The right and the left both have intemperate voices. But here's the key: only the conservative movement counts the most vile blowhards as leading lights, embraced by the leadership. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin: these are among the most popular conservatives in America. Who are the folks on the left with equivalent popularity and influence?
Which is the point I made yesterday. When random jagoffs from the progressive left (and there are plenty of those, myself included some days) have the same level of media influence that Rush, Beck, Palin and BillO do, wake me up. I'd like to know where my big fat contract is so I have enough money to be eccentric rather than just kinda weird.
The two are not equal. When TBogg or John Cole or the Rumpies end up controlling vast amounts of power in the Democratic party and the media from a position of unofficial leadership and can make or break a candidate for office in the party singlehandedly, then you have an argument.
Meanwhile, El Rushbo is saying crap like this:
What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country.
And nobody bats a friggin' eyelash, he makes millions a year, and enjoys dozens of sponsors. Couldn't make my point any better there for me.
And finally, some Bonus The Stupid for your late night edification:
CNN's Erick Erickson is upset with what people aren't saying about the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords:
Through it all though, well meaning people on both sides of the ideological and partisan divide are not talking about the one thing that should be talked about — a saving faith in Jesus Christ.For the record: Rep. Giffords is Jewish, so "a saving faith in Jesus Christ" might not be "the one thing that should be talked about."
Douchebag.
Posts
15 comments:
Hell, some of those "intemperate voices" have actual authority. The GOP is downright proud of their nutters.
Erk is trying to one up Dr. Professor Reynolds' distressed skrees about "blood libel" directed at TeaBaggers.
Or he's putting on his PIEus face to make up for that time he threatened to shoot census workers.
Nah, that would require a long term memory. Gotta be door #1.
You accuse half the country (and you have) of being partly responsible for the murder of six people (including a nine-year old girl) and the attempted murder of a member of Congress, basically accusing them of being accessories, a criminal act, and you still wonder why they are vigorously defending themselves? A majority of the American people (more than those who voted for Obama, by the way) don't agree with what you say. Even the Arizona Republic has had to remind Pima County's top cop to shut up and do his damn job instead of doing the same thing you've been doing.
This is a hoot:
But here's the key: only the conservative movement counts the most vile blowhards as leading lights, embraced by the leadership. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin: these are among the most popular conservatives in America.
Pothead Sullivan has spent the better part of two years obsessing about his theory, debunked minutes after he came up with it, that Trig Palin is Bristol Palin's son. Obsessing. And he has the nerve to call the conservatives he mentions vile blowhards, and then the nerve to ask:
Who are the folks on the left with equivalent popularity and influence?
Gee, how about jerks like Tina Fey and vile blowhard David Letterman, the latter making absolutely hideous statements about Palin and her family? Not to mention all of the other vile blowhard leftists in Hollywood who do the same thing? Has Sullivan smoked so much dope that it's left him permanently brain damaged? These are people who have quite a bit of media influence and popularity.
Does pothead Sullivan forget another vile blowhard of the left, Markos Moulitsas? This clown has way more influence over Democrats than Rush, Beck, Palin, and BillO combined do over Republicans. Maybe you should talk to him about getting a big fat contract.
Then there's Paul Kanjorski. Yes, he was defeated this past year (thank God). The asshole said this last year:
"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him.
And yet, the New York Times gave the failed asshole space for an op-ed piece (no, I'm not going to comment on it, considering who it's from). Now tell me how the jerks at the New York Times don't have influence. These are the same vile blowhards who put out editorials this week blaming the right for Loughner's crime, just as you have.
I said this yesterday:
I'm guessing that instead of taking that information and reflecting on what you've said and what you believe, you'll double-down even more and get more hateful, spew more bile, and perpetuate more bullshit until such time that you think more people agree with you or you tire of your charade.
Was I right, or was I right? You and the other leftist ilk (like the dope smoking super-gynecologist Andrew Sullivan) are so predictable.
Two other quick things.
I noticed you never mentioned that Giffords has been given an excellent prognosis for recovering from the awful wounds she received, as you prefer to continue with your screeching on us "right wingers".
And then there is Bernie Sanders. He is sooooooooooo concerned about the shooting that he exploited the tragedy by sending out a campaign newsletter begging for money (Sanders' campaign confirmed it went out). This is a sitting U.S. Senator, not Rush, Beck, Palin, or BillO.
Kanjorski? Yeah, he was an asshole and over the line. He was also voted out of office for exactly that reason. He got an op-ed? Bad call...as bad as giving Rush Limbaugh his own radio show, or Beck his, or Hannity his. Oh wait, we get to hear from those guys every day.
Sanders raised money off this? So did the Tea Party Nation.
Sanders is an independent for crissakes. How is he a "leader of the Democratic party"?
You're reaching, Steve. You're yelling at clouds to make it ran, but all that's happening is birds keep crapping on your head.
I expected your reading comprehension to be better:
Kanjorski? Yeah, he was an asshole and over the line. He was also voted out of office for exactly that reason.
My comment wasn't about Kanjorski. It was about the New York Times. Guess what? We hear them spew their garbage every single day, especially how the editorial board and their columnists (*cough* Krugman *cough*) have spread their slime to exploit this tragedy. And yet, they are still considered by some to be a newspaper, the "paper of record", an arbitrary presenter of the news. Fathom that.
Sanders raised money off this? So did the Tea Party Nation.
Again, you seem to be having a problem with comprehension. Let me repeat, Sanders is a sitting U.S. Senator. Someone with actual power. There is no equivalence.
Sanders is an independent for crissakes.
And yet he caucuses and votes wholeheartedly with the Democrats. He's a Democrat in all but name.
You're yelling at clouds to make it ran, but all that's happening is birds keep crapping on your head.
Oh really? I had a real good guess of exactly what you would do. And you didn't disappoint.
Really?
So you have to indict every single New York Times columnist and op-ed they've ever written or printed to equate to Rush Limbaugh.
Because everything they've ever printed has been "slime".
You've never disappointed Steve. You've been a reactionary idiot troll for months now, but you're such a shining example of what's wrong with certain conservatives in America today that I couldn't ask for a better one.
You keep on being yourself. You make my points for me.
So you have to indict every single New York Times columnist and op-ed they've ever written...
You make this too easy. Did you miss the "...especially how the editorial board and their columnists (*cough* Krugman *cough*) have spread their slime to exploit this tragedy" part? Yes, you did.
You've never disappointed Steve. You've been a reactionary idiot troll for months now, but you're such a shining example of what's wrong with certain conservatives in America today that I couldn't ask for a better one...
You make my points for me.
And yet, most of the American people agree with me about how political rhetoric had nothing to do with this tragedy, yet you continue to attempt to say it is so that you can keep up with your exploitation of it. And I'm the reactionary and are making your points for you? Maybe in the mind of someone living in your "community-based reality", but not in the real world. It would be funny if not so tragic.
And by the way, Palin came out with a great video today. I'm sure you'll keep with the "narrative" and trash her, just as Rep. Clyburn dishonestly did.
Right. Accusing all her critics of "blood libel" just like you did yesterday.
I tell you what, if Palin's resorting to the Red State Troll Playbook, you both have lost.
Accusing all her critics of "blood libel" just like you did yesterday.
Critics? You and all those leftists who have done the same thing as you have been doing have accused her and all conservatives of being partly responsible for the murder of six people and wounding many others, including Rep. Giffords, of being an accessory to murder and attempted murder. You personally wanted Palin to accept responsibility for what you claim was her role; don't even think about attempting to deny it. When presented with the facts, none of you change the "narrative" of blaming Palin and conservatives. That goes far beyond what has been said by those who claim to only be mere "critics".
Yep, critics.
But it's blood libel to point out the obvious.
Yep, critics.
Fine. You have set the bar for what is criticism into the abyss.
By the way, did you know Loughner is a leftist, Bush-hating, anti-war, 9/11 Truther? I guess that makes you responsible for the Tuscon shooting, doesn't it? And Sullivan, and TBogg, and John Cole, and Krugman, and Olbermann, and Chris Matthews, and Clyburn the misogynist, and all leftists ad infinitum. I'm just using your standards for my criticism. The shoe fits.
You know Steve, Sarah might want to consult a dictionary at some point about the history of the phrase "blood libel".
And you still are unable to differentiate between direct blame and contributed to a climate that may have fostered the action.
You refuse to do so in your indignation.
So I refuse to give a damn about what you say.
Post a Comment