Discussion for article #236649
he asked a conservative sheriff and Fox favorite whether he agreed that marijuana was not in fact the “scourge of the black community.” Cohen, visibly taken aback by the sheriff’s disagreement, called him out for not giving the “obvious answer.”
I have no clue what this means. Does Cohen think it is a scourge? When did the sheriff disagree, and in what way, and to what? And what was the sheriff’s “obvious” answer?
On the outside, balding, boring late-middle-age straight up GAAP-orthodox white dude.
On the inside, whacky funster.
1 Like
I think Cohen has a spirit Democrats would do well to cultivate. Goofy sentence structure to one side, so far I haven’t seen him do or intentionally say a single thing that should be offensive to others. We need interesting characters in our midst. He is sort of a Democratic congressional delegation version of Les Nessman.
1 Like
Obtuse, thy name is kendyZdad. Do just a BIT of thinking about this, please, before posting. You could even watch the exchange on video to get your own take on it.
Here’s what’s obvious, both to the writer of the article and to me (and everyone else who thought about it or watched the video): Cohen was over-acting, hamming it up for the cameras and folks back home in his district, but it’s COMPLETELY obvious he was seeking to make mock of the whole LEO bullcrap about pot being a speed-dial to heroin, etc. Cohen larded up his intro question so obviously, it was MAYBE a little bit surprising the witness didn’t give a rational. evidence-supported answer, but I really think otherwise: I think Cohen was expecting the loony-tunes answer he got and then did the most pedantic walk-thru review for the benefit of, again, the cameras.
Are you for real? Did you really see this as THAT confusing? Maybe it’s too early for you yet.
I’d very much expect the character Les Nesmann to be a Republican - it is, after all,WKRP in Cincinnati, Boehner’s district, or at least the suburban white folks part of it - but I like the word image: Cohen and Les are both so freaking WELL MEANING.
Is it possible some people just don’t get snark? I think its more probable than possible in Rep. Cohen’s case, especially those that are snark-challenged over at Faux.
I believe it was Michael Kinsley that said “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say”. If so, you could say Steve Cohen speaks the truth then.
So now we get to excuse convoluted and confusing writing by blaming the reader for not following a link, reading a second article and sitting through a video when just writing a shorter, clearer sentence would do? It’s not because I am obtuse, but because “whether he agreed that marijuana was not in fact” is so convoluted to be meaningless.