This from the morons who have held on to the “chickenhawk” argument for five years now.

You still haven’t figured out that Operation Yellow Elephant is satire, have you?

Oh come now, even vaunted media professionals make mistakes. Remember Brit Hume using the word “spear chucker?” It happens. Things just come out.

Yup, the racism that is inherent to the conservative movement will “just come out” from now until November. Racial epithets will dribble from O’Reilly’s mouth like water from a loofah.

The GOP will try to mobilize their redneck base with racial attacks, both overt and implied.

We’ll see Michelle Malkin in blackface before this is done, kids. And all of America will see what conservatism is all about—and will recoil in horror.

–Usage note Either proved or proven is standard as the past participle of prove:

In the 20th century, proven has made inroads into the territory once dominated by proved, so that now the two forms compete on equal footing as participles.

You have proven, are proving, will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt what a foul mouthed ignorant moron you are.
Quit while you’re behind( and can’t find yours with both hands!)

Priceless

Six more to go! When you hit 1,000, will your posts have any point to them?

OMG! I can’t believe I just posted a comment with the words singular antecedents in it and expected Todd to understand it! What was I thinking!

Todd: The boneheaded one, not the sane one said

Also, speak fucking English.

After he mistakenly corrected a sentence that did not need correction:

If anyone thinks O’Reilly (who, I might add, is no favorite of mine) was actually talking about lynching Michelle Obama, they’re (sic)[sic] stupid.

–Usage note Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I’ll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development,

nor is it a mark of ignorance.

[Editors note: Unlike Todd!] Shakespeare, Swift, Shelley, Scott, and Dickens, as well as many other English and American writers, have used they and its forms to refer to singular antecedents. Already widespread in the language (though still rejected as ungrammatical by some), this use of they, their, and them is increasing in all but the most conservatively edited American English. This increased use is at least partly impelled by the desire to avoid the sexist implications of he as a pronoun of general reference. See also he1.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Really Todd! You should know when you are out of your depth! That is to say, whenever you open your mouth and your tiny, little brain falls out! Every time I think you have proved yourself to be the biggest moron on the planet, you raise the bar!

Mike,

As detailed elsewhere by Sally and others, your experience is somewhat unique among liberals. You think.

Todd: Maybe you could go to one of those big third graders stealing your lunch money and ask them to proofread your posts for you!

Proof: The fact that most people are stupid–like you–and commonly make a mistake does not mean that mistake magically becomes correct. It’s still fucking wrong. “One” is singular, “them” is plural. The fact that a bunch of fucking rednecks are too stupid to understand this doesn’t make them right; they’re still fucking wrong.

I–not “they”–wrote this post. One person. Stop being so fucking stupid.

The noose is loose again ∂

Rob,

Because he’s a very-well paid professional, and it’s his job.

*I* know and *you* know that he didn’t mean it in that way, but that doesn’t matter. He shoulda’ known better, and it shoulda’ gone off in his head as he was using the allegory/simile/whatever.

On the bright side, it doesn’t seem possible, looking at the entirety of the quote, for anybody to pick out a misleading snippet to play as a sound bite. The flaming moonbats’ll get a little play out of it by oblique reference to it, but not much, I don’t think.

On behalf of all the Texas cattle rustlers, I am outraged that Bill used the term “lynching party”. For years we cattle rustlers have been discriminated against and I consider this a racist remark against all cattle rustlers and horse thieves everywhere!

Gimme a freaking break people.. if we have to tip toe around every word we use in fear of someone taking it the wrong way and making it into something it isn’t, we give up the 1st amendment to those who claim moral outrage over anything they can to twist it into racism.

Al Z. Heimers

Come on Rob, the problem is that you believe O’Reilly was only speaking figuratively when he was attacking Michelle Obama, who was only speaking figuratively!

Either proved or proven is standard as the past participle of prove

Yes. The former is used by people who read picture books; the latter by those who read word books!

Bush- “Crusade”
O’Reilly- “Lynch”
Rush- “I’ll Vote for Hillary”

gotta love watching the right come apart at the seams.
The best part is that they are doing it to themselves…

You still haven’t figured out that Operation Yellow Elephant is satire, have you?

It isn’t satire. It’s a web site that seeks to use service as a hammer to silence conservatives. While it is a tad ham handed, it continues the chickenhawk arguments that “serious” leftists have been making for years.

But leftists always try to hide behind “satire” when called on their crap.

If anyone thinks O’Reilly (who, I might add, is no favorite of mine) was actually talking about lynching Michelle Obama, they’re (sic) stupid.

The people who think Michelle Obama didn’t start being proud of her country until 3 days ago are, of course, extremely intelligent.

Also, speak fucking English.

“cue indignant outrage from the left”

I would say that outrage is certainly not needed.
Poor taste? yup
ignorant? yup
planned? yup

I agree, Ken.

O’Reilly just needs to pre-screen in his head the stuff that comes out of his mouth. That could prove a daunting task.

*I* know and *you* know that he didn’t mean it in that way, but that doesn’t matter. He shoulda’ known better, and it shoulda’ gone off in his head as he was using the allegory/simile/whatever.

Oh come now, even vaunted media professionals make mistakes. Remember Brit Hume using the word “spear chucker?” It happens. Things just come out.

It wasn’t like O’Reilly was reading off a script (this was his radio show).

I do think you’re correct in saying the left won’t make a huge hairy deal over this.

We’re better than that.

This from the morons who have held on to the “chickenhawk” argument for five years now.