example of someone who doesn't make her money by being a pretty talking-head. Sure Katie Couric is a cutie pie but she paid her dues 30yrs ago. Are AP awards in journalism & Emmies negligible 'cause she's cute? Hardly. (cont'd)
1
@granitehills2t No. The idiot is behind your keyboard. You're trying to impress me with your knowledge of Noam Chomsky. I'm not biting because I'm no more fond of Chomsky than I am of Coulter. But you PRESUMED to know something about what I think instead of just asking me what I think. You actually made the same mistake as Dr. Laura. By vitrue of the fact that this video is about Dr. Laura, I'm GOING to let that be the basis of my premise. An idiot would miss that nuance.
1