Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Personal Smears Against Rush
by Brent Bozell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



It's a consistent line from the left: Conservative talk radio is a cauldron of hate. In the Clinton years, a CBS News promo set out to warn the public about the dangers of Gordon Liddy: "The words are shocking ... What he says may not be illegal, but is it dangerous? Has free speech gone too far? Hate radio under fire, and firing back."

It is an unmistakable, unquestionable, resoundingly unequivocal exercise in liberal hypocrisy. The airwaves are now filled with the meanest, most insulting, most dishonest ad hominems in history. They are coming from left-wing talk show hosts.

And from CBS & Co.? Dead silence.

Take Ed Schultz, the closest thing the liberals have to a talk-radio star. He comes unglued when he talks of Rush. On July 15, he uncorked this rant: "Apparently, the drug-ridden loser Rush Limbaugh, he thinks because he's got a lot of money and a lot of stations that he's a success in life, the guy that can't hear because he did so many drugs and had no self-discipline and character has now taken his first shot at me on 'The Ed Show' on MSNBC. I love it!"

Schultz then challenged Limbaugh to a debate: "C'mon, you fat pig. Let's get it on. I'm getting ratings without you. Hell, I'm doing you a favor. C'mon, Rush! Let's get it on! Get out of your compound down there. Get away from your drugs. Go see the doctor, and get some hearing. Maybe you could pick up a 19th girlfriend. Maybe you could try marriage again. By the way, Rush, you got any kids? Oh, you're out of the mainstream!"

This is some strange taunting, since Schultz is well, heavy set, and in his second marriage. He does have six children -- and about six listeners.

Then there's Ron Reagan, the liberal talk show host and the youngest child of the last century's greatest president. He may have been a ballet dancer in his youth, but on May 15, he taunted Limbaugh as less than a full man after he heard Rush making fun of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Botox shots: "Limbaugh hasn't had a natural erection since the Nixon Administration; think he's compensating for something? Now, I wouldn't pick on him for any of this stuff, not his blubbiness, not his man-boobs, not his inability to have a natural erection -- none of that stuff -- to me, off limits until! Until! -- Mr. Limbaugh, you turn that sort of gun on somebody else. Once you start doing that, you're fair game, fat boy. Absolutely, you jiggly pile of mess."

The junior Reagan also claimed Limbaugh looked like "the unholy spawn of Tony Soprano and the Michelin Man." Surely, he made his father proud.

It gets uglier still. If we really scrape the bottom of the barrel of liberal talk radio, there's Mike Malloy, who used to write news scripts for CNN. On Jan. 23, he called Rush the "pig man" and announced, "I hope that I'm alive when he dies. He is so morbidly overweight. He smokes. He eats his Viagra and goes down to the Dominican Republic to bugger little boys. I just hope that I'm around when he croaks."

He repeated that ugly mantra five days later: "Some horrifyingly intense America-hater like Rush Limbaugh, who appears to be morphing into, seriously, he is morphing into Jabba the Hutt. I've seen some recent video, this guy is enormous. He just keeps bloating up. It's just -- I hope he keeps going, because eventually, he will croak. Like I said, eventually, he will choke to death on his own throat fat."

Where is CBS to warn the country about "hate radio" now?

The fake-TV-news goons of Comedy Central also spoil the image of liberal charity. On "The Daily Show" on April 1, unfunny fake-anchorman Jon Stewart screamed about Limbaugh finally selling his property in New York, complaining that Rush had been such a burden to the city: "We knew he was into drugs, so we cleaned up Times Square. We even opened up a Disney Store in the very place he would normally go to buy drugs." Stewart even claimed, "We outlawed murder, figuring he was a guy with a taste for it."

There are people who want talk radio to be raucous and aggressive, to scorn all the false and forced parliamentary niceties of Washington. Let us be honest: Sometimes conservative talk radio goes too far. But never will you hear a credible conservative talk show host -- say, Rush, or Hannity, or Levin or Ingraham -- resort to this sort of ugliness.

They don't have to. They just call liberals liberals and laugh, while those liberals explode with outrage.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Rush, what a man!!!
Once again, the libs show how clueless they are. But one good thing did cme from this. Rush is on a diet!!!

Semper Libertas - again
SL: If I own, for example a store that sells liquor, or smokes, or porn, or all three, perhaps it is reasonable to have zoning laws or whatever to keep it away from schools. On the other hand, isn't it better to just have a law forbidding minors from entering such a place than to infringe on someone's property rights?

Jo: Perhaps if this is what the people of the community want - would the store have advertisement or windows where the kids could peek at porn? How does the school stop people from drinking and smoking sitting on the school benches after leaving your store? After all in your world this would be their right. This is why I say *reasonable* laws should apply.

SL: I'll grant more leeway to local governments, simply because a person can move to another town.

Jo: On this we agree, and another reason why we should leave welfare and other issues to the perspective states. Don't like the benefits? Then move.

SL: That doesn't mean that people will choose correctly, but there's obviously always going to be gray area, and people can "vote with their feet". Not so when the federal government does it, particularly since the federal government is bound by very strict limits on what it can do (the Constitution).

Jo: You mean they are *supposed* to be limited, they break the law daily and smile doing it because they know the American people are sleeping.

We essentially agree on freedom, however we must have some reasonable guidelines to live at liberty, precisely for those who will not "choose" wisely for the rest of us.

Wrat Rangler
that should have read "50 or thousands..."

Jo that's
ALL 7 in the "x" ring!! The Founders always intended for power to be most concentrated nearest the people. In other words, at the state and county level. It's easy to see who's picking your pocket, strangling your opportunity or shackling your inherent liberties if they are LOCAL politicians whom you KNOW and can VOTE OUT.

Somewhere about the end of the 19th Century they learned about central planning and how to concentrate massive power in one tiny mosquito swamp on the Potomac and nobody has been safe since.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!!

Wrat Wrangler
said: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner while liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

-----------

And I agree, this is precisely why the founders expected local and state governments to settle local issues by vote. If you don't like the vote - you move to a area that you do like.

When we do this federally we have but only ONE choice, not fifty-thousands as we do by voting on social issues at the state and local level.

Semper Libertas
said: (thus, if a town wants to have a nude beach, that's up to the specific town).

You understand! That's what I've been saying! It is up to the people to vote local rep's that support local/state law.

Just like Prop 8, or porn, or alcohol issues, or drugs, or gambling.

Good to see we finally agree.
I have other things to attend to tonight, may be on/off. If not tomorrow AM.

Semper Libertas
(posting this in pieces to try to find the tech problem....)

SL: You get into some specific examples of things that can be, yes, coercive. Who gets to decide what I do on my own property?

Jo: I am with you on this - I am for being allowed to do whatever we want within reason on our property. One can't have a nuclear dump for example. This is why we need REASONABLE zoning laws in place. But I DO agree they often go too far. A fence or shed shouldn't be an act of congress to do.


Semper Libertas
I have tried all day to post a second part to my last post. We shall see if it goes this evening.

Consider this a TH test.

re: Wrat Wrangler
Actually, anarchy means a lack of any sort of political authority. In an anarchist system, there is no protection by the government whatsoever of life, liberty, or property.

Your quotes by Franklin (and others by Madison, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc.) illustrate a truly just government: one that protects liberty and property, and otherwise leaves people alone to pursue their own happiness (with no guarantee of achieving it, of course, and certainly not a pursuit that someone else is forced to pay for).

Of course, according to Kimbery, this is just a simplistic statement, and times are too complex now to have a government that respects liberty. Instead, we must be told what to do by some group of elites.

Jo, listen to Uncle Ben
FRANKLIN that is:
"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

This is classic anarchy. NOT lack of government but lack of intrusive government.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner while liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

This is WHY we have a 2nd Amendment. It is the "reset button" on the Constitution. It is the LAST RESORT of oppressed and marginalized people and the lawmakers KNOW THIS. Why DO you think they spent 50 years trying to gut the RKBA?

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

re: Jo, #171, cont.
quote:"We say - go be gay and happy.
They say no, not enough we want to marry. (Treading on our religious rights)"

Sorry, but government recognition of same-sex marriages doesn't do anything to your religious rights, any more than government recognition of divorce treads on the religious rights of those who believe it is immoral. Unless your own CHURCH is forced to perform or recognize gay marriage, your rights aren't impacted at all by what the government recognizes. If someone tries to force a particular church to do so, I will stand with that church for their right to practice their religion unhindered by the government.

You do NOT have the right, however, not to be offended. Keep that in mind.

quote: "We say smoke if you want, where you want and when you want.
They say go ahead but we will make you stop with a $2 tax and force you not to smoke in certain places."

Personally, I believe that if I own a place of business, it should be my choice whether or not to allow smoking. But by your own logic and reasoning, laws against smoking are OK, because somehow the "whole" of society is better off.

Obviously, as with walking around naked, if you're talking about publicly-owned property, then smoking bans are legitimate -- government buildings, courthouses, public parks, etc. The public owns that property, so the public gets to decide how it is used (within reason). I would argue, again, that not everything needs to be a government decree.

As for gun rights, I'm a big advocate of the 2nd Amendment -- just as I am all the others in the Bill of Rights.

re: Jo, #171
quote:"So easements for power & telephones are illegal and we should be rid of them? We should all drink and drive until we harm someone? We should be allowed to walk around nude because it harms no one?"

You're mistaking anarchy for liberty. If you drink and drive on your own private property, it's your own business. However, on publically-owned highways, it is obviously reasonable to have laws regarding licensing and intoxication limits. Remember, if you hit my car and injure me, you are intruding on my liberty and my property. As for walking around naked, again, you're talking about property owned by the public, so it is reasonable to have the public set the terms by which that property is used (thus, if a town wants to have a nude beach, that's up to the specific town).

It is a legitimate function of government, as I've said many times, to protect life, liberty, and property.

I believe in both the 9th AND the 10th Amendments. Not everything needs to be under the purvey of the government. Government should act to protect life, liberty, and property. It should NOT act to coerce people to conform to a personal moral code, or to behave the way a particular person wants them to.

quote: "No I said that conservatives try to find a balance between law and rights. Liberals shove socialism down our throats. They are far more demanding that we conform to their ways than we demand they conform to ours. It's a fact."

You don't think that, say, making online poker illegal isn't shoving your beliefs down one's throat? It is one thing to say "gambling is bad", and to then try to PERSUADE others not to engage in it. It is one thing to say "drinking to excess is bad", and then try to PERSUADE others not to do it. But it is entirely another thing to use government to FORCE that behavior.

re: Kimbery
quote: "You seem to be every bit as much of an idealogue as Obama."

Your views are much more in line with Obama's. I wish to use the government for its true purpose: to protect liberty and property. You and Obama wish to use it to coerce people to do what you want them to do.



quote: "Common sense and reason have no place in your world it seems."

Name, specifically, any policy I advocate that refutes common sense or reason. I advocate for individual liberty and free markets. The opposite of those things are basically slavery and socialism (or fascism). Is that what you favor?


quote: "You seem to be incapable of comprehending the complexity of the country you live in."

Really? So the country is too complex for individuals to live their own lives without being told what to do by the government, so we should give politicians (who, apparently, are more capable of understanding these complexities than the rest of us) more power over our lives?

Who gives YOU the right to tell ME how to live my life? So long as I'm not intruding on your liberty or property, why is what I do any of your business at all?


quote: "You cannot simply apply 18th century tiny agrarian society ideals to a 21st century nation of 300,000,000 people."

Tell that to people like Nobel Prize winners Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Or to people like Walter Williams right here on Townhall. Freedom and liberty are just as valid today as they were 200 years ago.


quote: "What has more parts a toaster or a battleship?

Your views are completely simplistic and ignore reality."

Really? So today's "reality" requires more government control over our lives? Of course, when the "liberals" want to exercise that control, its wrong, but as long as the intrusion on liberty is in accordance of your own views, it's ok.

Smears against Rush
It is enough to make your head explode when you hear the pure lies about conservative radio or television hosts. Liberals are the most vile mouth people no matter what medium they are in and in fact even if they are just "plain folk". They are full of hate for anyone that dose not fall in line with their agenda. So much for free speech that they tote at nausea. The dictionary should have a new defination for hypocrite is a liberal.

Maria

Semper Libertas
said: Well, if you make a law governing personal behavior and intruding on liberty and property, that IS using force by the government.

Jo: So easements for power & telephones are illegal and we should be rid of them? We should all drink and drive until we harm someone? We should be allowed to walk around nude because it harms no one?

What you are suggesting is ridiculous, it's a free for all. The fed's were limited, and left these choices up to the state and local government - by virtue of the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

The states and PEOPLE choose.

SL: Conservatives love to do it just as much as liberals, as I said earlier, they just have a different shopping list. You seem to have this idea that by definition, if "conservatives" do it, it must be good & just.

Jo: No I said that conservatives try to find a balance between law and rights. Liberals shove socialism down our throats. They are far more demanding that we conform to their ways than we demand they conform to ours. It's a fact.

We say - go be gay and happy.
They say no, not enough we want to marry. (Treading on our religious rights)

We say smoke if you want, where you want and when you want.
They say go ahead but we will make you stop with a $2 tax and force you not to smoke in certain places.

We say the second amendment is for all.
They say take guns away.

We say health care should be private.
They say forced upon us - eventual universal.

We defend the unborn.
They kill their babies.
(What about THEIR rights!!??)

so on...

Watch the soccer crack!!
Red,

I actually LIKE soccer! Both sides of my family love it too back in Europe. I make sure not to visit if Spain is playing Italy because I don't want to get caught in the middle!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

A little lighter
I appreciate the attention and concern conservatives are showing when it comes to the vitally important issues of health care reform and cap-and-trade, etc.....but in case you are in need of a short break, check out this fantastic blog-post I found about 5 movies you need to see before you die.

http://robbymoeller.blogspot.com/2009/07/five-movies-you-ne ed-to-see-before-you.html

Semper Libertas

You seem to be every bit as much of an idealogue as Obama.

Common sense and reason have no place in your world it seems.

You seem to be incapable of comprehending the complexity of the country you live in.

You cannot simply apply 18th century tiny agrarian society ideals to a 21st century nation of 300,000,000 people.

What has more parts a toaster or a battleship?

Your views are completely simplistic and ignore reality.



re: Kimbery, reply #162, cont.
quote: "Why should anyone have to pay higher taxes so others can abuse the government?"

They shouldn't. We should have to pay taxes only to support the valid, legitimate functions of government.


quote: "Anyone who escaped communist Poland to come to America and whine about seat belt laws is an imbecile."

Who said anyone was whining? I would turn it around: anyone who escapes from a totalitarian state probably has a better appreciation for individual liberty than someone who never lived under such a system.

I don't know how we got off on seat belt laws, other than they are a great example of nanny-state, smiley-face, Big Government. Sorry, but it still isn't any better when done by "conservatives" than when done by "liberals".

re: Kimbery, reply #162
quote: "Just is your word not mine. All I ever said was Republicans infringe on liberty to benefit the whole while Democrats infringe on liberty to benefit the few. This is undeniable."

Actually, it isn't undeniable in the least. Both infringe on liberty and property, both claim to be benefiting "the whole", but rarely does an infringement on liberty or property provide such a benefit. Again: why not PERSUADE instead of coerce?


quote: "I've read much of it. And I am able to distinguish between an agrarian 18th century mindest and a complex 21st century world. Taking every word every written or said by the founders as gospel which transcends time and circumstance is ridiculous."

Inalienable rights are inalienable rights. Life, liberty, and property are the same as they were 200 years ago or 2000 years ago. The principles on which we were founded are just as valid today as they were in 1776. If not, why even have a Declaration or a Constitution?

I highly recommend to you The Law by Frederic Bastiat, The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek, Free to Choose by Milton Friedman, and a weekly dose of Walter Williams and John Stossel right here on Townhall.

fred
"Rush was ridiculed and villified for attempting to live with chronic, inoperable back pain."

I think it was actually chronic arse pain from that boil that kept him out of the draft. I must admit, the oxy took about three chins and 8 pounds of neck fat off that ginourmous head.

re: Jo, reply #161
quote: "As I said, Liberals force people by government. Conservatives try to find common ground, unless it is law breaking."

Well, if you make a law governing personal behavior and intruding on liberty and property, that IS using force by the government. Conservatives love to do it just as much as liberals, as I said earlier, they just have a different shopping list. You seem to have this idea that by definition, if "conservatives" do it, it must be good & just.

You get into some specific examples of things that can be, yes, coercive. Who gets to decide what I do on my own property? If I own, for example a store that sells liquor, or smokes, or porn, or all three, perhaps it is reasonable to have zoning laws or whatever to keep it away from schools. On the other hand, isn't it better to just have a law forbidding minors from entering such a place than to infringe on someone's property rights?

I'll grant more leeway to local governments, simply because a person can move to another town. That doesn't mean that people will choose correctly, but there's obviously always going to be gray area, and people can "vote with their feet". Not so when the federal government does it, particularly since the federal government is bound by very strict limits on what it can do (the Constitution).

far far back in America


It was published in the Parade section of our Sunday fishwrap; a few years before Ronald Reagan became our president;

By, guess who,

the quote: "If my Dad were ever to become president of the United States; in my honest opinion

He'd be the greatest president; just as great as any before, even Abraham Lincoln."

Who? Ron Reagan Jr. said that. How --WHY? has he changed? There can be only one logical answer:

Dad turned down Ron Jr's request for a sex-change.

That turned the molly-coddled poosy-foot against Reagan. This way back when Ron danced pas de footloose in a pink tutu.

About the sex ch/request I might be wrong. Not about the quote. I guess disappointing a homosexual is the unforgiveable sin, even for great presidents.

It's notable
that the media has been sympathetic toward Michael Jackson's addiction to drugs - due to an injury from which he recovered years ago, while Rush was ridiculed and villified for attempting to live with chronic, inoperable back pain. The liberal mindset is the spawn of Satan.

Semper
I think you would be horrified to find out what Mr. Jefferson would think about a lot of things today...

"Your idea that laws that intrude on individual liberty and property..."

Just is your word not mine. All I ever said was Republicans infringe on liberty to benefit the whole while Democrats infringe on liberty to benefit the few. This is undeniable.


"As for your assertion that we need personal laws because society is burdened financially by mistakes, you're on the right track. The remedy to that is not a nanny state..."

I agree. Sadly, we don't live in a bubble. Once the government has control of something it is virtually impossible to get rid of it.

"Read the writings of our Founding Fathers, and you'll find plenty of invective against even simple intrusions on liberty and property like seat belt laws. Sorry, regardless how minor it might seem, seat belt laws are simply unjust -- it is none of your business whether or not I wear one. It is none of the government's business."

I've read much of it. And I am able to distinguish between an agrarian 18th century mindest and a complex 21st century world. Taking every word every written or said by the founders as gospel which transcends time and circumstance is ridiculous.

"But, using your logic, you'll have no problems with the government banning fried foods and implementing a mandatory exercise program. Hey, it will benefit "the whole", right?"

Again, your words not mine. But if you want to open that can of worms. Why should anyone have to pay higher taxes so others can abuse the government?

"By the way, the people I know who escaped Communist Poland and Cuba are the most adamant against those feel-good laws that intrude on liberty."

Anyone who escaped communist Poland to come to America and whine about seat belt laws is an imbecile.

Semper Libertas
said: Again, if you don't want me to engage in certain behavior for my own good, then you have the right of free speech to try to persuade me. You have the right to associate with others who agree with you. You don't, however, have the right to use the power of government to coerce me.

================

As I said, Liberals force people by government. Conservatives try to find common ground, unless it is law breaking.

Do you consider towns who have laws that liquor can't be sold within 500 feet of a school or church coercive?

Do you consider asking potential porn shop owners to keep it out of sight of children coercive?

Do you think anyone should be allowed to gamble, drink and do drugs regardless of age?

Who decides what harms society? You or me?

The only fair way is to solve problem is for state and local votes of the people to decide.

Our founders limited federal government, they protected our basic rights, but they left state/local issues to the people of the states.

Libertarian Running the Board Today?

I can't respond for some reason... TH needs to hire a new web designer.

re: Kimbery
"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." -- Thomas Jefferson


Your idea that laws that intrude on individual liberty and property are just if they benefit "the whole" is misguided, and basically no different than the "liberals" who want to do the same thing.

As for your assertion that we need personal laws because society is burdened financially by mistakes, you're on the right track. The remedy to that is not a nanny state, intruding on individual liberty and property, the remedy is to stop having the government confiscate your property to give to someone else.

Read the writings of our Founding Fathers, and you'll find plenty of invective against even simple intrusions on liberty and property like seat belt laws. Sorry, regardless how minor it might seem, seat belt laws are simply unjust -- it is none of your business whether or not I wear one. It is none of the government's business.

But, using your logic, you'll have no problems with the government banning fried foods and implementing a mandatory exercise program. Hey, it will benefit "the whole", right?

By the way, the people I know who escaped Communist Poland and Cuba are the most adamant against those feel-good laws that intrude on liberty.

Semper Libertas
"It is none of your business whether I wear a seat belt or not. Personally, I think someone who doesn't is an idiot. But your body is not my property. I have no right to force you to exercise, or stop eating fatty foods, or stop smoking, or wear a seat belt. Ever hear of freedom and liberty?"

I never said it was... I said the law hurt none and benefitted the whole. And it does. Ever hear of common sense?


"Really? How'd that Prohibition thing work out for you? And what are you basing this premise on? Certainly not fact, because you aren't quoting any. Sounds like emotion to me."

I'm basing it on health, crime, and traffic accident statistics. Again, I didn't say I liked the idea I said it benefits the whole. And it does.


"That's a very similar argument that liberals use when they try to confiscate my guns. Sorry, both are intrusions on my individual liberty. Neither is just."

I don't see any comparison to gun control. You can't defend your home from other gamblers by gambling... I don't support the laws, I am just able to view them with the clarity of reason. They help more than they hurt.


"Where is that concept in our D of C, or the Federalist Papers, or any of our other founding documents (or the spirit in which they were written)?"

Where is it written that the whole must be burdened with financially supporting the mistakes of the few? You are living in a fantasy world. The days where you could stay on the farm and avoid government completely like you could in the 18th century are gone.

"Sorry, tyranny is not just, regardless of what name in which it is carried out."

LOL! It is abundandtly clear that you have never even seen actual tyranny in your life let alone experienced it. I'm quite sure Patrick Henry wouldn't have chosen death over wearing a seat belt...

re: Jo, reply #149
quote: "Why is it so hard for you to accept rule of law if instituted by local government, and/or state by the will of the people??

How else do we solve problems if we "the people" don't have a say in government?"

Sorry, but if the "will of the people" is to intrude on the private property or the liberties of someone, that still isn't just. That's why you have a Constitution -- to define the limits of government.

Why do we even have government at all? The reason is to protect life, liberty, and property. Not to tell people how to live their lives.

I've never advocated people having no say in government. I'm all for government being as local and decentralized as possible. But some things don't belong to the government at all -- on any level -- they belong to individuals.

Again, if you don't want me to engage in certain behavior for my own good, then you have the right of free speech to try to persuade me. You have the right to associate with others who agree with you. You don't, however, have the right to use the power of government to coerce me.

"Conservatives" love to rip on "liberals" for doing this, then they turn around and do the same thing, just a different shopping list, and then try to justify it.

"It is to protect our rights that we resort to government at all." -- Thomas Jefferson

Lefties
On the radio have dreams of the kind of success Rush enjoys and if they could just get his attention maybe they could inch their dismal ratings up. Their ploys a see through and pathetic.

It does point out how un-principaled the left is. They constantly accuse us of doing what it is in fact they are doing.

May God bless Rush Limbaugh!
Rush is obviously hitting a nerve. And the libs just keep spouting off, giving Rush some free (albeit off-handed) advertising.
And yes, President Reagan would "roll over in his grave" if he could hear his son now. This just goes to show: It's important "to marry well."

Double standards
The usual liberal media yada-yada. Lib-Dems; the party of hate.

As long-legged Annie Coulter says (paraphrased); they hatefully label us haters and spitefully stereotype us as, among other things, spiteful stereotypers.

It makes me crazy.

To make matters worse:
You know, the hardest thing to take is the is the constant barrages of the youngest son of the man who was, beyond a doubt, the greatest president of the twentieth century. What do you expect from the son of a mother who would, without her husband's knowledge or consent, go to astrologers and mystics for "information" with which we she would attempt to steer her husband.

I guess it's true what they about blood being thicker than water.

I've decided on a name for this talk: Liberal Dribble

Personal smears?
These people are freaks!
Unreal and nasty.

free speech
why is it that libs say Rush goes to far but have no problem with rappers singing about raping and mutilating women and killing cops?

The left and hate
It never ceases to amaze me that the left can spew the most hate filled diatribes against conservatives while accusing them of hatemongering. Do not any on the left realize the hypocracy of their venom? By the way, I am one of those (idiots) who throw away their votes by being a Libertarian (whom everyone knows do not understand real politics or economics).

Semper Libertas
I personally agree with you on federal restraint, as you know from past discussions.

BUT --

Why is it so hard for you to accept rule of law if instituted by local government, and/or state by the will of the people??

How else do we solve problems if we "the people" don't have a say in government?

Wrat Rangler
Red may be on to something!

MMaddox
"DITTO"

Ugh
Brent: Thanks for this article. I'm a great fan of Rush Limbaugh and a recovering alcoholic. I know what it takes to "kick a habit". The nonsense about obesity is just that, utter poppycock.

The kind of gutter filth laid on by these "Toads" is really pathetic. Dissing the man for Dope, failed marriage and fatness is actually very cruel at its best. I also have to wonder about voyeurism here, how in the h**l do these creeps know about whether or not Elrushbo uses Viagra or not and so what. They been peekin??

Hearing all the BS relative to Rush's size as if that has something to do with his thought processes I have to wonder how they would describe Michael Moore??

PC is Thought Control
LEE

Wrat Wrangler
Curses, you've uncovered our dastardly plot to win elections. I twist my handlebar moustache in frustration. Confound you, Wrat Wrangler! Comrade Soros and and the crew at our top-secret underground ACORN Lib Homo Socialist Fascist Illegal-Alien Soccer-Watching Fortress will have to come up with another fiendish plot to somehow outwit the dashing, debonair ever-vigilant Wrat Wrangler. (Cue to Wrat Wrangler Theme....)

The Secretaries General Project
funded by the evil ogre George Soros helped both Al Frankenstein and O'Vomit but mostly Frankenputz.

After FL 2000 and Ohio 2004 Daddy Warbucks Soros declared "never again!" He didn't want ANY MORE secretaries of state applying the WRITTEN LAW as in FL and OH and letting Republicans win close races.

Liberals don't even TRUST elections because the serfs might not vote the "right" way.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Standshisground...
I have noticed the absence of wobbie...i thought he just gave up.

Also noticed that king lib hasn't been around either. Although another poster pointed out that kl may be posting as "rick" in MN now.

Myself, i hate to see them go. I would guess that on any given day, there are dozens, if not hundreds of "newbies" logging in to TH. Some of these newcomers will be naive in the ways of politics. Others will simply be undecided. Once they scroll thru the responses to the articles and see the hatred, ignorance and lies of the lefty posters, unless they are braindead (like red) they will come over to the light.

We don't outnumber them 3 to 1 for no reason, most Americans aren't stupid. (this last election not being the rule)

The left isn't large, it's just loud.

annoy a liberal...tell the truth

Cookie in Illinois
I'm seething with anger in Michigan because I'm jealous of you Illinois big-shots. You gave us Lincoln and Obama, and we thank you. Plus, you have two baseball teams, and we only have one. Plus, you guys get groovy names like Cookie and Blago. You rule.

jbird
You'll be glad to hear that we appear to have one less "blithering idiot" coming to this site: Ranger29 has been absent for some time.

Not long ago (it was in the news, and other conservatives here can probably give the necessary details if you're interested), a man arrested for, among other things, impersonating a Naval officer: some conservatives on this site have speculated that this impersonator may well indeed have been our departed Wobbie.

Or maybe he's finally getting the long-overdue psychiatric treatment he needs.

Leg Drip, and MSDNC

If you would listen to the Hate America Radio Network, and MSDNC for 20 minutes, you would hear more hate than could be heard on Rush in the past 20 years. (Usually misnamed as MS and NBC.)

When you have the Drip Down The Leg (otherwise known as R Reagan) on Hate Radio, and Dr. Que*r and Stupidmann on MSDNC, you have it all.

By the way, I met with Gov Reagan, and former Gov. Reagan, 12 or 15 times, so I knew him well.


Semper Lib
Semper Fudge, my friend. To your health!

liberal posters....
....do more for conservative ideals than conservative posters.

They generally fall into one of four categories...

Haters.....will, sophie
Blithering idiots...robbie ranger29, lilly, mario
Pompous azzes...hal donahue, king liberal
Liars...all of the above.

Looks like we need a new category for red....braindead child comes to mind.

abort obama

re: Red
Did you think of that all by yourself? That's so clever! I bet you're a real hoot at parties with clever humor and wit like that.

Red
Does your humor and originality know no bounds? Teabagger? Wow. Funny, original stuff. Bravo!

Red
Who's this new genius of the left? Funny how every recount always seems to "find" additional votes for democrats-EVERY SINGLE TIME. From the cheater, Franken, to the governor of Washington (where more pople in liberal King County voted than were registered), to the great genius, Al Gore.

You call conservatives dumb yet the genius liberal left, yeah you Red, take your climate and science advice from a guy who flunked divinity school. Rush can also reach a lot more people through his current position than from being the 100th Senator out of 100. Want proof? He reached you and look how angry he makes you. Just to have a small piece of the media challenge your dogma makes you flip out. I love the deranged like you, Red. Very entertaining. I guess I would be seething with anger if I was stuck in Michigan.

To Semper Lib
"Give me Twinkies or Give me Death!" Try it at your next Teabagger rally, the other Teabaggers will dig it. Both of them.

Red-English for...
Communist?

Gyro99
Yes, they should shut up and go away. The left only controls about 98% of the MSM. That 2% is really unfair.

How about this idea:
If you want me to exercise, wear my seat belt, or not to smoke, gamble, eat transfats, or drink too much, why don't you try to PERSUADE me, rather than using the force of the government to impose your personal will on me? Just a thought, and one much more consistent with the founding principles of this nation than much of what I'm reading on here.

French?
Bozell...French for Bozo?

7sticks
You listen to both sides and get the "clarity" you need?

Why then, are you still a left winger, uninformed and out of touch?

There is no "clarity" coming from the left - only lame talking points from the DNC and the kind of hate Brent chronicles.

If you want "clarity", listen to Rush, Hannity, or other clear thinkers, who are giving America the unvarnished truth and the facts that the liberal left tries so hard to cover up.

re: Kimbery
quote: "I don't want to the government meddling in internet poker or any of those things either. But it is UNDENIABLE that it benefits the whole to do so."
***
Says whom? And why is it YOUR business what I do, so long as it doesn't intrude upon your own life, liberty, or property? Have you read the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, or The Law by Bastiat, or The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith? "Liberals" and "Conservatives" both want to make people do what they believe "benefits the whole", y'all just have different shopping lists.


quote: "Seat belt laws hurt NO ONE!"
***
It is none of your business whether I wear a seat belt or not. Personally, I think someone who doesn't is an idiot. But your body is not my property. I have no right to force you to exercise, or stop eating fatty foods, or stop smoking, or wear a seat belt. Ever hear of freedom and liberty?


quote: "Drinking laws hurt far less than they help."
***
Really? How'd that Prohibition thing work out for you? And what are you basing this premise on? Certainly not fact, because you aren't quoting any. Sounds like emotion to me.


quote: "And gambling causes all sorts of problems from crime to dependence on the state."
***
That's a very similar argument that liberals use when they try to confiscate my guns. Sorry, both are intrusions on my individual liberty. Neither is just.


quote: "These things help the whole by inconveniencing the few."
***
Where is that concept in our D of C, or the Federalist Papers, or any of our other founding documents (or the spirit in which they were written)?

Sorry, tyranny is not just, regardless of what name in which it is carried out.

Senator Limbaugh
Let's have the debate where it matters, at the polls. Can he win like Senator Al Franken? Nope. Rigntist HateRadio Stooge Ollie North lost his bid for the Senate. Rightist RadioTom Alan Keyes tried for the Senate, got slaughtered by Obama. Air America dude Franken runs, he wins. Limbaugh would never be elected dog-catcher, let alone Senator. Like Senator Al Franken. Yes, Senator Al Franken. He won. North, Keyes...they lost. Limbaugh's too afraid to try. Case closed, the people have spoken, and they think you suck, Klownhall Kook Konservatives.

youbetcha redux
You said, "Admit it, you love it here amongst libs".

I like it here among libs IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN GENUINE DISCUSSION AND ARE WILLING TO BE REASONABLY CIVIL ABOUT IT. I do NOT like being among libs when they're blatant liars or worse.

If I liked being amongst libs as much as you think, I'd go to sites like DailyKos or HuffPost or the like. But I don't. The site managers clearly do not want conservative points of view on their sites; in fact, more than one liberal who has come to THIS site has openly admitted that they came here because the rigid censorship of the sites I've mentioned against conservative opinions being able to be expressed there, and the resulting totally one-sided commentary, have made those sites in their opinion crashing bores and intellectual deserts.

By the way, for your information, I started coming to this site, and in fact was coming here for some time before I ever registered here so I could post to this site, because many of the columnists carried here are columnists I've been reading for YEARS; I've been reading Phyllis Schlafly, for example, for 35 years, Pat Buchanan for more than 20, and many others carried by this site for almost as long. If there was no option on this site to post comments to the columns displayed here, I'd STILL regularly come to this site, for the reason stated above. Would YOU?


Negativity
The whole lot of them (Beck, Rush, Hannity, Savage, et all) are a bubbling cauldron of negativity. The world would be a much better place if they retired and took a vow of silence.

Liberal Arguments
All liberal "arguments" sound like the kind you hear eight year old boys using on the playground. They're fascinated by their discovery of bad words and when they get frustrated it's the only way they can express themselves.

I listened to Stephanie Miller once. Her subject for the day seemed to be how her dog seemed to be "attached" to her leg the night before. Typical.

youbetcha
First of all, for I all know, you could be just another alias of Mario, but I'll assume for the sake of argument that you're not.

I never said LIBERALS IN GENERAL disrupt the threads carried on TownHall simply by coming here (although many of the conservative posters here would very much disagree with me here), I merely pointed out SPECIFIC posters whom I think do. When conservatives on this site are responding to obvious idiocy or totally unabashed lies from those on the left, or at least those who are PRESENTING THEMSELVES as being on the left, then they are letting themselves be sidetracked. If I'm looking at a hippopotamus while someone else is looking at that very same animal and trying to tell me that it is in reality a jackrabbit, that's a "debate" that's a total waste of time: the person calling it a jackrabbit is either a flagrant liar, blind, or demented - all of which are ample reason to shun any debate about what the animal really is. I'm convinced that some of the posters on the liberal side of the aisle who come to this site like those I've named by name engage in this kind of exercise. They're not interested in genuine debate or discussion. They come here for other reasons, such as to make fun of conservatives - and many of them have openly admitted it (like Sophie).

I'm not saying ALL libs who come here do this, however. There are some I'll engage in civil discussion with if they seem genuinely interested in it. Although I usually disagree with him, I've been able to have reasonably civil discourse with Akagi (whether he's actually a liberal, though, is for the reader to decide). There's one on this very thread that quite a number of conservative posters who come here - myself included - have cited for being reasonable to have honest discussion with: Gestell in MA (Primus54 said of her that she's the ONLY lib in all the time he's been coming to this site who in his opinion has maintained personal honor).

Anthony
Pelosi has probably spent a hundred thousand dollars on plastic surgery.

We would be doing her a disservice by not commenting on it. She shouldn't get any less flack than Joan Rivers.

Standshisground....
You're probably right, i doubt that any TH staffer would stoop to that level.

sophie...i do not make a habit of responding to trolls. However, i'll make an exception this one time.....

I am neither sad nor angry. Quite the opposite is true. I am in my 40's, in perfect health and considered attractive by the opposite sex. (Thank you, God!)

I make a living doing something i love. (i'm a DJ) I own my home and 3 nice vehicles. I have 2 wonderful children. (they drive 2 of those vehicles)

I wake up every day thankful to have been born in The Greatest Nation on Earth.

I do not wish you ill will because of your political views. I simply wish you to be at peace. Judging from your posts, you are a very angry, sad person. My suggestion that you end it all was the quickest, simplest way i can think of for you to end your pain. You really should consider it.

And, don't bother with your prayers....lucifer can't touch me.

annoy a liberal...support yourself

Bottom of the barrel
In late May or early June during the Stephanie Miller show, she made a remark about speaker Peloski having a "nice rack" and she wasn't talking about a successful deer hunt. Miss Miller admits to being hung over sometimes.

standshisground
Explain to me how liberals on this site disrupt the debate. There would be no debate without an opposing view.

Oh! You want to debate which "RINOs" you guys want to put in front of the firing line as the first act of your armed secession, right? There are more "fringey" right-wing sites for that kind of stimulating debate.

Admit it, you love it here amongst libs.

Sophie
"What service?
wasn't Bush MIA during most of his comfy cozy National Guard tour?"

No that's a lie the media and people like Cleland spread...

"If Clinton or Gore lied us into a disasterous clusterf@ck war, I would hope Cleland would comment on them too."

Maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened if they didn't ignore Al Qaeda all through the 90s...

"We'll never know though, huh?"

I'm quite sure the list of things you'll never know would stretch from here to Andromeda.


"Bush was the moron who did that."

Bush is smarter than you are... Sorry.

We liberals learn well
We liberals learn well. Rush and Ann Coulter and Michael Savage (and up here in Boston, Jay Sevrin)and many, many more conservative commentators heap abuse on liberals 24/7. TH reaaders are pretty good at this too. Why does it shock conservatives when liberals throw it right back at them? Right-wingers mastered this game long before we liberals climbed down into the gutter to brawl with them.

File under: can dish it out, but can't take it.

Rush...
The left's constant barrage against Rush only garners him more listeners, fame & fortune.

That is exactly what lead me to listen to him the 1st time. I don't remember which mag it was, but it called him :The most dangerous man in America". Got me curious. Now i'm a loyal listener.

The numbers speak for themselves...Rush 14-20 million listeners.

Ed Schultz....14-20 listeners.

Personally, i'd never heard of him before today.

Bottom line...the left hates Rush and Ann for one simple reason....they shine a big bright spotlight on the lies and anti-American actions of the left. They know that the truth will eventually kill liberalism, and they hate anyone who speaks that truth.

I have often challenged lefties to provide one, just one provable instance of Rush or Ann outright lying. Hasn't happened.

Ann's book Godless is one of my favorite examples....it's 310 pages of absolute lib-shredding...and the best the left could do was take one sentence (out of context) and accuse Ann of being mean to the 9-11 widows.

Does that mean they concede that the rest of the book is spot on?

Just hang in there fellow conservatives....liberalism will eventually burn itself out. All that hatred and anger is going to burn them (people like sophie) up from the inside.

1-20-13

georgetwin
your posts are usually entertaining in that crazy-con trainwreck way, but your wishing harm upon an American soldier, regardless of the circumstances of his capture, make me sick. I'm sure you're thrilled.

Sophie
"I'll pray for you."

Lol. Who could you possibly be praying to?

jbird
While your suggestion as to who Sophie, Hal Donahue, and Mario REALLY are is interesting and certainly a possibility, consider THIS possibility as well:

that these posters could be staffers, all right - only not employed by TownHall but rather by DailyKos, HuffPost and their kind to try to sidetrack and disrupt the focus and debate on this site.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Hal Donahue IS a paid propagandist, likely in the employ of Arianna Huffington; he has a blog that's carried on HuffPost. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mario and several other of the trolls are also in Arianna's or George Soros' employ as well.

Sophie
"How bout you go get both legs amputated plus one arm and then tell me how "lucky" you feel to be "milking" your situation.

Max Cleland served his country heroically.

He deserves better than to have two dishonorable harpies like you and Coulter trashing his service.

Loser."

If Max Cleland was a conservative you would be bashing him. For you to even pretend that you object to what coulter said because you are on some sort of moral high ground is laughable.

Ann only questioned his service when he was so outspoken about George Bush's service. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both draft dodgers, why didn'c Cleland go on a crusade against them??

jbird
I hear ya. I just happen to enjoy the banter. Plus, knowing people like Sophie are alive make me appreciate my parents even more than I already do!

Kimberly....
...just ignore sophie.
Recently, another TH poster and myself determined that "mario" was far too stupid to actually be a legit poster. We determined that he was simply a TH staffer just trying to keep the conversation lively.

sophie fits the same mold. Nobody can possibly be as insulting, vile and angry as she seems to be. Therefore, i say she is another TH staffer engaged in an attempt to get conservative poster's blood boiling.

On the other hand, if she (he? it?) is sincere in her rantings, she must be a very unhappy person. She could do herself and the rest of the world a favor and just end it all.

More oxygen for the rest of us.


Semper Libertas
You seem to saying to Kimberly that because we do not agree on some issues, we are somehow trying to control your life. Not at all true.

We have just as much right to stop things we think wrong such as abortion, as you have to defend it. I see no problem if the people of a town, vote to ban porn from next to a school. Or want drugs illegal, to save their kids from access.

I DO believe it is a state and local choice.

None is comparable to what the left does when they put a $2 tax on smoking. Or try to tax all farmers for raising beef. Or force health care, SS, etc..

More often than not, the left covers all of us with forced policy, whereas the right more often than not, tries to find solutions to accommodate everyone.

sophie
Here's what happened:

"On April 8, with a month left in his tour, Cleland was ordered to set up a radio relay station on a nearby hill. A helicopter flew him and two soldiers to the treeless top of Hill 471, east of Khe Sanh. Cleland knew some of the soldiers camped there from Operation Pegasus. He told the pilot he was going to stay a while. Maybe have a few beers with friends.
When the helicopter landed, Cleland jumped out, followed by the two soldiers. They ducked beneath the rotors and turned to watch the liftoff. Cleland reached down to pick up the grenade he believed had popped off his flak jacket. The blast slammed him backward, shredding both his legs and one arm."

So... as Coulter said, it was non-combat and he was on his way to do some drinking. Not sure what you consider to be a "smear" there...


Rush'em
Rush just puts it in low gear and burns rubber across their faces and then laughs at them when they whine. LOL!

weird
I can't watch Ed Schulz because he does remind me of a liberal Limbaugh, and such tactics are no better when they come from the left than the right.

But it is hard to make sense of Bozell's argument here. When CBS was running stories on Liddy it was for comments that were borderline incitements to violence, not for childishly calling people fat. Does Bozell really not see the difference between suggesting that people should arm themselves against the authorities and calling a fat blowhard a fat blowhard?

But even weirder is that Bozell wouldn't edit the comments of the people he is criticizing to hide the fact that they are responding to similar comments by Limbaugh. So Bozell is essentially saying, "Waagh Liberals are insulting us back." Now my children do this kind of thing, but they are young children. I don't see Bozell's excuse.

It is also pretty funny that Bozell plays up Schultz' viewership to establish that he is important and then plays it down to criticize it. Apparently he thinks his readership's memory does not last from paragraph to paragraph.

SHGround
The Liberal Brats from Dysfunctional Broken Homes show up EVERY day SCREAMING for the attention they never got from Daddy. How pitiful. If that is the case regarding that soldier, I hope Bin Laden makes a change purse out of his huevos!

Semper Liberatas
"There are plenty of other examples as well, from federal drinking age to seat belt laws."

I don't want to the government meddling in internet poker or any of those things either. But it is UNDENIABLE that it benefits the whole to do so.
Seat belt laws hurt NO ONE!

Drinking laws hurt far less than they help.

And gambling causes all sorts of problems from crime to dependence on the state.

These things help the whole by inconveniencing the few.


Liberals on the other hand do the exact opposite. They help the few by inconveniencing the whole. Destroying health care for everyone so the 10,000 people without health care can get free check ups on the governments dime for example.


NPR and PBS
are "fair and balanced" sources of news? BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


LMAO at anyone drinking enough leftie looney koolaid to make a statement like that!

Those 2 commie factories make CBS look right wing! Grow a brain!

Sophie
"yes, the black community embraces failure and tears down those who succeed."

Have you ever met a real live black person Sophie? I'm guessing not. There is a serious disconnect between the blacks that actually lived through the 50s and 60s and the new hip-hop generation.

Take a look at the marriage rates and out of wed-lock birth rates in the black community from 1960 to today. Black kids today think marriage and good grades are just things white people do. 70% of black kids dont have 2 parents.

I wonder if Bill Cosby knows hes a bigot... After all, your opinion is obviously more relevant than his...

"Remember all those angry black folks on election night? They couldn't stand that up-start obama fellow playing the white man's game by winning the presidency."

Again, 10% of the population. They can't elect anyone by themselves. More white people voted for Obama than any other race...

"And as we know they all think alike and act alike right kimmy?"

Your words not mine. My views match the views of people in the community. Your views are textbook liberal views. And afterall, it is a liberal mandate to keep the minorities poor and unhappy. Votes mean more than anything.


paranoidmystic
Do you hold the same standards for leftist satirists??

Did you think Letterman was funny when "joking" about a 18 year old having sex on the field at a ball game?

At least Rush doesn't stoop to this level.

He takes what the left says, does, and makes satire. Barney Frank is openly gay, he's in charge of banking - Banking Queen to the tune of Abba's "Dancing Queen" is very clever and funny. But I have *never* heard Rush support vulgar satire of children.

re: Kimbery, reply #41
quote: "Semper Libertas
"True enough. But the right does it to protect the country and the left does it to make themselves FEEL better about something even though it harms the country."

***
Wrong. "Conservatives" seek to intrude on individual liberty on many issues, not just national security (and often go too far in attempting to subvert liberty in the name of security). For example, it was "conservatives" who have led the charge against internet gambling, specifically poker. What business is it of the government whether or not I play cards online? "Conservatives" have led the fight known as the "War on Drugs", subverting property rights and individual liberty along the way. What business is it of the government what substances a free citizen puts in his body, ESPECIALLY if done within the confines of state law, as in the "medical marijuana" cases in California (remember the 10th Amendment?)

There are plenty of other examples as well, from federal drinking age to seat belt laws.

As for the elevation of feelings over logic, again the "liberals" aren't the only ones guilty as charged. Consider flag burning: while I personally consider it abhorrent, I don't have a right not to be offended. Same with gays, or pornography. And, it would appear, same with personal insults.

sophie
"just two black justices and just two female justices in over 200 years of history, represents the demographics of this country."

There was never a black roman emperor either. I bet you are still pretty upset about that...

There has been a black Justice since 1967. They have been proportionally represented for 40 years. Stop living in the past.

The NFL and NBA are like 90% black, why don't blacks ever complain about the inequality there?

"This makes slavery and the violence of the civil rights period seem like child's play.

If ONLY black folks knew what TRUE oppression was all about!"

Not child's play. Ancient History. No one alive today was a slave and no one alive today owned slaves.

As long as people insist on living in the past racism will never die...

Georgetwin
See my 2:12 and 3:10 pm posts, if you haven't already.

Speaking of that soldier who the Taliban grabbed in Afghanistan, from what I heard on O'Reilly's show last night - he was talking to retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who's not exactly a Wesley Clarke clone - it sounds like that soldier deserted; Peters said that his information was that he walked away from his post and left his weapon behind. Peters was saying that if this soldier ever returns alive, at the very least he faces a court-martial.

Kimbery
Leftist trolls like Sophie, think that racial equality means -- minorities get all, do less, and white need not apply at all.

Very liberal of them.

Kimbery
HOW does Syphie post with that mattress strapped to her back?

Sophie
"So you agree with coulter? Cleland was lucky to lose his limbs?"

Coulter has always been tacky. The underlying point that he has milked a non-combat injury as if he was Sergeant York is valid.

"She was not dishonest when she said "he dropped a grenade on himself?""

Again, tacky. But it was a non combat injury.

"Perhaps she knows better than his batallian
chief? Who notes that someone else left the grenade."

You don't "leave" a grenade. It was being stowed improperly and fell off when they were getting out of a helicopter. Word to the wise: Don't hang grenades by the pin!

"She didn't lie when she said he was drinking?"

She didn't say that you did. Now you are lying. She said they were on their way to go drink...

"Even though his CO said he was working on the communications system for his unit?"

He wasn't working on anything on that helicopter... and what a CO knows is usually what his troops are supposed to be doing. Do you really think they'd tell the CO what really happened if they were screwing around??

"Keep justifying those who hate and lie and smear."

And you keep being naive...

"You are revealing your (lack of) character."

You are in no position to judge the character of anyone. As an "ends justify the means" liberal you are worse than anything the media could produce...




I'm still waiting for your PROOF that Kerry referred to his fellow soldiers as "baby killers"


Banking Queen
You want to talk about ad hominems?

Limbaugh is full of them, often quite cruel.

IMHO, lowering to that level of discourse is a mistake. But seriously, if you've ever listened to his program you know that Limbaugh is all about the petty personal insults.

You do know that, don't you? Even if you agree with him, you can detect poisonous discourse.

Can't you?

sophie
"when I look at the halls of congress and the boardrooms of fortune 500 companies and see the lack of white male faces I just want to WEEP from the injustice of it all!"

It is worth noting that 10% of the congress versus 13% of the general population.

Pretty impressive when you consider that African American culture embraces failure and does its best to tear down anyone who tries to break the mold.

Nyarlathotep 1:31
Conservative think Liberals treacherous because they support Unconstitutional laws and programs. (Also RHINOS.)

If you have any level of intelligence and intellectual honesty, you cannot deny this.

I believe that liberals want the same things conservatives do, security, food, water, shelter. The difference is how to obtain those goals. Neither party is honoring the constitution -- precisely why conservatives dissatisfied with McCain, did not vote - handing the win to Obama.

Most of America is conservative, if the GOP ran a *true* conservative, they will win 2010/2012.

Sophie
"I bet Kimmy agrees with
the fox news commentator who suggests the Taliban should save us the trouble by killing the american soldier they have hostage...

Huh Kimmy?

Have you no shame?"

They are going to kill him no matter what happens. Although, being a liberal you probably think that Obama threatening to close Gitmo has turned the Taliban into girl scouts as far as American prisoners are concerned.

I hope we find him and kill every Taliban pig thats holding him.

In reality that soldier got drunk, wandered off his post and now he will be beheaded on TV for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not to worry, in a swift response to the killing of an American prisoner I'm sure Obama will prosecute a few American soldiers for being rude to captured Taliban fighters...

Sophie
"when I look at the halls of congress and the boardrooms of fortune 500 companies and see the lack of white male faces I just want to WEEP from the injustice of it all!

Oh when oh when is the white man ever gonna get a break in this country?????

Swing low sweet chariot.

Someone please think of these poor oppressed white men!"

The overwhelming majority of the eligible candidates just happen to be white men. Perhaps minorities are under represented because they are under represented in the general population. Hence the word "minority"... Nah, must be racism.

When's the last time you saw a home security commercial where the intruder wasn't a white male? Ever wonder why that is? White males are the only racial group you can rampantly discriminate against and get away with it.


Sophie
"Do you have a silver star or purple heart Kimmy?"

You are the one lying now... I didn't criticize his service and neither did Coulter.

He got the silver star for actions that had nothing to do with the grenade incident.

Max Cleland was never awarded the Purple Heart which is the only point Ann was trying to make. He is referred to as the Vietnam hero who lost 3 limbs as if he was wounded storming a machine gun nest. His wounds were an accident which did not involve the enemy. Hence, no Purple Heart.

No one would say a word about it if he hadn't have politicized the whole thing himself. You cannot attack the service record of someone else without your own record being looked at.


Sophie
You asked Kimbery regarding the U.S. armed forces, "Don't they have literacy tests to screen out the morons?"

Evidently not: they accepted Hal Donahue, didn't they?

Nyarlathotep
Tried to send this earlier - didn't go, but what the heck....

said: I mean, if liberal policies are so indefensible, it should be a simple matter to prove them wrong without attacking liberals per se.

-----------

And Rush does exactly this, but let's be real -- his show is entertainment, he's not in office or running for office. He has every right to joke about liberals, the difference is as the author pointed out - he more than often does it with style and logic, not vile putrid insult.

His parody's are talented and funny, you'd have to admit.

"Barack the Magic N@gro" was especially popular.

Sophie
"So yes, in those SPECIFIC cases, a latina judge does bring more personal experience to the table than a white male judge since white males have not historically been discriminated against in this country."

Actually seeing as it 2009 there is more discrimination against white christian males than any other group in America...



liberal sour grapes

The way leftist crazies bloot about Rush Limbaugh it's only plain they fear him and all he stands for. Those pathetic libturds know he's cornered the radio market on plain-spoken honesty.

All of a sudden they've dropped more of their helpless fly-specks in Sarah Palin's way as well; the sure sign they're scared shirtless of her too. FEAR brings out their inner devils.

ONLY FEAR.

The truth today is; whoever doesn't spend a loving three hours a day listening to Rush simply finds his incessant commercial-breaking too bothersome. We know he's the best thing on radio; with up to 30 million listeners hourly, 5 mornings a week.

I'd wager if Rush could cut back just 6 commercial ads per hour, his audience would increase by another 25%. (Of course, then, he'd only do it to please me and possibly 5 million other groaning commercial-haters.)

The liberal wonks are drowning in their own bile, trying to denigrate the greatest personality on radio since Will Rogers.


Yes, There is a Difference
Yes, the statements by Schultz, Reagan, and Malloy about Limbaugh were arguably over the line, but a few quotes do not make a convincing case that the left is hypocritcal in calling conservative talk radio "a cauldron of hate." I do not listen to Malloy, but I 've had enough exposure to Schultz and Reagan---as well as Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes---to know that they usually engage in civil, thoughtful discussion rooted in careful analysis of FACTS, not talking points, Quite a contrast to the hateful, delusional stuff that regularly issues from the likes of Limbaugh, Savage, and Beck.

awesome
"the unholy spawn of Tony Soprano and the Michelin Man"

I don't car who you are, that is a great chime.

Savage
One thing we can agree on is Michael Savage.

I'm a conservative and he offends me half the time. He can be quite witty though.

Sophie
Hey, remember when you were posting on Burt Prelutsky's most recent thread under the name Sophie Cannot Be Silenced?

Go revisit that thread now and see if you can find your posts under that post name.

Sophie Cannot Be Silenced, huh? Well, on THIS site, she CAN - and WAS.

GO SOPHIE!!!
Great posts about Man Coulture....for which conservatives should be ASHAMED of!

Ditto fpr that chickenhawk Savage who spews his bile behing a MIC instead of looking people in the eye!


sophie
LOL. Yes lets take a look at sotomayor's comment....

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."


"WE SHOULD NOT BE SO MYOPIC AS TO BELIEVE THAT OTHERS OF DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES OR BACKGROUNDS ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE VALUES AND NEEDS OF PEOPLE FROM A DIFFERENT GROUP."

So her point is white men can't judge others as well as she can. But then goes on to say we shouldn't be so myopic as to assume what I just said is true...

LOL! So if she's not a racist she's an idiot. Her record would indictate she isn't stupid... so she must be a racist.

Sophie
"Resorting to lies Kimberly?
Can you provide some documentation that Kerry ever referred to his fellow soldiers as "baby killers"?"

He testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April of 1971. Its public record. But, naturally, anything a liberal is ignorant of (which is generally A LOT) must be a "lie"...

"John Kerry volunteered and served his country."

For political gain and no other reason. He spent a whopping 3 months in Vietnam and promptly abandoned the men under his command to pursue his political career. The man is a pig.

"The gentleman Ann insulted was disabled in his service. Max Cleland (who Ann also dishonestly smeared), left three limbs in Viet Nam. Her thanks was to lie about his record. Being so gullible I'm sure you bought those smears too."

Ann lashed out at Cleland for attacking George Bush's servic record. What lie did Coulter make about Cleland's record?

Cleland was injured in an accident, not combat.

"Yet you and Ann and Rush (who dodged Viet-nam like most conservative chicken hawks - his excuse being a pimple on his lard@sss) have the nerve to denigrate their service?"

Only when those people denigrate the service of others first! I am a combat veteran and I can tell you NO ONE with any ounce of character or dignity would abandon their troops they way John Kerry did to return home and call them war criminals before congress!

"Perhaps my posts are getting tiresome for you because you are embarrassed to see all the hate and downright craziness from your side...?"

I'm more embarrassed that our school systems allow people like yourself to graduate without learning anything.


The liberal definition of Free Speech
is that they're free to shout down and denigrate all who disagree with them. The liberal view of "improvement" of free speech is to have the ability to silence all those who disagree. They'll try to use the "living constitution" to accomplish this end.

Nyar
You obviously don't listen to Rush very often.


Kimbery
"You don't have to spell it out. Actions speak louder than words. Obama's actions abroad betray a distaste for America that he cannot hide.

Foreign policy is policy the last time I checked... The way the president views America shapes the way the world views America. If Obama blames us for every ill in the world why wouldn't everyone else?

[character saving]

Can you name a liberal policy thats works even half as well in practice as it does in theory?

Logic doesn't work on liberals. Feelings trump reason every time."

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. You're reiterating the particulars of your accusations against liberals--Obama hates America, liberals are stupid, etc--but I'm not really contesting them. I'm saying that this, precisely, is the sort of treatment of the other side that is mostly irrelevant and personal; when laid on thick enough, it turns into simple hatred.

As you point out later, Obama's feelings about America are relevant insofar as they specifically affect diplomacy. However, in the hands of Rush, his words become "America is responsible for all evil and played no role in destroying the USSR," which is nonsense. Even pertinent facts are subject to histrionic, partisan distortions in his hands.

Worse, general accusations of the latter type--that liberals are all idiots, cowards, or traitors--are reasonably common last time I heard Rush, and are unambiguously hateful. They are useless pejoratives, and are the sort of thing that really prevents him from claiming the high ground.

So, to be clear, I don't particularly care what you think about liberals per se; I'm not claiming anything about them as people. My argument is that though he may not swear at them or wish death upon them, Rush's treatment of liberals as some odious cousin species to normal humans is plenty hateful for me.

Sophie
Your mindless out of context rants are getting tiresome...

"Nice how she blames a vet for the loss of Viet-Nam, huh?

Way to support the military!"

Sounds pretty bad when you ignore the context eh? But when you actually know the whole story it makes perfect sense. How does John Kerry calling all soldiers in Vietnam baby killers in front of congress help the war effort?

We won every battle in the war, including Tet which was a strategic disaster for the north. Yet the media with the help of "veterans" like John Kerry and others like him managed to turn the public against the war.

Her comment was valid. You are just too dumb or too willfully ignorant to understand what she meant.

The same can be said for virtually every quote you've pasted onto this forum.

For a happy-go-lucky hippy liberal you sure are angry! Maybe you should climb out of our parents' basement and get some fresh air. Hug a tree, take a nap. Maybe even pay someone to kill that giant bug living up your butt.

These sorry excuses for humanity
Take a liberal talk show host (LTSH). Rewind to his/her childhood:

Parent of future LTSH: Johnny, I've told you not to do that! Now go to your room.

LTSH: I hate you, you fat loser. What do you know about my feelings? You don't want me to have any of the fun you had when YOU were young! I hope you DIE!

Spoiled children who have never learned to deal with issues, who have never learned to get past personalities, who are totally self-absorbed: these are the illustious personalities who grow up (?) to become liberal talk show hosts. No wonder no one wants to listen.

Sophie
"if you don't recognize the vacuum cleaner comment as racist and sexist you are dumber than I thought. Sotomayor is not racist and even is she were, that doesn't justify Rush's vile racism."

Well her comments suggest that she is. Rush's comments were no more "racist and sexist" than hers and if she doesn't say what she did Rush would never dream of making such a comment. If Rush was the liberal and Sotomayor the conservative you would be making the exact opposite argument...

"Calling for an investigation to determine the intelligence failures that led up to 9/11 is hardly exploiting tragedy for personal gain."

Using the death of your spouse to promote your politics and shamelessly exploiting it to cash in on TV appearances and book deals isn't the way most people look for closure...

"I hope, if you are ever unfortunate enough to go through such as tragic experience as these women who watched their husbands literally burn to death on t.v., you are treated with more compassion than what you have shown. Not that you deserve it."

Of course I don't deserve it I don't agree with you! You are worse than all these people you hate! LOL!


"Universal health care does work.
It works quite well in France. That why the W.H.O ranks them #1 in overall health care."

Lol. Please. The WHO isn't a reputable source for ranking health care. They weigh usless categories like "financial fairness" to make up half of their score.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

If US health care is so awful, why do the richest people in the world come here to get treatment rather than go to France and get in line?

"Even though we spend more per capita than any other country."

We do the same with education yet fare even worse. The liberal solution? Throw more money at it...





I saw that and the Beckster is RIGHT!!!!
She was a brain-dead programmed Soros-funded SEMINAR CALLER!!! She kept spouting worn out DemonRAT talking points till the blood almost DID shoot out of his eyes!!!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Call 911
Rush - the victim?

Please.

BTW, what about Glenn Beck's latest hysterical outburst:

http://blog.masslive.com/thefray/2009/07/glenn_beck_has_ona ir_meltdown.html

Sophie
"Your father would be ashamed of you Michael.

He was not a hater like you."

I think President Reagan would be more ashamed of his son's politics...

I can only imagine how hard it must be to be the son of a politica and cultural icon. It's sad that Michael Reagan buckled under the pressure and dedicated his life to being naive.

I prefer pigs.
"Dogs look up to us, cats look down at us but pigs look at us as equals. I much prefer the company of pigs."- Winston Churchill

BTW, Rush is down to 215lbs. Where I was and when I met him I noted we're both about the same height (6' 1.5"). About 20 lbs. to go and I'll be closer to where I should be (190). I WAS 315 (gaaaa!!) at one time and like Rush made the decision to do it once and for all.

Ron Reagan sounds like his ballet tights are, well, TOO tight.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Nyarl
"So, in other words, he didn't say them. How is Rush being perfectly logical when he rebuts nonexistent arguments?"

You don't have to spell it out. Actions speak louder than words. Obama's actions abroad betray a distaste for America that he cannot hide.

"Incidentally, most of that paragraph is the kind of irrelevant personal dissection of liberals to which I object. What part of that was about actual policy?"

Foreign policy is policy the last time I checked... The way the president views America shapes the way the world views America. If Obama blames us for every ill in the world why wouldn't everyone else? Obama dismisses America's role in bringing down the USSR. He claims it was a global effort. Meanwhile Angela Merkel who grew up on the front line says it was all Reagan. The man is dillusional!

"I don't see how his being an "entertainer" means that he's exempt from accusations of causing hatred. Are you saying that nothing he says is to be taken seriously?"

No, I'm saying comparing what he says to what NPR says is apples and oranges. He's is far less offensive than Keith Olbermann yet the left widely considers Olbermann to be a serious journalist. LOL!


"So, you're saying that liberal policies are self-evidently bad, and that liberals are too stupid to figure it out. How does this mean that Rush isn't unduly personal in his arguments? If your post is an example of what you consider logical commentary, I can see why you think he's substantive, but this is another example of what I dislike. Liberals are stupid, incompetent, et al. Is this the kind of discourse he trains you in?"

Can you name a liberal policy thats works even half as well in practice as it does in theory?

Logic doesn't work on liberals. Feelings trump reason every time.

Sophie
What exactly are you trying to accomplish by insulting everyone you quote? The best you can hope to claim with that strategy is that you and they are both rude and partisan. Advantage: You?

Perhaps you should prove that you're better than they.

Sophie
I guess that little thing called context never bothers to creep into your world...

Beck was referring to certain victims of 9/11 and Katrina not all of them. Anyone who uses a tragedy for personal gain is worthy of contempt.

McKinney's hair did look terrible. Perhaps "ghetto sl*t" was a poor choice of words, but she certainly acted like one when she attacked a security who was just doing his job.

And Sotomayor is a racist... a snide little vacuum comment which most people wouldn't even consider to be an insult is hardly outlandish and insulting.

SOPHIE CA

.....SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH RACISM? ...

.....Aren't you proud of your race? ...do you think there are no differences between the races? ...or are you just a white guilt liberal who love all races except your own? ...

.....You are a scum sucking disgrace ...BTW YOU NEVER ANSWWERED MY QUESTION ON A PREVIOUS POST ...DO YOU HAVE A MANGINA? .....COLOSSUS

WTF?!
"But never will you hear a credible conservative talk show host -- say, Rush, or Hannity, or Levin or Ingraham -- resort to this sort of ugliness."


Who is this guy kidding? Listen to Michael Savage for 5 minutes. Or is Savage not a "credible" conservative talk show host?

"But liberal hosts do it to", is an infantile argument and I expect more from you, Bozell.

OK, I don't expect more.

Kimbery
"He went on a world apology tour! He is a sheltered naive ivy league guy who thinks Chomsky and Zinn are the only way to interpet history. He isn't so desperate to "change" America because he loves it the way it is! And his wife hasn't been ashamed to be American her whole life because she loves it either..."

So, in other words, he didn't say them. How is Rush being perfectly logical when he rebuts nonexistent arguments?

Incidentally, most of that paragraph is the kind of irrelevant personal dissection of liberals to which I object. What part of that was about actual policy?

"He's an entertainer. And let's be honest Nancy Pelosi is a walking cartoon character."

I don't see how his being an "entertainer" means that he's exempt from accusations of causing hatred. Are you saying that nothing he says is to be taken seriously?

"You don't have to do anything to prove liberal policies wrong. One need only to observe them in action. Everything liberals touch turns to crap. [saving characters; examples here]

Liberal policies feel good. You can't convince a liberal that universal healthcare is a bad thing. Nevermind that it doesn't work anywhere it's been tried. It just FEELS good to think everyone has healthcare!"

So, you're saying that liberal policies are self-evidently bad, and that liberals are too stupid to figure it out. How does this mean that Rush isn't unduly personal in his arguments? If your post is an example of what you consider logical commentary, I can see why you think he's substantive, but this is another example of what I dislike. Liberals are stupid, incompetent, et al. Is this the kind of discourse he trains you in?

Who is Ed Schultz? Never heard of him.
And El Rushbo is LAUGHING all the way to the bank! The idiot libs are grasping at straws because Rush is the #1 radio talk show host and the majority of Americans agree with him.
This Ed Schultz guy looks like the pot calling the kettle black, and his challenge to Rush is just a desperate attempt to try to get a ratings boost. Not gonna happen. Rush won't go on his "never-before-heard-of" show to help boost ratings. How transparent is Ed's desperation? At least Rush has stopped smoking,(unlike the monkey in the WH)Rush has lost a lot of weight and continues to do so, (whereas Mr. Ed is still a fat slob)and Rush has overcome his addiction to prescription painkillers. Even had Rush not overcome his weight problem, smoking and pain pill addiction he is still a million times the man Ed is, and I find him to be a very sexy man.
Lefties hate him because he calls them out on their stupid, idiotic socialist ideas.
I wish these freakin' "communist-at-heart" liberals would make their permanent residence in one of the communist countries they so badly want the U.S. to emulate.
Keep up the GREAT work Rush!! We love you!!

E
"Watching everyone else have the fun he could never have. So he rails against all things sexual. Just like any other prude."

I hardly think being repulsed by child pornography and people defecating and urinating on each other is "prude".

At any rate, the man's views on sexuality have nothing to do with this article.

E
"Seriously, are there trees on your world?"

Seeing as you so obviously go through life with your heard jammed firmly up your backside I think it is safe to say you don't see many trees in your world...

well
I have to say that I don't approve of this kind of talk by either side. Aside from the comments by Stewart, the excepts quoted above are crude and discourteous. It is not appropriate to make fun of someone's weight But to claim that the left is worse than the right, with its Savage and Levin, and yes, Mr. Limbaugh, too? That is silly.

The far right, including Mr. Limbaugh, let this dragon out of its cave. Thay can hardly be heard to complain about getting bit by it now.

Nyarlathotep
"Did Obama actually say both of these things?"

He went on a world apology tour! He is a sheltered naive ivy league guy who thinks Chomsky and Zinn are the only way to interpet history. He isn't so desperate to "change" America because he loves it the way it is! And his wife hasn't been ashamed to be American her whole life because she loves it either...

"My problem with Rush is that he constantly makes it an issue of what's wrong with the liberals, personally, who advance the idea."

He's an entertainer. And let's be honest Nancy Pelosi is a walking cartoon character.

"I mean, if liberal policies are so indefensible, it should be a simple matter to prove them wrong without attacking liberals per se."

You don't have to do anything to prove liberal policies wrong. One need only to observe them in action. Everything liberals touch turns to crap. Look at California, look at our education system, look at the lack of progress the African-American community has made since the liberals took them under their wing.

Liberal policies feel good. You can't convince a liberal that universal healthcare is a bad thing. Nevermind that it doesn't work anywhere it's been tried. It just FEELS good to think everyone has healthcare!

REBA TX

.....Thanx for the tip on BLOWOUTCONGRESS.COM ...it looks like a winner ...

.....If voters are sick of being controlled by Washington ...if they are sick of being ignored by their elected officials ...if they truly want TERM LIMITS ...then this is a vechicle that can be used ...

.....TO BRING POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS .....COLOSSUS

KIMBERLY
Seriously, are there trees on your world?


Isn't it amazing
The greatest President in our lifetime fathers
two of the most spoilt brats who didn't have to decendy to shut up during his terms. They in fact, did NOT honor their father, the went over to the dark DemonRAT side. They have shamed his name, while the Gippers two other children,
his deceased daughter by Jane Wyman and Micheal
Reagan were/are a credit to his name and memory.
The other two, shame his memory and belittle themselves in the process.

Kimbery
"Rush is completely logical. Some liberal positions just happen to be completely indefensible in the real world. From Obama's assertion that the only thing wrong with the world is the USA to his assertion that destroying the healthcare for 200 million people for the benefit of 20 million people is a good idea. Obama is naive and so are his followers."

Did Obama actually say both of these things?

To your actual point, it doesn't matter whether the position is defensible or not. My problem with Rush is that he constantly makes it an issue of what's wrong with the liberals, personally, who advance the idea. It isn't sufficient for him to demolish the assertion, and in going farther he generates the hatred of which he's accused. I mean, if liberal policies are so indefensible, it should be a simple matter to prove them wrong without attacking liberals per se.

rush is right
I'm a retired union Democrat that has listened to Rush for many years. I hear his show referred to as hate-spewing? Rush wants everyone to succeed, not like the left-wing media that denigrates all things Conservative. Sometimes Rush does get a bit over-wrought on certain topics that he is passionate about, but I can't say I have heard him say anything that I don't agree with. The left can't stand him or Sarah because they are real people!

information vs. indoctrination
Do we listen to Rush to be informed or to be indoctrinated? Or maybe we are looking for ammunition and clever one-liners and talking points to support the views we already hold. Or maybe we just want to be entertained.

I'm sure that some of the things that come out of Rush's mouth (via the "golden EIB microphone") have some basis in fact. But it scares me to think that anyone believes he tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To be informed citizens we need to look at issues from all sides and not just assume that one perspective has a lock on the truth. We should not just dismiss those with whom we disagree as "libtards" or "repugs". Don't get me wrong, Rush distorts important issues in order to make a point or to be more entertaining. So does Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and many others.

The author of this article seems to forget that Rush can be pretty mean too. Remember how he picked on Chelsea Clinton? How would you like your child treated that way?

I agree with Vampire's Reflection (great screen name, by the way). PBS and NPR are excellent, balanced sources of news. They not only tell both sides of a story, they tell with sufficient depth that listeners can make up their own minds.

Don’t cry for Rush
Hey, this just in . . . left-wing commentators are swine! Seriously, though I’m sure Rush appreciates the kind words, he needs no help against the pygmies, both ratings-wise and intellectually, who are verbally assaulting him. Think of Ben Stiller versus the tiny little Roman soldiers with their tiny little arrows in "Night at the Museum."

To even talk about the vermin who sling these vulgar lies is to elevate them way beyond the station in life that they deserve. The time to worry is when one of these cretins gets frisky and decides to pursue a position where he can do some real damage, like stealing a seat in the U.S. Senate – oh wait, that’s already happened.

All the Rush haters eventually pass – like a kidney stone, but nonetheless, they go away – and at the top of the mountain, the Maharushie still sits. Still doing what he does best, namely, mocking and ridiculing the most sacred beliefs of the left. And he’ll stay there until either he feels like leaving, or the Obamunist regime captures him and sends him to its American gulag.

Vampire's Reflection pt. 2
Also, NPR is partially funded by the taxpayers and does not have the same pressures that a Rush Limbaugh faces in staying on the radio. The stations that carry Rush Limbaugh have to make a profit, so that puts things on a different plane; if Rush isn't pulling in listeners, advertisers bail, and the show will die. Add to that the fact that Rush Limbaugh is on far fewer stations than you will find for NPR, then NPR should draw better raw numbers than Rush Limbaughs raw numbers. But I predict that you would be hard pressed to find any NPR bloc of shows that outdraws Limbaugh head to head.

Rush Limbaugh works in a different radio world than the people at NPR, as he has to deliver a product that draws listeners and makes it worthwhile for advertisers to invest money on his show. NPR gets to put on pretty much whatever they like, without really having to worry about raising money. Most of the funding for NPR, PRI, etc comes from the government and groups such as the Ford Foundation and the Annenberg Foundation, large liberal philanthropic outfits that bankroll the left leaning programming NPR broadcasts daily. For Rush Limbaugh to draw in 20 million listeners, make it worthwhile for advertisers, and become rich in the process is much more impressive than anything the publicly funded NPR and PBS hosts have done in the business.

Nyarlathotep
"Rush in particular is given to explaining EVERY political issue in terms of liberal psychosis, as if it's impossible that they're reasonable people who've reached different conclusions."

Rush is completely logical. Some liberal positions just happen to be completely indefensible in the real world. From Obama's assertion that the only thing wrong with the world is the USA to his assertion that destroying the healthcare for 200 million people for the benefit of 20 million people is a good idea. Obama is naive and so are his followers.

Stupidity's Reflection
"NPR outdraws Rush Limbaugh. So does Jim Leher. While Jim Leher has a liberal bias, he conducts himself respectfully."

Limbaugh has a three hour weekday show and draws 14 million+ listeners per week.

NPR is all day every day and draws 21 million listeners per week.


Quality Individuals
If all of the liberal "commentators" and "entertainers" were grouped together in one package, they could not begin to approach Rush's clarity and analysis which he brings to the political table. As you mentioned, he also does not indulge in "smear" tactics which denigrates those who use these formats. Rush is a voice of sanity in a business which is often nasty.

LeishaC
"I've yet to see a documented quote of any right wing radio person that even approaches the disgusting crap spewed by the left. Lots of posters here keep saying it's on both sides. Funny how not one of them can provide a documented quote from Rush, Seah, Neil or anyone stooping to that level. Until you can, shut up."

You're assuming that unless the more popular and mainstream conservative hosts say something as unpleasant as any random liberal host, conservatives are somehow more polite. What about Michael Savage? As I recall, just off the top of my head, he was kicked off MSNBC for telling a gay caller to get AIDS and die. His radio show is, shall we say, equally venomous.

Second, I'd argue that just because Rush and Sean don't use the same, um, scatological imagery, they're not exempt from accusations of hatred. Rush in particular is given to explaining EVERY political issue in terms of liberal psychosis, as if it's impossible that they're reasonable people who've reached different conclusions. No; every position they take is because they hate you, or themselves, or babies, or freedom, or whatever. His language is cleaner, but the content is still contemptible.

BLOW OUT CONGRESS
Everyone should check out this website. You can access your congressmen or senators or join in a concerted effort in opposing any actions taken by the House. An excerpt from the home page:

We welcome patriots from around America to BlowOutCongress.com, where we're taking our country back one incumbent at a time. Inside the site you'll learn about our efforts, motivations and dreams for America and we hope you'll get involved with our effort that is humble, but growing in power each day with your participation. You'll note in the three photos above that two of them are of our kids...that will tell you where our priorities are, and why we must build a new American Congress from scratch. Enjoy the site, get involved, and enlist your friends in the BlowOutCongress.com crusade.

Check it out and Let's Roll!

Bozell
I'm...not sure what Bozell's point is. Some people hate and insult Rush Limbaugh? So? Is he really trying to argue implicitly that liberals are somehow more unpleasant, partisan, and rabid than conservatives? This site, day by day, is devoted almost entirely to calling liberals traitorous and deceitful.

This just in: People are thoughtless and ugly.

As for "liberal hypocrisy," perhaps CBS isn't saying anything because no one cares what Ed Schultz thinks.

Vampire's Reflection pt. 1
I have to take issue with a couple of your basic premises, namely that there are no respectable conservative news sources and that the fact that PBS-Leher and NPR outdraw Limbaugh mean that they are somehow "better".

First, although you would probably die before acknowleding it, Fox News is very reputable in its straight news coverage. They have very good reporters and their reporting is free of bias. They also make a point of giving every voice in a given debate a fair hearing, unlike what you get at the free networks and the other cable news outlets. Their opinion shows are not totally dominated by conservatives either, as O'Reilly is more libertarian/independent than conservative, and no one has ever accused Greta Van Susteren of being a conservative. The true problem is that the only conservative voices in the news business are located at Fox News, because Limbaugh, et al are not...and have never claimed to be...journalistic outfits. They are commentors on politics, not reporters.

Secondly, what Limbaugh is doing with his audience is much more impressive than anything that PBS/NPR does in getting viewers or listeners. Comparing Limbaugh to PBS is apples to oranges, since one is a visual medium while one is strictly radio. And that fact that PBS/Lehrer can get a lot of people to watch an hour of news coverage as opposed to Rush being able to get listeners to stay tuned for three hours of opinion is less impressive when you consider that Rush is not on in every market, while publicly owned PBS is.

NAME ONE
I've yet to see a documented quote of any right wing radio person that even approaches the disgusting crap spewed by the left. Lots of posters here keep saying it's on both sides. Funny how not one of them can provide a documented quote from Rush, Seah, Neil or anyone stooping to that level. Until you can, shut up.

Bob
"Nancy...
...should have taken a baseball bat to that little brat about thirty years ago."

She was too old to swing a bat even 30 years ago...

Semper Libertas
"As for the personal freedom issue someone brought up, seriously, both the left and right are all too ready to use the force of government to enforce an agenda, rather than its true purpose of protecting individual liberty."

True enough. But the right does it to protect the country and the left does it to make themselves FEEL better about something even though it harms the country.

Obama's health care plan is a prime example. It will destroy health care in America but the left doesn't care because it FEELS right to be able to say everyone has healthcare. It all goes back to the core dilemma of the left: hopeless naivety.

Nancy...
...should have taken a baseball bat to that little brat about thirty years ago.

bozell
I'd use the left wing radio shows to help fall asleep since they're so unbelievably boring.

Vampire's Reflection
"Where are the respectable media sources on the right? There are none."

That might be the single dumbest comment ever made on TH. Well, at least until you post again.

"There is no respectable right wing media source. Not one. That's the difference. As Brent points out, Ed Schultz has a small audience. Not so NPR. There is the difference."

Limbaughs ratings DESTROY NPR, I'm not sure what planet you are living on.

Please try to keep in mind that you are a shameless liberal! While Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow might seem like normal well balanced people to you. The people in the middle and on the right see them as hateful, juvenile leftists. For every Ann Coulter there is 10,000 hate mongers on the left doing the same thing. They are just too stupid to get as much attention as she does.


For those of you...
... who only believe that name-calling and personal insults are the domain of the left, I invite you to read reply #35 from Georgetwin.

re: Vampire
I agree that Jim Lehrer does a fairly balanced job of delivering the news, and, yes, he does tend towards a leftward (although in my experience, not far leftward) bias. I would say that an example of someone who gave a balanced presentation with a rightward bias was Brit Hume. I don't watch enough news on TV to know who's even on these days, much less who's left and who's right.

Ed Schultz calling someone fat?!?!?!
Now that the Mommie Jeans Wearing, Girly Throwing, Limp Wristed, Gutless Coward, Momma’s Boy of a Sail Eared Simpleton is tanking. The Screeching Libtards WILL get louder, more profane and less coherent.

libs
They would love to debate Rush,not because they could win the debate,but because somebody might finally listen to them.

The difference
Anyone defending Rush Limbaugh and the likes of Ann Coulter politically gets what they politically deserve; George Bush, John McCain and the entire Republican government from 2000-2006.

The difference between left-wing radio and right-wing radio is Jim Leher, PBS and NPR.

NPR outdraws Rush Limbaugh. So does Jim Leher. While Jim Leher has a liberal bias, he conducts himself respectfully.

Where are the respectable media sources on the right? There are none.

That is the difference. And the result of that difference is that all right wing media is preaching to the choir, whereas NPR draws an audience across the political spectrum. Something Fox News actually did for awhile, until the year 2000 and ever since its audience is mostly conservative.

There is no respectable right wing media source. Not one. That's the difference. As Brent points out, Ed Schultz has a small audience. Not so NPR. There is the difference.


Oh come on, Bozo
Whoops -- I mean Bozell -- who are you kidding with that 'defending Rush crap?' Did you just write that so people would read something you wrote, or do you have your nose so far up his bunger that you can't see straight? No one in his right mind would think about defending that lying sack of crap. He's a liar, a hypocrite and a hater of anyone who doesn't think the way he does.

The funniest thing about the few people who think people like Limbaugh are kind and gentle intelligent fonts of wisdom is that they're always screaming and ranting about how hateful the liberals are. Meanwhile the liberals have all the brains, all the education, and all the solutions. Think of Sarah Palin -- all she ever did was whine about the media who mostly ignored her unless it was something juicy, but generally no one paid her any mind. Limbaugh is just wailing for attention - he stands for nothing, believes in nothing but money and will stop at nothing -- say anything if it will bring him publicity. He IS just a blubbering,spewing, dying dinosaur -- so let him rot in peace.

As for Reagan -- greatest president ever???? Maybe in the right-wing fantasy-land that you twits have created for yourself, but real people know he was just a stumbling dunderhead who mouthed platitudes and pretended he was good ole cowboy. And G. Gordon Liddy??? A convicted criminal?

Off the high horse
Ok, anyone claiming that personal, ad homimem attacks and intellectually-dishonest debate are the sole domain of leftists needs to get off his high horse and confront reality. I prefer actual debate on issues to personal attacks and insults, but portraying Rush as some sort of victim here is laughable. For good or ill, Rush is a practitioner of most, if not all, of the rhetorical flourishes now being used against him.

I find it funny that Mr. Bozell complains about a personal insult used against Rush that was in response to his own comments about Nancy Pelosi's botox. It reminds me of when my Mom used to run a daycare; she had one of the boys come up one day and complain that one of the other boys had hit him back.

As for the personal freedom issue someone brought up, seriously, both the left and right are all too ready to use the force of government to enforce an agenda, rather than its true purpose of protecting individual liberty.

What's the point?
I think all this article does is spread to a larger audience taunts from people that most people haven't paid attention too.

It's not like Ed "no audience" Schultz and Ron "who the hell is he" Reagan, are being listened too.

Debate Schultz
I wish Limbaugh would take Schultz up on his offer to debate him. In fact, I'd like to see all the conservative hosts face off against the leftys.

Brent, do America a favor, try to set up these debates.

E
"Are you kidding me?"

There's the typical liberal response. The ends always justify the means so long as the ends are liberal. They don't like Rush therefore anything that is said about or happens to him is a blessing.

I feel sorry for liberals. It must be so depressing to be so passionately wrong on virtually every subject...


Hmmm
All radios and TVs come with a handy little button that says: OFF

Smears of Rush and conservatives
It's instructive that those who bang the lectern the loudest for "personal freedom" want it only for themselves. The vast majority of liberals I've encountered squirm and do all they can to avoid point-by-point discussion of issues; instead, they rely on ad hominem attacks and gutter-fight tactics to discredit their opponents. All the more reason to fight anything smelling of a "fairness doctrine" or other intrusion on the First Amendment right to free political discourse!

AHHH POOR POOR RUSH
Are you kidding me?


No substance to Libs attacks
I have yet to hear any of the left-wing diarrea of the mouth haters come up with any response to what Rush says. Rush comes up with verified facts and discusses them on his show, along with a great many sound bits of these people getting caught in their lies and arrogance. What do his critics come up with? He's divorced, fat and a white man. Jees this covers most of the politicians in the democratic party and Republicans as well. They can't come up with anything intelligence in response. Reagan's son is pretty disgusting in throwing in the remarks about erections, et. Uh by the way Ron, how would you know about Rush's sex life anyway? Your are really pretty low, maybe you should run for office and get in with the big league lice.

Ed WHO?
Ronnie Reagan? I thought he died of AIDS, or flea infestation from doing all the dog shows (where he does a good job, by the way).

Nothing more than a bunch of rat terriers, yapping around the ankles of the BIG DOG! Pathetic losers, especially Olbermann.


bozell,
where is the fairness doctrine you guys have been working up your robots about???????rose marie since the dems are so frightened of jabba the rush or king hill billy why not have him run for president?????i am willing to bet jabba will never run for anything, he can work up you fools from the sideline and solve nothing but do all the talking.....jabba the rush for 2012.....

For Obama to call Rush and Hanity out
just shows what a Thin skinned Punk he really is! A strong President and Statesman would not even bother to reply to Rush or Hanity, but not Obama, no he cant handle critics. Obama is just a community organizing street Punk.

If given a choice......
The quotes of the lib talk show hosts given in Bozell's article are disgusting and sickening. These are demented people who have nothing worthwhile to say, and their ratings prove it.

If given a choice, I'd rather hear Rush cough and sneeze for three hours than listen to the mindless blather of these fools.

Rush
I listen to Rush nearly every day and I not only agree with much of what he says but I find I usually come to the same conclusions. Sarah Palin is pretty much in the same boat as Rush. The liberals in this country are scared to death of both of them. The liberals know people who listen to Rush and appreciate Sarah can right through these people, they are frightened little bullies who only know how to call you names. It's sad really that the education system in this country produced those silly little minds. We should just laugh at them because that's all the attention they deserve.

7Sticks
You may not be aware of this, but there is a big difference between the arguments of osama being born in Africa and McCain being born of a US military base! As are US embassies across the world, a birth on a US military base is the same as being born in the physical US.

I'm sorry, but I have seen osama's versions of his birth certificate, but I'm still not convinced. While visiting his sick granny in Hawaii just before the election, he made it a point to leave his poor granny's sick bed and make a personal visit to the liberat governor of Hawaii. Shortly thereafter, the MSM announced that Hawaii had sealed his birth records. Smells fishy to me and everyone else with even a moderate ability to think. The MSM was complicit in this cover up, because had this been a Republican candidate, they too, would still be hammering on it!

Yes, the liberats indeed have double standards!

Just the facts Ma'am
Rush has put radio in a prominent place once again.
He operates out of the marketplace of ideas. For those who want to attack him, how about arguing facts; no instead they attack a weight issue, or make a sexual slam, or the fact he was addicted to pain killers at one time. I would say he has overcome much; he has overcome the drug problem, he has dropped a lot of weight; he does not bemoan his hearing loss but has found ways to overcome the problem.

What the left can't stand is that Rush is funny and has fun while telling the truth about liberal's and their plans for the country. They have tried again and again to put people up against him and they fail miserably. So what they are left with but personal attack. It just shows his critics to be the petty people that they are.

Rush is sincere
The fact that Rush has enough money to blow this popstand but doesn't is proof to me that he believes in what he's doing and is doing it for the good of the country. Me?, I would have left years ago had I been able to.

TV vs Radio
Shocking pictures of starving kids and bloody civilians in war zones evoke strong emotions. TV is a shocking picture followed by a statement and quickly moving on to another picture or video. TV touches the emotions and generates strong feelings.

Radio is just words and ideas. Talk radio engages the mind and causes the listener to think.

Emotions and feelings are the "logic" of liberals and TV is the natural home of the progressive movement.
Like wise reason and logical ideas are the foundation of the conservative movement and radio is its natural home.

Rush
The difference between Rush and the left is that Rush criticizes the politics of the left. I don't often hear him, but I don't think I've heard him be personally hateful.

I am always appalled at the hatefulness of the left. Even my friends who are mostly liberals, cannot speak of Bush without real hatred. I could not understand the personal rage.

Obama and his cohorts in the White house had a meeting where they decided to - each morning check the news to see what ridicule they could broadcast that day. Ridicule is a useful tool to stir up hate.

I did not like Obama the first time I saw him - there was a sneer on his face and an arrogance that told me he was an egomaniac. I do not think his speeches are great and I don't think he is a good nor honorable man. I can't understand why peope like him and think he is so charming. He is a fraud. The crowds that gathered to applaud him remind me of the crowds around Hitler - sycophants who cheered their bully.

I have come to like Rush - to like his honesty and his caring. He may have his problems, but those who say things like those in the article are much sicker than Rush ever was or is.

On Rush
I listen to Rush because on the subjects of Obama, the Democrats, the state controlled media (formerly MSM) and basic philosophy of freedom, Rush is excellent, right on target with his commentary.

My criticisms of Rush are that he did hurt the 2008 McCain-Palin ticket by running old critical paraodies of McCain right up to election time and that Rush is still now attacking John McCain by running old critical paraodies at a time when McCain has been the most visible Senate opponent of Obama and has had one of the best conservative voting records in Congress. McCain has voted against every Obama bailout and budget bill, denouncing the multi-trillion dollar deficit spending as "generational theft" (a phrase picked up by Sean Hannity), staunchly opposes Obama's health care plan, voted against the confirmations of Geithner, Kagan, Sibellius and Koh to their respective positions in the Obama Administration and has denounced Obama for failing to speak up for the Iranian protestors. Rush really should cut the old paraodies of McCain and run new parodies of Obama and the Democrats, which is where we need to focus our fire.

Pygmies Take Shots at a Giant
Rush Limbaugh is the giant who single handily made talk radio what it is today so liberal talk show hosts should be thanking him every day. He has given millions to charity and his analysis of liberal-socialist policies of the Anointed One are spot on.

Incidentally he has been losing weight and assiduously golfing. His liberal envious competitors will never achieve his stature in the radio media.

Ron Reagan should try to get a life because he is certainly not the communicator that his father was.


Me Thinks ...

...the libs protest too much and too loudly. You can tell when you are getting to the "progressives" when they call you names, the more vile, the closer you are to the truth.

The Second protects the rest

Nothing new

Liberals always demonize those that disagree with them.

the PIGS get up and walk away

from schultz and ron reagan, jr.

nothing important to say

USA citizens are pretty smart, they know that Schultz and REAGAN, JR have zero to contribute to important issues.

OBVIOUS:

REALLY OBVIOUS:

Only the deranged, demented, the lunatics, etc will listen to the deranged, demented, limited, etc. SCHULTZ and RON REAGAN< JR:


HUGE mistake HUGE mistake

Rush has enjoyed 20 -30 million viewers!

and since the personal attacks have esculated, The Rush numbers are way up there again.

I haven't listened to Rush in years, now I tune in just for the drama!

Schultz etc. the perpetual deranged hate peddlers think they are going to get a cut off of their evil trashing, bashing of RUSH are not too smart!

Devoted RUSH fans have an on and off switch, FEE CHOICE, "CHOICE" and they exercise it:

OH GIGGLE the deranged left are so lost

Mirror mirror on your wall
Odd that when the left wants to insult a conservative they go for the groin and the sexual.

This from the philosophy that cherishes and relishes the freedom to be libertine and be without strictures of flesh or fancy.

I guess that they insult the thing they are. How revelatory.

As to Mr. Schultz, he's desperate for Mr. Limbaugh to pay him some heed. As to Mr. Reagan Jr.; well can you say fey?

Mr. Limbaugh is like Mr. Gingrich to the left, one of the ones they cannot equal so they fret and loiter in the muck as an alternative to real challenge.


Hate Comes From Both Sides...
The way I see it, as Phil Hendrie has claimed himself, Rush Limbaugh is an absolute genius using the radio medium and knows how to entertain rather effectively. The problem, however, is the substance to a lot of the issues he brings up. For the most part he seems to be on the mark, but one example I've heard about is Limbaugh having called for the release of President Obama's birth certificate based off of the perpetuated allegations by the nuts at WorldNutDaily (Michael Medved, a conservative talkshow host, and apparently a colleague of Mr. Bozell, was the one who coined the term WorldNutDaily, so it's not a liberal-conservative insult, it's an idiocy insult.) That argument is as trivial as liberals asking for Sen. McCain's birth certificate because he was born on a US naval base in Panama.

I've listened to both sides, and I can attest that I've heard ugly stuff coming from both (I've gone on the record reffering to Mike Malloy as an anti-Semite and I stand by it.) It just drives me nuts when you just can't pull your ostrich heads out of the ground and see that there is no difference between the two sides. Liberals and conservatives shout at each other all the time and write vile things about each other as well. That's why I have to sift through the angry bunches and pick out the level-headed liberals and conservatives. I listen to Micahel Medved for level-headedness (except when he goes off and starts saying vile things about Jimmy Carter, which tends to make me switch the mute button on frequently from time to time.) I listen to Ron Reagan (I don't think he's ever raised his voice beyond that Rush Limbaugh incident. I guess I'll have to check on that.) I listen to Phil Hendrie (He just doesn't like either side and goes after the truth.) I jsut try to sift through the onslaught and get the clarity I need.

If those people dislike you,
you are certainly doing something right!
Long live Rush Limbaugh!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.