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 January 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.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
All behold the tolerant, inclusive, open-minded Left
July 21, 2009 - 19:45 ET by lsudolemitewho are incapable of hate speech because, well, they say so. Just ask them. I had to pick up my jaw after reading this. I had no idea of the kind of disgusting bile being said by these people. Ron Reagan, in particular, has disgraced his father's name and everything he stood for. I've never heard Limbuagh, Hannity or any other conservative talk show host even come close to any of this. Shameful and appalling don't even come close to an accurate description.
I just got hold of Ed's Netflix list.
July 22, 2009 - 02:08 ET by Mike BrattonHere are his last seven Netflix films:
"Network."
"Network."
"Network."
"Network."
"Network."
"Network,"
And "Network."
What a shock!
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
The left has to resort to
July 21, 2009 - 20:13 ET by SmartypantsThe left has to resort to this kind of garbage talk because, at the end of the day, they have no arguments of their own. Rush Limbaugh generally displays a lighthearted wit on his show that liberals do not comprehend. Sure, he makes fun of Nancy Pelosi, and I can understand why her few fans would not like it, but his words never, ever fall into the realm of pure gutter talk like that indicated above. His words are far less offensive than those of Al Franken, Michael Moore or Hollywood clowns like Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon. Let's face it, Limbaugh is treated as he is by the left, not because of his words, but because of his political beliefs. If he were a liberal with the exact same approach, it would be perfectly acceptable.
A Different League
July 22, 2009 - 13:00 ET by TrickletownRush has the ability to take on his ideological foes with both a finely honed scapel and a dose of humor. Jealous gasbag Big Ed Shultz has only a sledge hammer in his tool bag.
Mario Cuomo call your office!!
July 21, 2009 - 20:52 ET by motherbeltWasn't it Mario Cuomo who said liberals write their messages with fine-point quills, while conservatives use crayons? Apparently Mario was thinking of another century or another planet....
These guys are doing graffiti with spray cans!
Rush has go them so discombobulated that all they can do is sputter and fume and hurl personal insults. (You're still a ding-dong!! to quote the All-Tell ad...) The hatred virtually boils out their ears! I swear Ed Schultz is going to give himself an on-air stroke one of these days!
Cu-mo
July 21, 2009 - 21:34 ET by Tim GrahamExcellent memory. That was back in early 2003 on MSNBC.
Cuomo was a fairly hateful radio host as well, very prickly with callers.
We should all call his program
July 21, 2009 - 23:06 ET by KC MulvilleMB, all of us should call Ed's program and just keep repeating, "It's like, socialism, isn't it?" I want to see the Looney Tunes meter of his blood pressure start popping loose.
Cruel? Nah. I've come to believe that Ed Schultz couldn't be a real person anyway. He's surely a cartoonist's creation, like Roger Rabbit or Wiley E. Coyote. No real human being can act like that. He's got to be a CGI character, or some sort of animation.
I mean, he was invited to White House press conferences to sit next to Helen Thomas. Surely you don't believe she's real, do you?
There you have it!
July 21, 2009 - 20:52 ET by buzzyboop"He does have six children – and about six listeners."
His wife therefore can't even stand to listen to Mr. Ed.
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size
when its failures increase. -- DC Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown
six listeners?
July 22, 2009 - 09:11 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonTake off the duct tape and handcuffs so the kids can get away, he would have zero listeners.
http://gjresult.com
Sad ED.
July 21, 2009 - 20:53 ET by moskiThe guy just sounds really really Jealous!
Every one of these vile liberals are using Rush to hopefully
July 21, 2009 - 21:13 ET by Cape Conservativeincrease their terrible ratings!
Thankfully Mr. Limbaugh is way ahead of them - he knows better than to respond and allow himself to be used! He knows the filth they spew is more harmful to them than to him.
Has anyone ever known a happy liberal??? For heaven's sake, they have the White House, the House and the Senate and all they can do is spit out vitriol whenever they are in front of a microphone! I guess their moms never washed their mouths out with good old Ivory Soap to let them know it wasn't nice to say bad words. Why can't they do some happy liberal promoting instead? No, No, they MUST continue to bash any and all conservatives! L O S E R S ! ! !
Well, guess what, 'sticks and stones may break our bones, but names will never hurt us' - now may I stick my tongue out as was the usual followup in grade school ;-)
Brent: I love it! You saved the best for last ;-) "...They don’t have to. They just call liberals liberals and laugh, while those liberals explode with outrage."
And now I want to give a special THANK YOU to my favorite talk show host, Rush, for making the commitment to get rid of the reason for any 'fat' jokes...we need him in good health for years to come - he keeps our spirits up when we'd rather go jump off the Tallahatchie Bridge on these dark days!
Schultz sounds like...
July 21, 2009 - 21:37 ET by SlyrrIt sounds like this Schultz character is desperately trying to stir up some kind of controversy in the hopes that he can get just one viewer to join him in a phone booth. He as all the earmarks of a guy who knows his show is so low in ratings that he'll soon be cancelled, and he'll have to join Obama's supporters on the unemployment line. Sounds like he's just flailing around to try and keep his show from vanishing down the toilet drain.
I'm glad Rush so far hasn't sunk to his so-called 'challenge'. What has this ten-time loser Schultz ever done to give him the credibility to even stand in the same room with Maha Rushie?
Plus everyone knows that these liberals never engage in a 'debate' unless they've got the moderators, the audience, the coverage and reporting bought and paid for. Liberals never 'debate' one one one with conservatives - they hide among a cloud of fellow liberals and then try to drag in one conservative so he's hopelessly outnumbered and shouted down.
They won't even listen to a conservative LECTURE unless they can stuff the audience with protestors who howl and raise hell and shout down the speaker, or throw pies, food and rocks at them.
They never debate unless the deck is totally rigged, marked and stacked in their favor. They never debate unless they're allowed to write the questions and are given absolute control over how much time they get, and unless they can make sure the opponent is only given a second or two to respond.
And this loser Ed is no different. If Rush turned it around and said that Shcultz had to come on HIS show for this 'debate', you can bet this liberal coward would wet himself and run screaming into the closet to hide under some coats, just like Nancy Pelosi did when her lies about the CIA were manifest. And like Pelosi, he wouldn't come out until he was sure the coast was clear and his fellow media slaves were covering his filth-encrusted backside.
Well
July 21, 2009 - 23:10 ET by well99I dont listen to Rush but I know he gets under the skin of leftist sewage sippers.That is a good thing in my book.Keep up the good work Rush.
They hate Limbaugh because
July 21, 2009 - 23:09 ET by mattmThey hate Limbaugh because he's right.
They hate Palin because she's right.
They hate Hannity because he's right.
They hate. They hate. They hate.
Hate is all they have and all they know....well maybe not all they know, they also know lust, envy, pride....etc.
Yea, if the world is that simple
July 22, 2009 - 09:22 ET by nwahsI don't know about you, but I usually hate people for these reasons, and I suppose most sane people have similar reasons.
1. They've intentionally hurt me or a family member
2. They're evil
3. They're a hypocrite
Being "right" is nowhere on the list. Neither is fear or envy.
Why not Jeb Bush?
Well, I wasn't talking
July 22, 2009 - 09:49 ET by mattmWell, I wasn't talking about you, backwards Shawn....I didn't say their hatred was rational, but maybe you're just a little more sane than the Rush-haters and the Palin-haters, et al.
I don't think they're all insane, or even most of them
July 22, 2009 - 11:10 ET by nwahsWell, not to nitpick, but as I've said time and again, I see no plus in underestimating an opponent. Assuming your opponent is juvenile or irrational just invites defeat.
Why not Jeb Bush?
You must admit--
July 22, 2009 - 11:18 ET by misterbillthe reaction to Sarah Palin- has been highly "irrational" if not insane.
Please note, in particular, the number of women who wrote scathing comments about her that were (alleged) conservatives.
Well right or wrong
July 22, 2009 - 12:07 ET by nwahsI think that reaction is from people seeing a weakness in her. I don't think the over reaction to Palin is because people fear her ( as some state here), but because they perceived her Achilles heal-naivity. I think its more a case of dog piling, and seeing who can out clever the next Palin line. I think its unfair, because she was a political novice when thrown to the wolves. But only a fool would realistically hope their political opponent is going to be nice or forgiving.
Now this is in stark contrast to the over reaction to President Bush. I do think that came largely from fear. Bush may have been anything else, but he wasn't weak or intimidated by the left. The vitriol directed toward Bush was much worse, and I don't think for a second the left thought they were getting to him. It rolled off him like water rolls off a duck's back, and they knew it.
Why not Jeb Bush?
Well, to get down to it, my
July 22, 2009 - 13:21 ET by mattmWell, to get down to it, my belief is that the vitriolic reaction some people "on the left" have towards some people "on the right" comes from the fear of being invalidated.
You mention Palin's supposed naivete'. I think that's a total myth. She is just a common-sense average American, and that's what the elitists fear. Because if their efforts to create the Big-Brother Utopia they want can be thwarted by some backwater housewife, then their house of cards comes crumbling down.
So they attack. Just like they attack anyone whose common sense upsets their rationalistic utopian dreamworld, like Rush or whomever.
It gets back to the "experts" discussion I had on another thread. I said experts are a destructive force, at which several people scoffed, but we should remember that experts are often wrong and often disagree.
Experts told us Thalidomide was a good thing - its use lead to 10-20,000 severe birth defects. Experts wanted a bridge to nowhere. All it took to kill that boondoggle was a little housewife with common sense. And that really pisses the elitist experts off.
For the most part, I agree with you
July 22, 2009 - 16:13 ET by nwahsExcept for the idea they "fear" this.
You mention Palin's supposed naivete'. I think that's a total myth.
She is just a common-sense average American, and that's what the
elitists fear. Because if their efforts to create the Big-Brother
Utopia they want can be thwarted by some backwater housewife, then
their house of cards comes crumbling down.
I don't think they fear the common sense average American, I think they look down on them or ridicule them. It is very much elitist and a longing for royalty. Liberals are mesmerized by royalty. Lets face it, Palin is the antithesis of royalty and that's why they despise- not fear - her.
I don't believe liberals quest is to create a Big Brother, but I think they are destined to. Thats why so many will honestly deplore a Big Brother, over reaching government while actively ( albeit ignorantly) creating one.I believe they have the honest, condescending view that they know better than "average America" and that some of those "average Americans" are incapable of handling all the liberties afforded by the Constitution. They perceive their control as aid or protection, not oppression.
IMO, thats far more scary than the cartoon of a fear filled Stalinist.
These people honestly believe its moral to keep lesser people. They think some people are so inept, that morality dictates preventing them from harming themselves or suffering their own ineptness. That's pretty scary, but no so simple to deal with as a fear filled, evil intentioned antagonist.
Why not Jeb Bush?
Drug Use
July 21, 2009 - 23:43 ET by LindamaeOh, Ed, Don't make me get out the screaming monkeys! You did.
Fact: Rush became addicted to a med that was given to him by his doctor. He - like millions of other Americans, - are victims of this highly addicted med. My nephew's wife - age 32 - has been lost to the same med. She's been fighting to get free of it but it has destroyed her. The drug company lied about the dangers of the drug.
Obama admitted in one of his books that he regrets the drinking, drugging and partying that he did in college. So, that means that he had to buy street drugs - from his friendly neighborhood pusher.
How can you ridicule Rush when doing so exposes Obama as a druggie and a lawbreaker? It is hypocritical of you.
tired of liberal
July 21, 2009 - 23:44 ET by stunnedtired of liberal lies
These guys want a confrontation with Rush they can promo to boost their own pathetic ratings. Limbaugh is way too smart for that and the MSM turns a blind eye to the hate filled lefty media, no surprise since they are cheering them on behind closed doors.
I'm Confused: Hate Only Comes From The Left?
July 22, 2009 - 00:07 ET by The7SticksThe 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.
Same goes for Glenn Beck. Like Limbaugh, he's a highly talented radio man and has began biting at Bill O'Reilly's numbers on the tube, but he kind of lost it a week ago. Let's be fair: Is it normal for a talk show host to scream at a caller and call her a pin-head? I know she apparently supports Pres. Obama's healthcare reform (which seems specious to me at the least at this point), but to yell at her like that? I have yet to hear a liberal talk show host talk down to a caller like that (I think big Eddie has done it a few times over the years I've listened to him, so I can't say it's exclusively a conservative problem.)
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.
I agree with you
July 22, 2009 - 01:32 ET by ProssI like Medved the most, followed closely by Limbaugh. I can't stand Hannity, it seems he doesn't generate an opinion on his own. Beck used to be right on point, but lately he's really been sensationalist. On a side note, it's a really mean thing to say but I couldn't help but laugh at "the unholy spawn of Tony Soprano and the Michelin man." That was pretty funny.
All right, Sticks, you deserve this, so here it is...
July 22, 2009 - 01:59 ET by Mike BrattonI agree with some of what you said. Hate wears many ideological, and even religious, hats. And I say that as a Christian, and as a remarkably conservative individual.
With regard to liberal vs. conservative hatemongering, there is, I must point out, a difference--in that hate from liberalism cannot be surprising, while hate from conservatism inevitably is. Liberalism, at its core, is based on feelings, on emotion, on the shallowest part of our being. Liberals want their intentions to be considered at least as important than their results. We're seeing from liberals in Washington the mentality that "if it feels good, vote for it."
And we have a President... oh, sorry... a newly-minted dictator-in-chief who gets testy when you kid him about his ears. Who is, to the best of my understanding, the only Oval Office occupant in the history of the nation to feel he has to remind people that "I won." Who goes on emotional spending sprees with other people's money--buying banks, car companies, and (for all we know) big tubs of Haagen-Dazs to consume late at night in the East Wing. And yes, who really doesn't want us to see his birth certificate... Or his college grades... Or anything he's ever written of substance. Obama, unfortunately, is such an empty suit he makes Chauncey Gardiner from the film "Being There" seem substantial by contrast.
I say all that to say that liberalism--even when it morphs into dictatorial socialism--is shallow. When hate springs from that shallow pond, it's understandable. When hate springs from those who presume to espouse conservative ideals, there's the rub. See, conservatism requires thought, commitment, and discipline. It requires the rejection of easy emotionalism in favor of sobered, measured conduct. While liberal hate is understandable, conservative hate, even in occasional spurts, is oxymoronic. Hate, being a vigorous emotion, will come from people who hold emotional, liberal political stances; by the same token, self-professed conservatives have to actually distance themselves from conservative principles to engage in hatemongering.
I agree with you, though--you do see it from both sides of the aisle. But it's only a surprise from the conservative side.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
I hated your mom.
July 22, 2009 - 03:38 ET by JWFI would scream at her and call her a pin-head when I was the warden at the prison.
I heard that call also.
July 22, 2009 - 15:13 ET by Chris NormanI heard that call also. Even though I don't even care that much for Beck, his reaction to the woman caller wasn't hate speech - calling someone a pinhead is hate? It may be emotional, it may be even somewhat immature, but compared with some of the death wishes for Limbaugh quoted here, it can hardly be called hate. That woman was no innocent in the matter, either. In a smug, overly calm voice, her words were designed to provoke him. Emotionalism is hardly hate.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
→ Yeah, Sticks
July 22, 2009 - 15:19 ET by Cool ArrowIt's every bit as normal for the caller to lie to Beck.
She said Beck was silent on the bank bailouts. If you've listened to Beck at all you'd know she was lying.
So either Beck was dealing with a PINHEAD or she doesn't care what she lies about.
Wow, ol' Ed calling someone
July 22, 2009 - 00:49 ET by jdhawkWow, ol' Ed calling someone fat . . . OK. apparently, Ed hasn't passed by a mirror lately.
While, I think that Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, can take care of themselves, calling Limbaugh, in effect, a pedofile is beyond the pale. Ed must have been thinking of another liberal nut like, Michael Jackson . . .
...or Bernie
July 22, 2009 - 15:48 ET by Chris Norman...or Bernie Ward...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
This is what we get?....
July 22, 2009 - 05:01 ET by KH29I e-mailed him, taking him to task on his latest rant. The reply I recieved was? F#ck Rush...and F#ck you.
Pure class! Bravo.....Ed!
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
Really? From him,
July 22, 2009 - 05:05 ET by Jack BauerReally? From him, personally? Contact the Newbusters management with that tip!
Yes, from him.
July 22, 2009 - 05:34 ET by KH29"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
That's our Ed....
July 22, 2009 - 05:56 ET by motherbeltNo class, all A$$
Why doesn't the RNC comeout with an attack ad...
July 22, 2009 - 05:29 ET by KH29stating that Ed Schultz is the new voice/policy wonk for the Democratic party? Just like what the DNC TRIED to do with Rush. Only this time it would stick! Foxnews then can come on and perpetuate it and make it a weekly question
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
Why Bother?
July 22, 2009 - 07:17 ET by rightwingidiotEd is a pimple on the ass of Rush. He matters not.
He has a listernership in the tens. If you ran an ad about him, nobody would know who he was.
Ed is vile. Ed is a pile.
Angry, bitter, self-hating. Must be a liberal.
July 22, 2009 - 07:14 ET by Blogger Guy00001I would like to see this loser debate Limbaugh. This loser would run and hide for a month afterwards.
Money and money
July 22, 2009 - 08:12 ET by sevenHe complains about Rush
People listen to rush to hear what the comotion is about, Rush's audience goes up, his advertising goes up
Fast Eddies goes down. Fast Eddie rants some more, people flock to rush to hear about what, Advertising goes up
Cycle of dreams is happening.
Has "free speech" gone too far?
July 22, 2009 - 08:16 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonNo, Free Speech has not 'gone too far'.
That said, I pose the following.
Is it possible, that due to the lack of honesty and integrity in the so called 'free press', has the "Free Press" gone too far in not reporting the actual news and pushing their own agenda?
Should 'journalists' be licensed the same way every other profession is licensed and required to adhere to certain standards?
If there were 'journalistic standards' with severe penalties for violating those standards, would we have an honest reporting of fatual NEWS instead of the 'reporters hidden agenda?
http://gjresult.com
certified and licensed journalists
July 22, 2009 - 11:09 ET by spmcintyrehmm, it would work as long as it was not a government function.
...how about we have a recall vote on Senator/Congressperson so and so....
Re Bamster's Citizenship
July 22, 2009 - 08:52 ET by slickwillie2001Last night Lou Dobbs on CNN did an excellent segment on the Bamster's birth certificate controversy which he concluded by asking why the President won't just show us the thing. There are at least a dozen court cases across the country ticking through the legal process over the President's eligibility. This is far from a conspiracy in the corners of WND as the Bamster's defenders want us to believe.
Looks like some liberals are growing a backbone
July 22, 2009 - 09:12 ET by nwahsYou know the old saying, man up, don't whine about it.
I just can't imagine one liberal sitting back and reflecting after reading this "you know we have been quite unfair to Rush."
This piece is a trophy for them and will only egg it on further.
Why not Jeb Bush?
Looks like that liberal is
July 22, 2009 - 09:17 ET by Jack BauerLooks like that liberal is growing 200lbs of blubber around that "backbone" (sic).
You know what they say
July 22, 2009 - 09:27 ET by nwahsTelevision adds 20 pound to you. Radio adds twenty pounds to your head.
Why not Jeb Bush?
no one is watching
July 22, 2009 - 09:18 ET by txteacherI love Bozell on this guy. No one watches this bafoon.
Ed Schultz, lol
July 22, 2009 - 10:01 ET by east tennessee johnLet's see, this is the moron who gets an audience , according to lastest ratings, afterall, PERFORMANCE, does count,of 365,000, less than the prior person in that time slot, the inept Shyster, while Rush generates a MINIMUM of 3 million per day. Hell, on a weekly basis, Rush's MINIMUM out does msdnc entire 6-9pm lineup with 5 less hours of broadcast time. "Druggie"? Isn't the current POTUS an admitted coke user/dealer? Where s that liberal "understanding? Big Ed challenging Rush is like my grandchild striking me out in the backyad playing whiffle ball and then saying"bring on Pujols". ED, if it hasn't sunk in, you aren't even on the same playing field or level of performence. Hell, Rush's substitute hosts draw more audience on their home shows than you do national TV. Such delusions are dangerous. You should see a vet, I mean mental health practioner. The right therapy and medications might, just might help.
July 22, 2009 - 10:08 ET by jessieHSchultz wouldn't last 2 rounds with Rush, without spewing hateful rants. Same with Junior. Half the time comedy central sinks to con central. CBS is just being CBS. No news, just views.
schultz
July 22, 2009 - 12:43 ET by tomolson3Wasnt this guy in the movie Deliverance wearing a diaper and squeeling like a pig??
Left-wing hate?
July 22, 2009 - 14:06 ET by awffp1890I thought is was right-wingers that were full of hate? That's what the left tells us.
"Not for fame or reward, not for place or rank, not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty." - From the barracks at Ft. Benning
All their taste is in their mouths
July 23, 2009 - 02:26 ET by MeowMeowThe big difference between Rush, Sean, et al, and these jagoffs like Shultz, Ron Reagan and Malloy is that conservatives are never crass enough to hope for someone's death, the way Malloy wishes for Rush's or Maher wished for Cheney's.
These libs are vile, shameful, sick human beings, and they'll get what's coming to them one day. It's one thing to make fun, like Rush does. He also gives millions to charities, namely those supporting our troops. Wonder how much these little a-holes have given? It's another to wish death and destruction and misery on another American citizen, which is what they're doing. They're despicable, deplorable, sick people. They should be pitied.
"If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they
better hurry, because Obama is beating them to it." -- Rush Limbaugh III
Hate, etc.
July 28, 2009 - 22:09 ET by rapkillerChristians & "Hate" Bills
If "hate bill"-obsessed Congress [and Obama] can't protect Christians from "gays" as much as it wants to protect "gays" from Christians, will Congress be surprised if it can't protect itself from most everyone? If "hate bills" are forced on captive Americans, they'll still find ways to sneakily continue to "plant" Biblical messages everywhere. By doing so they'll hasten God's judgment on their oppressors as revealed in Proverbs 19:1. (See related web items including "David Letterman's Hate, Etc.," "Separation of Raunch and State," "Michael the Narc-Angel," "Obama Avoids Bible Verses," and "Tribulation Index becomes Rapture Index.") Since Congress can't seem to legislate "morality," it's making up for it by legislating "immorality"!