Thursday, March 5, 2009 Butt-Boys or Liars?

This is the burning question of the day: Are the people at butt-boys, or merely liars. Ever since the Presidential campaign, I have accurately called them liars with an agenda--unworthy of any attention. I have given you concrete examples in previous entries in this blog, and those are merely examples that have come to my attention outside of I do not go to that website. No one should. they are evil, lying people.

The question is: Is it more accurate to call the people at Obama Administration/Democratic Party "butt-boys" than to say about them what I say above, and what I have said before? Is it more or less "harsh"?

That is Rush Limbaugh's new designation for the mainstream media: "butt-boys"--butt-boys for the Obama Demonstration and the Democratic Party. Further, he singled Politico.ccom out by name yesterday as deserving of that designation.

I have to admit that Rush's term is more colorful than just clling "liars", or calling CNN "the Liar Network". That is why Rush gets the big bucks. But is it clear exactly what the term "butt-boys" means? Oh, I get the general idea, and these people certainly deserve the designation, but there is more "entertainment" in that term than information. "Liars" conveys more information, even it it is a pedestrian term.

It is time for a poll. Gallup and Rasmussen need to conduct a poll on whether people approve more of calling, and the mainstream media in general, "liars" or "butt-boys", or equally approve of both.

It is clear that one term or the other applies--probably both.

No comments: