The Goat Pen

The prez just tweeted about it...one of his longest tweets from the WH. Longer than any tweet about jobs, healthcare, or nork missiles. He hasn't tweeted anything about doubling our troop strength in Afghanistan. 'She should be ashamed!' 'Sick!'

Poor Donald, right?

Thanks to Kathy for reminding everyone what democrats are, unfiltered ______ists just like us.

Smart move by Kathy Griffin...

Her ratings just went way up in West Coast/ Northeastern markets, now barely edging Maher, who himself recently surged ahead with his joke about Ivanka-Donald incest. Now Colbert and Bee need to get back in the Trump Derangement Syndrome sweepstakes.

If Stacey Dash had held a bloody Obama head for a photo, the internet and people would have lost their collective shit. SJWs would be calling for a hate crime, racism, calling to fire her from any upcoming movies, sent her death threats, and just generally be a pain in the ass.

Kathy Griffin does this and nothing. Just "shocked" on why she did it. Nothing to see here move along.

Just unreal.

That wasn't a head she was holding, it was a mirror facing the msm. Perfect. Even the gobblers understand...no spin.

Wow. Here they come..over an attention-whore comic.

Nevermind that the WH disses our democratic allies while sucking Putin's cock. Secret backchannel...crickets. Ain't it strange what upsets certain peoples sensibilities..and what doesn't.

I was waiting for the first "if somebody had done that with a fake Obama head" response. Equally true, however, is that many (most?) people who didn't like Obama wouldn't have been bothered by it at all. And of course, as a defense, they would've said "If somebody had done that with a fake George Bush head, all the people whining about this fake Obama head wouldn't have said a word." And so on and so on.

The thing is, you're either OK with it or you're not. It shouldn't matter whose fake head is being put on display. Obviously, that's not the way it works with anything these days, though. IMO, it's pretty pathetic that the realm of "politics" has taken over so much of the way many people judge anything these days. Why not look at it as an aesthetic phenomenon rather than a political one? Not saying that anyone has to approve it on that basis, you could easily judge it as a weak artistic attempt, but at least you wouldn't be offended by it. Of course, that is precisely the reaction Griffin (or rather, whoever came up with the idea) was shooting for, so in that sense, they got what they wanted. Pretty low hanging fruit, though, if you ask me (you can always count on the type of reaction from precisely the people you expect it from with this type of thing).

I see this as exactly the same as that Piss Christ thing from so many years ago. Obviously, the guy knew that religious types would create an uproar and, just like clockwork, they did. But art, by its nature, is often disturbing. Doesn't have to be, but often it is. The question is, is your right not to be disturbed in this way greater than the rights of personal expression? Is there really even such a thing as a right not to be disturbed? Should there be? Obviously, I don't think so, but just as obviously, many folks disagree. Unfortunately, some of those people are in positions of power, such as, say, Jesse Helms, in the case of that Piss Christ exhibition. What I find funny is that so many people who claim to be libertarians or who don't want the government meddling in aspects of personal freedoms are the first to start howling when something upsets their narrow conception of what is "acceptable." Of course, we wouldn't have universally available porn if those people had their way, so that in itself proves to me that their views are wrong...

Professor Tiger wrote:Her ratings just went way up in West Coast/ Northeastern markets, now barely edging Maher, who himself recently surged ahead with his joke about Ivanka-Donald incest.

Lessee. Trump himself...father of Ivanka, has made public comments about her as being "voluptuous", agreed with Howard Stern that "she is a great piece of ass". On the View, per Trump: "I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her. Isn't that terrible? How terrible? Is that terrible?"

Naw, it's terrible when a comedian says it.

Substitute Obama for Trump and Malia for Ivanka, and we'd be under martial law right now. There would be no high-minded appeals to creative license or "it's no big deal" or "look at how bad It Obama is doing so he basically deserves it."

Personally, I can't stand Kathy Griffin and if the Secret Service puts her butt in a sling I'll cheer them on. She's the female equivalent of Martin Lawrence...was funny for 5 minutes, now has to crap in a bucket onstage to get attention. And nobody is saying Trump deserved what he got, Jesus. Talk about snowflakes, omg..."she held a bloody headdddd!!1!!" Obama and presidents 1-43 would have ignored it, whereas thin-skinned 45 will use it at his upcoming trial.

Real news you can use: 'Career Suicide': Four People Have Turned Down Job of White House Communications Director - NYTimes

" Talk about snowflakes, omg..."she held a bloody headdddd!!1!!""

That is pretty funny, all these folks who criticize these teenage college protesters are now running for a safe space where they don't have to see stuff like this...

funny part is her jump to apologizing to everyone trying to save her gig on CNN I suppose

Im surprised she apologized with all the other stuff being spoofed or burned or protested or rioted on without anyone apologizing

So Griffin lost her New Year's CNN gig, and she lost her only ad sponsor. Universal condemnation - that's how it's supposed to work, right? Evil words and deeds have consequences in a civilized society.

Let's hope that holds true these next many months.

Mueller? Mueller? MUELLER?

What did she do wrong? 1st amendment and such?

Jungle Rat wrote:What did she do wrong? 1st amendment and such?

Her timing sucked. Wait 5 months and put a pumpkin in the foreground.. no problem.

Comey will soon testify on whether Trump tried to stop the FBI's Russia investigation. I can already sense the Left's eager anticipation. After at least a dozen smoking guns, that turned out to be squirt guns, this will supposedly be another "THIS IS IT!" moment leading to Trump's impeachment.

Unfortunately, Comey was already asked whether anybody in the White House had ever tried to shut down the Russia investigation. Here is what he said:

[youtube]2ceCaFCG2j8[/youtube]

So if Comey now testifies that DID try to shut down the Russia investigation, he will face the inevitable question: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

Professor Tiger wrote:Comey will soon testify on whether Trump tried to stop the FBI's Russia investigation. I can already sense the Left's eager anticipation. After at least a dozen smoking guns, that turned out to be squirt guns, this will supposedly be another "THIS IS IT!" moment leading to Trump's impeachment.

Unfortunately, Comey was already asked whether anybody in the White House had ever tried to shut down the Russia investigation. Here is what he said:

[youtube]2ceCaFCG2j8[/youtube]

So if Comey now testifies that DID try to shut down the Russia investigation, he will face the inevitable question: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

Where specifically in your video is there ANY mention of the WH or Trump? Me, I hear the senator ask about the possibility of the Attorney General or senior DOJ officials interfering, and Comey answered to the negative. You say "Comey was asked about anybody in the WH trying to shut down the investigation", but that's not true, is it?

A distinction without a difference. Comey said if his boss - the AG - attempted to obstruct the Russia investigation, that would be a "very big deal," and he would presumably do something about it, but it "never happened in his experience."

But if his boss's boss - Trump - tried to obstruct the Russia investigation, that would be a different story? It would NOT be a big deal? He would NOT do anything about it? But it DID happen?

Trey Gowdy (Peace be upon him) would filet Comey like a catfish on the witness stand for such tortured logic.

Similarly, on the Senate side, Lindsay Graham is clearly pissed at Comey and will have questions to ask:

[youtube]s4V6VLD3koA[/youtube]

Professor Tiger wrote:A distinction without a difference. Comey said if his boss - the AG - attempted to obstruct the Russia investigation, that would be a "very big deal," and he would presumably do something about it, but it "never happened in his experience."

You...posted a video...and clearly lied about the conversation in the video. "A distinction without a difference" - c'mon, is that what you've fallen to? Why backflip for this guy...who you've called crazy and dangerous? Does you're hate for dems really run that deep?

Assuming your prez doesn't use executive privilege to block Comey from testifying, we'll get Comey's side of the story in the next week or so, complete with a grilling from Gowdy and other patriotic repubs no doubt. Comey seems eager enough for the challenge, even though the Big Cheeto tweeted a threat about tapes. I'm sure looking forward to it, how 'bout you?