Rachel has asked for anybody she's spoken about on the show to appear for a talk on the air. She's promised everyone a fair interview, which is what she gives all of her guests, but only a few conservatives/Repubs have taken her up on it.
Natter 64: Yes, we still need you
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
And they obviously think pretty, smiley, woman=chump. Until she takes them apart and then at the end takes their balls out of her pockets and says "Bye...don't forget these. You may have heard, I don't need them." I get a little less straight every time.
won';t click on prarie muffins link
Smart. I made it about two paragraphs.
As to John Derbyshire, maybe we could compromise -- eliminate the right to vote for women named Ann Coulter and men named John Derbyshire.
but only a few conservatives/Repubs have taken her up on it.
Because their idea of "a fair interview" differs from hers.
MADAM Salina Mohamed So'ot has no pulse. But she is very much alive.
The 30-year-old administrative assistant is the first recipient here to get a new artificial heart that pumps blood continuously, the reason why there are no beats on her wrist.
An Artificial Heart That Doesn't Beat:
Artificial hearts work by pumping deoxygenated blood from the body to the lungs. The device then pumps oxygenated blood through the body. The newly approved device, called AbioCor, made by Massachusetts-based Abiomed, uses an implanted hydraulic pumping system to simulate a natural heart beat. But an alternative design, conceived by O.H. "Bud" Frazier, a prominent heart surgeon and pioneer in the development of cardiac devices at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston, pumps blood through the body continuously, rather than with the periodic beat of the normal heart.
Continuous circulation? That is FUCKED UP.
Because their idea of "a fair interview" differs from hers.
Yeah. Their idea of a "fair interview" is "I get to recite my talking points and you don't get to ask critical questions."
Because their idea of "a fair interview" differs from hers.
Most of them can't handle "fair" without "and balanced."
Because their idea of "a fair interview" differs from hers.
She asks them to provide supporting evidence for their wild-ass comments. How are they supposed to handle that? It's so unreasonable.
And she's read their books/articles.
I think Tino may be working for Gingrich. [link]
There is no point in getting into an argument with someone who I only distantly know, even though she used a non-political mailing list to pimp out a "petition" about how Jesus should lead America, or something.
I should take a nap instead.