Well, I certainly doubt that he does. After all, last time I checked, live puppies weren't on The Maker's Diet.
But Bob has a nasty habit of asking such insinuative questions. Of course, these types of derogatory "questions" aren't meant to be answered. Instead, Bob uses them simply to imply something in a negative fashion. Of course, Bob will target these "questions" towards his favorite targets: Democrats, the ACLU, Rev. Al Sharpton, "secularists", etc.
For instance, today Bob asked, "was Hillary involved in any intimidation tactics or smear campaigns?" Now just think about that. Wat the heck is Bob implying? Bob has absolutely no evidence that Hillary was involved in any "intimidation tactics" or "smear campaigns." If he did, he'd present such evidence.
Instead, Bob is the one doing the smearing.
Are these the tactics of a religious person? I ask this in all seriousness: Would Jesus approve of Bob's techniques?
2 comments:
Hi,
What a great site, I wish I had thought of it! I've been a loyal Bob Dutko 'fan' for almost 4 years now, and I still it fascinating, not only that such a damaged individual exists, but that his madness is actually encouraged by others. I am coming to the conclusion that it isn't so much that Bob is dishonest as he is incapable of honesty. A fine, but telling distinction, to be sure.
Regarding the subject of your post, on the same day Bob interviewed Kathleen Willey...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey
...who is on record saying of Bill Clinton - “He groped me, grabbed me, fondled me.” Despite Ms. Willey's somewhat controversial track record for honest testimony, Bob lapped up her every word, and encouraged her with suggestive questions, displaying none of the skepticism that he normally reserves for things like science. The implication is that, if the incident actually did happen, that Hillary was not the victim but a willing accomplice to Bill's indiscretion. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but this was sleazy even by Bob's standards. I suspect that in Bob's eyes, Hillary's worst crime, even worse than her liberalism, is her gender...
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1Tim. 2:12
...but of course I could be wrong about that. Maybe Bob doesn't eat puppies?
Scooter,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Sorry for not replying sooner, but I took a break from Bob this week. You see, I ran out of anti-nausea medication and I didn't want to risk the chance of vomiting on my keyboard while listening to Bob.
Buy you're absolutely right about Bob and his "choosiness" about who he likes to get "skeptical" with. I heard the discussion with Ms. Willey and was equally appalled. It reminds me of a little story from the 2006 election. Back then Bob was, of course, pimping every Republican possible. So when he announced that Republican Senate Candidate Mike Bouchard would be on the show, I quickly sent off an email to ask Bob to question Mike about how he cheated on his wife. (I thought Bob's listening audience would be honestly interested).
Bob sent back this ridiculously long email about how we, as Christians, should forgive like Jesus did. Therefore, Bouchard's infidelity was none of his audience's business. But, of course, he said that constantly bringing up Bill Clinton's indiscretions was "OK" because Bill was charged with (but never convicted of) perjury. Obviously, since Clinton was once charged with a crime, Bob has carte blanche to bring up Bill's sex life in an effort to continue to demonize both him and Hillary. I hope that helps Bob sleep at night.
Post a Comment